Donald Trump has vowed to deport millions of immigrants if he is elected to a second term, claiming that, among other things, foreign-born workers take jobs from others. His running mate JD Vance has echoed those anti-immigrant views.
Social scientists and analysts tend to concur that immigration — both documented and undocumented — spurs economic growth. But it is almost impossible to calculate directly how much immigrants contribute to the economy. That’s because we don’t know the earnings of every immigrant worker in the United States.
We do, however, have a good idea of how much they send back to their home countries – more than US$81 billion in 2022, according to the World Bank. And we can use this figure to indirectly calculate the total economic value of immigrant labor in the U.S.
Given that, we estimate that the immigrants who remitted in 2022 had take-home wages of over $466 billion. Assuming their take-home wages are around 21% of the economic value of what they produce for the businesses they work for – like workers in similar entry-level jobs in restaurants and construction – then immigrants added a total of $2.2 trillion to the U.S. economy yearly.
That is about 8% of the gross domestic product of the United States and close to the entire GDP of Canada in 2022 – the world’s ninth-largest economy.
Immigration strengthens the US
Beyond its sheer value, this figure tells us something important about immigrant labor: The main beneficiaries of immigrant labor are the U.S. economy and society.
The $81 billion that immigrants sent home in 2022 is a tiny fraction of their total economic value of $2.2 trillion. The vast majority of immigrant wages and productivity – 96% – stayed in the United States.
The economic contributions of U.S. immigrants are likely to be even more substantial than what we calculate.
For one thing, the World Bank’s estimate of immigrant remittances is probably an undercount, since many immigrants send money abroad with people traveling to their home countries.
In prior research, my colleagues and I have also found that some groups of immigrants are less likely to remit than others.
One is white-collar professionals – immigrants with careers in banking, science, technology and education, for example. Unlike many undocumented immigrants, white-collar professionals typically have visas that allow them to bring their families with them, so they do not need to send money abroad to cover their household expenses back home.
Immigrants who have been working in the country for decades and have more family in the country also tend to send remittances less often.
Both of these groups have higher earnings, and their specialized contributions are not included in our $2.2 trillion estimate.
Additionally, our estimates do not account for the economic growth stimulated by immigrants when they spend money in the U.S., creating demand, generating jobs and starting businesses that hire immigrants and locals.
For example, we calculate the contributions of Salvadoran immigrants and their children alone added roughly $223 billion to the U.S. economy in 2023. That’s about 1% of the country’s entire GDP.
Considering that the U.S. economy grew by about 2% in 2022 and 2023, that’s a substantial sum.
These figures are a reminder that the financial success of the U.S. relies on immigrants and their labor.
Project 2025 – Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promiseis a government policy agenda developed by the right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation, intended for implementation within the first 180 days of Donald Trump’s potential second presidential term, should he win the 2024 election. This manifesto is 922 pages long and divided into five sections, the first of which is titled “Taking the Reins of the Government.” If enacted, this plan has the potential to fundamentally transform the structure of the federal government and reshape the country as a whole.
Trump’s Ties
On July 5th, former President Trump stated on his Facebook account, “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it.” (Trump). He reiterated this sentiment during the presidential debate on September 10, asserting that he has “nothing to do with Project 2025” (NBC).
However, behind the scenes, the situation appears quite different. In a leaked recording by the Centre for Climate Reporting, Russell Vought, former Director of the Office of Management and Budget during Trump’s administration, a member of the RNC’s platform committee, and a co-author of Project 2025, revealed that Trump has “blessed” the Heritage Foundation and that “[Trump] is very supportive of what we do.” Vought also indicated that he is “not worried” about Trump publicly distancing himself from the initiative and indicates that this should not be taken seriously. “[Trump’s] been at our organization. He’s raised money for our organization”.
Furthermore, several high-ranking officials from Trump’s administration have been instrumental in shaping Project 2025. Among these contributors are former White House adviser Peter Navarro, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, former chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Paul Dans – now the Project 2025 Director – and Spencer Chretien, a former Special Assistant, who currently serves as the Project 2025 Associate Director.
What are its implications for U.S. immigration policy?
Project 2025 has major implications for immigration policy, including:
Completion of Trump’s Wall
“Mandatory appropriation for border wall system infrastructure. The monies appropriated would be used to fund the construction of additional border wall systems, technology, and personnel in strategic locations in accordance with the Border Security Improvement Plan (BSIP).” (Page 147)
What it says: Project 2025 proposes increased funding for expanding the U.S.-Mexico border wall, increasing border surveillance, and hiring more border patrol.
Impact: The completion of the border wall may only push determined migrants to go after more dangerous border-crossing methods, leading to increased abuse and violence towards immigrants. Trump’s wall expansions currently stand 30 feet tall and have already resulted in a rise in deaths and serious injuries from migrants falling from the wall (NIH). In El Paso alone, within seven months of the increase in the height of the wall, Border Patrol and healthcare workers have responded to 229 injuries from border wall falls, including broken legs and brain or spinal injuries (NBC). With the construction of the additional wall segments, determined undocumented immigrants coming across the border will face these risks. More wall segments could push even more people to the Sonoran Desert, increasing migrant mortality (UCLA). Expanding Trump’s wall deepens tensions between the U.S., Mexico, and other Latin American countries, as the wall is perceived as a symbol of division rather than cooperation. Instead of deadly borders, humane and effective immigration policies could better protect human rights and foster positive international relations.
Increased Militarization of the Border
“Department of Defense: Assist in aggressively building the border wall system on America’s southern border. Additionally, explicitly acknowledge and adjust personnel and priorities to participate actively in the defense of America’s borders, including using military personnel and hardware to prevent illegal crossings between ports of entry and channel all cross-border traffic to legal ports of entry.” (Page 166-167)
What it says: Project 2025 calls for increased military presence at the U.S.-Mexico border that will likely be used to enforce immigration protocol.
Impact: There will be an increased military presence at the U.S.-Mexico border, with more direct authorization for the use of military force, potentially leading to more violent encounters with immigrants regardless of the circumstance. This places migrants at a higher risk for extreme and violent encounters with border patrol. Additionally, there is uncertainty about how detention centers may change in response to these measures. The militarization of the border could result in the further militarization of detention centers, which increases the likelihood of hostile and abusive situations for migrants in detention centers.
Expedited Removal of Immigrants & Mass Deportations
“To maximize the efficient use of its resources, ICE should make full use of existing Expedited Removal (ER) authorities. The agency has limited the use of ER to eligible aliens apprehended within 100 miles of the border. This is not a statutory requirement.” (Page 142)
“ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) should be identified as being primarily responsible for enforcing civil immigration regulations, including the civil arrest, detention, and removal of immigration violators anywhere in the United States, without warrant where appropriate, subject only to the civil warrant requirements of the INA where appropriate.” (Page 142)
What it says: The current ICE policy of Expedited Removal (ER) within 100 miles of the border would be expanded under Project 2025 to allow ICE to apprehend suspected undocumented migrants without a warrant anywhere in the country.
Impact: The ER process is already controversial, as it allows immigration officers to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants without a warrant or a hearing. Additionally, “unlike other removal orders, an expedited removal order cannot normally be appealed and carries a five-year bar to reentry in most circumstances” (American Immigration Council). The ER process is unconstitutional since it violates the right to due process (HoustonLawReview). ICE officers would be able to decide the fate of asylum seekers and other immigrants with special circumstances, instead of an immigration judge, who should be making the decision. As ICE and immigration enforcement grow more powerful, there are growing fears about the impact on already marginalized communities, where this unchecked authority could result in widespread harm and inequality.
Bring Back Title 42
“Title 42 authority in Title 8. Create an authority akin to Title 42. Public Health authority that has been used during the COVID-19 pandemic to expel illegal aliens across the border immediately when certain nonhealth conditions are met, such as loss of operational control of the border.” (Page 147)
What it says: Title 42 was a policy enforced during the COVID-19 pandemic that restricted immigration to help prevent the spread of infectious diseases, specifically COVID-19. Project 2025 calls for the same process as Title 42, but not for exceptional circumstances of public health emergencies. Rather it would be applied to any circumstance where immediate removal of immigrants is deemed necessary.
Impact: While Title 42 was in effect, the government called for the immediate removal of immigrants and asylum seekers arriving at the border without a hearing, which violated the constitutional right to due process. The policy specifically mentions its application in cases of “loss of operational control of the border,” which could be interpreted broadly and used whenever authorities feel it is necessary, regardless of facts on the ground. The vagueness around the circumstances of enforcing such a policy could lead to the end of asylum at the border.
Removal of “Sensitive Zones”
“All ICE memoranda identifying “sensitive zones” where ICE personnel are prohibited from operating should be rescinded. Rely on the good judgment of officers in the field to avoidinappropriate situations.” (Page 142)
What it says: Project 2025 clearly states that they want to get rid of “sensitive zones” and ICE-free zones.
Impact: The protected areas exist to ensure access to essential services for community members, such as (but not limited to) schools, medical facilities, places of worship, or religious study (CBP). ICE is not allowed to enter these areas without proper permission, or to carry out typical enforcement actions such as arrests, civil apprehensions, searches, inspections, seizures, service of charging documents or subpoenas, interviews, and immigration enforcement surveillance. The removal of “sensitive zones” will allow raids in such places that immigrants consider safe havens from fear of deportation.
Increased Space in Detention Centers
“Congress should mandate and fund additional bed space for alien detainees. ICE should be funded for a significant increase in detention space, raising the daily available number of beds to 100,000.” (Page 143)
What it says: Project 2025 aims to more than double the number of migrants held in detention centers (up to 100,000). At this time, the daily bed space quota for immigrants in detention who are facing deportation is 41,500 (Congress).
Impact: By increasing detention capacity, Project 2025 seeks to further expand and institutionalize the detention of undocumented immigrants or asylum seekers. With increased capacity, enforcement practices may use “national security” as a justification to increasingly racially profile and detain innocent migrants to fill the detention centers. Furthermore, as the number of migrants in detention centers increases, so does the risk of overcrowding, inadequate health services, and limited access to legal advisors. This can also result in a longer detainment process, where people are incarcerated in these detention centers without any clear end. These detention centers, many of which were previously private prisons (ACLU), isolate undocumented immigrants and hold them in inhumane conditions. This section of policy reflects that Project 2025 plans to oversee a significant increase in the number of people detained in inhumane detention centers and then potentially deported.
Remove Protections for Unaccompanied Minors
“Congress should repeal Section 235 of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), which provides numerous immigration benefits to unaccompanied alien children and only encourages more parents to send their children across the border illegally and unaccompanied. These children too often become trafficking victims, which means that the TVPRA has failed.” (Page 148)
Impact: Without these protections children detained at the border will no longer benefit from a policy of safe return to their home country. Furthermore, these children and youth would lose access to safe housing placements, healthcare services, legal attorneys and advocates, immigration status adjustments, asylum protections, and other types of social assistance that protects them from exploitation, including human trafficking. Furthermore, removing legal protections for unaccompanied minors would make it more difficult for authorities to investigate crimes or prosecute human trafficking schemes. The government should instead focus on creating a system that efficiently processes children, protects human rights, and minimizes further trauma so that unaccompanied children are kept out of further danger.
Removal of Visas for Survivors of Human Trafficking and Other Crimes
“Eliminate T and U visas. Victimization should not be a basis for an immigration benefit. If an alien who was a trafficking or crime victim is actively and significantly cooperating with law enforcement as a witness, the S visa is already available and should be used. Pending elimination of the T and U visas, the Secretary should significantly restrict eligibility for each visa to prevent fraud.” (Page 141)
“Emphasis also has been placed on removing legal barriers to immigration, such as the use of public benefits.” (Page 143)
What it says: Project 2025 proposes to remove current visas given to victims of human trafficking (T visa) and other serious crimes (U visa) who assist law enforcement in investigating and prosecuting those committing such crimes. This document argues that victimization is not a legitimate way to qualify for immigration benefits, instead maintaining that these types of visas are an easy route to fraud.
Impact: The T and U visas exist so that undocumented victims of crimes in the U.S. will not be afraid to report crimes due to fear of persecution and deportation. Eliminating these visas would increase the likelihood of reprisals against already vulnerable undocumented people, perpetuating a cycle of violence. Project 2025 proposes using the currently available S visa in place of the T and U visas. The S visa is a temporary visa that allows immigrants who have witnessed a crime to reside in the U.S. while assisting in criminal or terrorist investigations. While the S visa sounds similar to the T and U visas, this visa disregards the circumstances of the victimization of migrants and does not acknowledge the protection of human rights. The T and U visas additionally aim to assist victims who have had crimes committed against them in rebuilding their lives by providing access to healthcare, legal aid, or any other care in light of their situation, while the S visa does not. Additionally, T and U visas encourage cooperation and trust with law enforcement, while S visas are much more restrictive and potentially increase the vulnerability of victims since perpetrators of crimes know that their victims cannot prosecute their perpetrators through “normal” legal routes.
Prioritize “High-Skilled” Immigrants
“The oft-abused H-1B program should be transformed into an elite program through which employers are vying to bring in only the top foreign workers at the highest wages so as not to depress American opportunities.” (Page 145)
“H-1B reform. Transform the program into an elite mechanism exclusively to bring in the “best and brightest” at the highest wages while simultaneously ensuring that U.S. workers are not being disadvantaged by the program.” (Page 150)
What it says: The government should use the H-1B program to further prioritize high-skilled immigrants. People who already don’t have distinguished merit and availability depress American opportunities and should not be allowed to immigrate.
Impact: The H1-B program allows American companies to temporarily hire workers from other countries for “specialty occupations.” In order to meet the criteria for a specialty occupation, one must have specialized knowledge or expertise in a particular field and at least a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent (U.S. Department of Labor). The H1-B program is most commonly used for hiring professionals in engineering, mathematics, technology, and medical sciences (American Immigration Council). Project 2025 argues that the H1-B program be transformed into an “elite mechanism” that hires high-skilled immigrant workers at the highest wages while simultaneously ensuring that U.S. workers are not being disadvantaged by the program. This is misleading, as research shows that H1-B workers do not earn more than U.S.-born workers nor does it lower American wages (American Immigration Council). Additionally, there is an annual cap on how many H1-B visas are granted. Further restrictions on worker visas may actually reduce the overall talent pool and diversity, limiting opportunities for skilled workers who may not yet have demonstrated elite levels of success but possess high potential. Furthermore, a significant proportion of the US economy is powered by workers who might not be categorized as “high skilled,” such as agricultural and construction workers, but who are nevertheless essential to the success of these industries. Focusing on only “high-skilled” immigrants can lead to harmful consequences for industries that rely on a broad range of workers, including mid-skill and entry-level positions, and lead to labor shortages, higher wages, or higher costs for consumers.
Reduce Student Visas
“Prioritize national security in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). ICE should end its current cozy deference to educational institutions and remove security risks from the program. This requires working with the Department of State to eliminate or significantly reduce the number of visas issued to foreign students from enemy nations.” (Page 141)
What it says: There should be tighter restrictions on education institutions for allowing student visas, including decreasing the number of available student visas to protect national security.
What this means: The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) is a program administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that provides temporary visas for nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors from other countries seeking an education in the U.S. Project 2025 implies that the SEVP program provides too much leniency in admitting foreign students and that the process should be tightened to reduce security risks. This claim dismisses the fact that the DHS uses a secure system, called the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), which collects information about students and visitors eligible for the SEVP program to ensure national security. Additionally, Project 2025 proposes to significantly decrease the number of visas given to “enemy nations.” This could fuel geopolitical tensions with other countries, and create social divisions and tensions in the U.S., such as increasing xenophobia (dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries), as only those coming from Western countries would be accepted to study in the U.S. This could also create a needless barrier to the entrance into the U.S. of potential high-skilled students that are in a position to contribute to the U.S. economy.
Strict Asylum Restrictions & Reduction of Accepted Refugees
“The standard for a credible fear of persecution should be raised and aligned to the standard for asylum. It should also account specifically for credibility determinations that are a key element of the asylum claim.” (Page 148)
“Congress should eliminate the particular social group protected ground as vague and overbroad or, in the alternative, provide a clear definition with parameters that at a minimum codify the holding in Matter of A-B that gang violence and domestic violence are not grounds for asylum.” (Page 148)
What it says: These two statements from Project 2025 recommend stricter restrictions on who is eligible for asylum status, including raising the standards for cases of credible fear of persecution. Project 2025 adds that being part of a specific social group or a victim of gang violence or domestic violence should not qualify for asylum.
Impact: This recommendation from Project 2025 would allow the government to turn away and potentially endanger the lives of asylum seekers who do not meet the extremely high standards of proving a credible fear of persecution (Human Rights First). The United Nations released a report in 2021 expressing that extreme regulations on asylum seekers are a violation of human rights (UN). Asylum seekers who met a credible fear of persecution under previous qualifications would then require high standards of evidence, which may not be easily available depending on the individual’s circumstances. With the restriction of what it means to be an asylum seeker, people who may have claimed credible fear of persecution may have more trouble with asylum claims leading to long administrative processes and violations of human rights. It would also seem to make it harder for a given administration to grant temporary asylum to specific categories of migrants, in response to natural disasters, forced displacements, and other large-scale threats to life and livelihood.
No More Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
“Currently, approximately 15 percent–20 percent of CISOMB’s workload consists of helping DACA applicants obtain and renew benefits, including work authorization. This is not the role of an ombudsman. In addition, the government should be a neutral adjudicator, not an advocate for illegal aliens.” (Page 166)
What it says: Project 2025 claims that the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (CISOMB) workload is overwhelmed from assisting Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) applicants obtain and renew benefits. Additionally, this document implies that the government is acting as an advocate for undocumented immigrants by assisting DACA applicants.
Impact:Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) allows individuals who were brought to the U.S. by their parents before the age of 16, to be eligible to work, study, and serve in the army. DACA recipients must renew their benefits every two years to maintain temporary relief from deportation. The majority of DACA recipients have grown up as Americans, received American education, and are members of the community. Many of them only find out that they are not American citizens once they are adults and go through processes such as employment and university applications.
The Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (CISOMB) serves as a liaison between the public and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), to help immigrants address issues and concerns with their experience with USCIS. CISCOMB is an independent office in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) separate from USCIS which processes DACA renewal applications. The claim made by Project 2025 regarding CISOMB being overwhelmed by DACA application renewals is misleading, since the CISOMB does not have any authority to approve or deny DACA renewal applications. There is no evidence to inform the percentage of CISOMB’s workload as stated in Project 2025. Furthermore, this section from Project 2025 emphasizes that the government should not be providing any services for DACA recipients because it promotes empathy for undocumented immigrants. These sentiments directed towards helping individuals who were forced to migrate as children allow for more leeway in further depriving innocent undocumented immigrants of the right to education.
Restrict Educational Resources for DACA Students
“Department of Education: Deny loan access to those who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, and deny loan access to students at schools that provide in-state tuition to illegal aliens.” (Page 167)
What it says: Project 2025 calls for the Department of Education to deny student loans to anyone who is not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. This segment from Project 2025 also impacts non-immigrant students by advising the Department of Education to deny student loans to all students in schools that allow in-state tuition to undocumented immigrant students, such as DACA students.
Impact: Currently, undocumented immigrants, such as DACA students, are not eligible for federal financial aid, except for refugees and some visa-holders (FAFSA). However, twenty-five U.S. states do allow undocumented immigrant students, such as DACA students, to pay in-state tuition (source). This would allow DACA recipients to receive a more accessible higher education in their states of residency, despite not being eligible for federal loans. This segment from Project 2025 also impacts non-immigrant students by advising the Department of Education to deny student loans to all students in schools that allow in-state tuition to undocumented immigrant students, such as DACA students. This can be understood as an effort to penalize schools that allow DACA students to pay in-state tuition and, ultimately, to limit DACA students from accessing a college education.
Mandate E-Verify
“Congress should also permanently authorize E-Verify and make it mandatory.” (Page 149)
What it says: Project 2025 calls upon Congress to expand E-Verify, by enforcing permanent authorization and mandate of the system.
Impact:E-Verify is a system voluntarily used by employers, with some state and local mandates, that verifies employees’ eligibility to work in the U.S. (USCIS). However, E-Verify is not as reliable as Project 2025 appears to suggest. E-Verify relies on records from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA), which are not always up to date, resulting in errors, or what E-Verify calls “mismatches.” Mistakes in the system could result in wrongfully identifying people, even American citizens, as unable to work in the U.S., which could lead to job loss or job delays until the error is corrected.
Greater Transparency Regarding Tax Information from Undocumented Immigrants
“Department of the Treasury:Implement all necessary regulations both to equalize taxes between American citizens and working visa holders and to provide DHS with all tax information of illegal aliens as expeditiously as possible.” (Page 167)
What it says: The Department of Treasury must make American citizens and immigrants with work visas pay the same amount of taxes. Additionally, the Department of Treasury must provide the Department of Homeland Security with all tax information of all undocumented immigrants as soon as possible.
Impact: Generally, people with work visas pay the same amount of income taxes as U.S. citizens, with some exemptions, such as paying Social Security and Medicare (IRS). This plan requires those with work visas to pay taxes for Social Security and Medicare, which is unfair since they are only living in the U.S. temporarily and will not receive such benefits.
Furthermore, the Department of Treasury withholds all tax information collected in the U.S., including tax information from tax-paying undocumented immigrants. If the DHS has all the identifying information, border enforcement agents may use this sensitive information to determine who is undocumented and documented. They may use this information to execute plans to conduct mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, even those who pay taxes. Additionally, in 2022, undocumented immigrants paid $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes (ITEP). Undocumented immigrants significantly contribute to their communities and the country as a whole. The federal budget, which has for some time struggled with a growing deficit (PGPF), would not benefit from deporting all undocumented immigrants who work and pay taxes in the U.S. Even threatening to hand all tax information to the DHS would discourage undocumented immigrants from paying taxes. This would also impact the Social Security system finances, which often enjoys a surplus for undocumented immigrants who contribute with payments but do not receive benefits after retirement.
Lack of Checks and Balances at the Border
“The President pursue legislation to dismantle the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).” (page 133).
“U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) be combined with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR); and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL) into a standalone border and immigration agency at the Cabinet level (more than 100,000 employees, making it the third largest department measured by manpower)” (133)
What it says: Immigration agencies will be consolidated into one centralized agency that will control all immigration policy implementation and action.
Impact: The potential dismantling of the Department of Homeland Security and consolidation of immigration-related concerns under one agency raises concerns about decreases in accountability, transparency, and civil rights protections for migrants. Together with the further militarization of the U.S. immigration regime, it could become easier to sweep human rights abuses under the rug, leading to greater repression of migrants.
Key Takeaways
Contrary to common belief, immigration is essential to the U.S. economy. According to the Washington Post immigrants were responsible for 50% of the labor market’s growth in 2022. A decline in immigration to the U.S. will notably impact important industries where undocumented labor is frequently essential, like agriculture, construction, and the service sector, potentially leading to labor shortages and higher costs for consumers. Mass deportations of essential workers would decrease the labor force, which could lead to inflation, shortages of food and other products, and higher prices for basic necessities (Forbes). If Project 2025 were to be executed and enforced during a second Trump term, stricter immigration policies could contribute to an economic recession (AULA).
The proposed immigration policy recommendations in Project 2025 aim to create a significant shift in border enforcement that promotes a system of strict enforcement without offering paths to legalization for those who entered the country undocumented, with the only plan being mass deportation and detention. Were a second Trump administration to adopt the policy recommendations promoted here, it would heighten the vulnerabilities faced by immigrants, both documented and undocumented. Instead of fostering a humane and effective immigration system, Project 2025 leans toward punitive measures that could jeopardize nationwide benefits. To conclude, Project 2025 would fundamentally transform the structure of the federal government in ways both deeply detrimental to migrants of all sorts but also to the flourishing of U.S. society as a whole.
Katheryn Olmos is a Research Assistant at the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab. She is in the master’s program in Sociology, Research, and Practice at American University.
Luc Thomas is an intern at the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab. He is completing his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science at American University.
Ernesto Castañeda is Director of the Immigration Lab and the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies at American University.
Robert Albro is Associate Director for Research at the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies.
Edited by Diana Garay, Program Coordinator, and Mackenzie Hoekstra, intern, both at the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab.
Anti-Immigration Rhetoric: Winning Campaign Strategy or Coin Toss?
By Joseph Fournier and Ernesto Castaneda
October 10, 2024
With the U.S. presidential election drawing nearer, many Kamala Harris supporters fear a perceived weakness on the border “crisis” may cost her the election to Donald J. Trump. Trump has championed himself as the figurehead for tough border policy. Restricting immigration has been associated with Trump. An NBC poll showed that 89% of people who identify as conservative point to the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border as a major factor in their vote for president, while only 25% of those who identify as liberal do so, and 52% among moderates. Therefore, we are not witnessing an anti-immigrant turn in public opinion but a further polarization by political ideology.
Trump has been capitalizing on this perceived base of support by making even more extreme comments regarding the issue, most recently employing race pseudo-science in claiming that recent migrants possess “bad genes.”
In the past, Harris and the Democrats have painted themselves in clear opposition to his cruel immigration policies, such as family separation. When on the campaign trail in 2019, Harris’s rhetoric focused on pathways to citizenship and the plight of migrants. This strategy worked as Biden and Harris defeated Trump in 2020.
There was a slight rightward shift from Harris and the DNC on immigration. This was probably in reaction to an increase in the visibility of border crossings after the pandemic. Trump has framed these increases as a “border crisis.”
But do Democrats need to get harsher on immigration if they want to win? Data shown in Figure 1 demonstrates a phenomenon that may surprise political strategists on both sides of the aisle. Research from The Immigration Lab analyzing congressional and gubernatorial elections in 2018, 2020, and 2022 has shown that these anti-immigrant campaign victories have decreased by about 15%. This data was pulled from online campaign material from every election result with a 10% margin between the two major candidates.
Successes of anti-immigrant campaigns in competitive elections, 2018-2022 by the authors.
In 2018, businessman and former state senator Brian Kemp ran for governor in Georgia. His campaign epitomized the culture wars that the GOP included as part of their messaging strategy. Kemp styled himself as a “politically incorrect conservative” and filmed himself touting chainsaws and shotguns in service of this persona. He ended one of his ads by showcasing him in his truck, threatening to “round up criminal illegals myself.” On November 8, 2018, Kemp defeated his opponent in the closest Georgia gubernatorial race since 1966.
In 2022, Kemp ran for re-election against the same opponent. With essentially the same election conditions, Kemp’s strategy radically changed. His new primary TV ad, titled “Stronger Georgia,” listed a myriad of his accomplishments as governor. Many of his themes continued from his 2018 ads, including his support of decreased government regulation. Nonetheless, a notable point missing from his 2022 ad, however, was immigration. Kemp made no mention of the issue, making only a brief note of him “fighting human trafficking.” In softening his tone on migration, Kemp nearly tripled his margin of victory in 2022 in comparison to 2018.
Even while encounters at the border today are as low as during the pandemic when Title 42 was in effect closing the border to asylum-seekers, many think that long lines of people asking for asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border is a political liability for the Biden-Harris administration. However, when Americans in these competitive elections have shown up to the polls in the last six years, running an anti-immigrant campaign has demonstrated itself to be well short of the secure victory strategy that many seem to think it is.
Joseph Fournier is a Research Assistant at the Immigration Lab and a senior at American University.
Ernesto Castañeda is the Director of the Immigration Lab and the Center for Latin American Studies.
Starting in 2022, the Immigration Lab at American University began interviewing recent migrant and refugee arrivals to the DMV. So far, we have interviewed 181 from a variety of origins. The interviews aim to understand the experiences of refugees and migrants before, during, and after their entrance into the United States. Interviewers asked participants to reflect on their immigration journey and classify their immigration status. Self-perception, specifically individual understanding of immigration status, varied depending on the respondents’ country of origin, with particular uncertainty for migrants coming from South and Central America. Out of the fifty-nine respondents who were asked to classify their immigration status, eight were uncertain, seven of these were from El Salvador and one from Venezuela.
This broad range of understanding can be partly attributed to the higher clarity in legal definitions for refugee status and recipients of asylum or humanitarian parole versus migrants who have come without papers or who are in the middle of requesting asylum or other humanitarian relief. Refugees and asylum seekers qualify for legal residence based on proving a “well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group” (UNHCR). Refugees are vetted, approved, and brought to the U.S. through international refugee organizations and the U.S. government. They receive specific resettlement services and benefits through sponsoring resettlement agencies in the U.S. under the program known as Reception and Placement. These services are usually limited to the first 90 days after arrival and include necessities such as securing and setting up housing and rent assistance. Other services are provided by case managers, such as cash assistance, cultural orientations, school enrollment, benefit application assistance, employment support, and aid in navigating medical and legal services in their new communities. The goal of these services is for refugees to be economically self-sufficient as soon as possible. The number of refugees allowed in the U.S. is capped each year by the president and Congress. The current admissions cap for FY 2024 is 125,000 and 100,000 were resettled.
Asylum seekers must also prove they meet the conditions set by UNHCR but apply for asylum upon their arrival to the United States. They can apply affirmatively either at the point of entry or within a year of arriving in the U.S., or defensively once they receive notice of removal proceedings. Once granted asylum, they are known as asylees and gain access to government benefits and services similar to refugees like cash assistance and medical assistance, but do not have the same level of support as refugees do through case management. The are no numerical caps on how many asylum seekers can be granted that status but rather are decided on an individual case through immigration courts. This process can be lengthy and has a very significant backlog. According to TRAC, 1,101,819 asylum applicants currently have a pending case with U.S. immigration courts. This number translates into an average wait time of 1,424 days, a wait of almost four years for their case to be heard and decided.
For individuals who do not qualify for legal permanent residency as refugees or asylees, the definitions and processes become more complicated. Unlike for refugees and asylum seekers, there is no legal definition of a ‘migrant.’ A variety of programs/statuses exist for migrants including, but not limited to Humanitarian Parole (HP), Temporary Protected Status (TPS), work permits/visas, student visas, and green card applications, all of which have strict eligibility requirements and timelines.
Social services and benefits available to asylum seekers and migrants are limited. According to the National Immigration Forum, federal benefits such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Medicare are not available for these immigrants. These benefits are only available to immigrants who have been granted asylum or become lawful permanent residents (LPR) and lived in the U.S. for a minimum of 5 years. Some states offer limited cash, food, and healthcare assistance, however, most of the services available are provided by local nonprofits which face similar barriers to resources and visibility. Accordingly, research shows that immigrants use less government services than the U.S.-born.
In addition to limited social benefits, legal status designations are complex to navigate, often requiring legal guidance and representation to get one’s status adjusted and obtain permanent residency. The interviews conducted by the Immigration Lab highlight this confusion and uncertainty and the need for better and more accessible resources and legal guidance for migrants.
Among respondents who did not classify themselves with a concrete immigration status in the interviews, two main groups emerged, those with some form of legal guidance and those without. Respondents without any form of legal guidance were quick to classify themselves originally as undocumented or express complete uncertainty as to their status. When prompted further during the interviews, many respondents clarified that they were uncertain about their status, not undocumented.
In other cases, individuals thought they may be out of status but in reality, they were pending a decision by migrant courts. In one instance, a respondent from a woman from Colombia stated, “Let’s say right now I don’t have status. I don’t have documentation. I am undocumented.” However, further discussion revealed that she had been processed and released by U.S. immigration and had been allowed to stay in the U.S. on legal grounds, which she did not fully understand. This response highlights how a self-classification as “undocumented” is used as a way to express initial uncertainty. While this response pattern emerged in a few cases, one example of complete uncertainty came from a Honduran male respondent. When we asked about his immigration status, he responded “What can you call it?” The interviewer then went on to explain different avenues of immigration: asylum, visa, and entry without inspection. In response, the man once again affirmed that “I don’t know…” The man explained that he was interested in getting a work permit but had no avenues through whichto obtain one. This shows that they do not know how the U.S. immigration system works, much less how to navigate it.
For those who expressed having legal guidance or representation, a theme of classifying as “in-process” was common. These respondents understood that there was a process that they were going through to get documentation but could not specifically articulate what that process was. For example, when asked to identify her immigration status, one El Salvadorian female explained that she and her family had found a lawyer to represent them. But never articulated what legal avenue was lawyer pursuing. Similarly, an El Salvadorian male expressed confusion over his next court date, not knowing when or what the court appearance was for.
In a working paper written by the American University’s Center for Latin American and Latino Studies on Newcomer Central American Immigrants’ Access to Legal Services, researchers found that less than half of Central American immigrants have access to legal services because low-income and pro bono services are hard to find. Additionally, this affordable representation often only takes on limited cases, specifically focusing on the cases that are more likely to be won in court. This has resulted in more legal referrals to private firms, and despite these firms providing high-quality services, they are very expensive. Immigrants may be tempted to work with notary generals confusing them with notarios, who in Latin America are highly influential lawyers. This creates a higher degree of fraud risk. Therefore, these Central American immigrants either avoid, don’t have access to, or cannot afford legal services. This means that they must rely on their knowledge or the knowledge of family and friends. In the context of the complex and process-oriented immigration legal system, this information is often not enough and may lead to them losing their immigration case to remain in the U.S.
The analysis of these interviews uncovered the important reality that migrants are often uncertain about their immigration status in the U.S., even when they have access to legal representation or guidance. Volunteers, legal offices that do pro-bono immigration work, and non-profits that have this as their mission are overburdened by caseloads and don’t receive enough funding and donations to expand. People come to the United States for a variety of reasons and often must take timely action to secure their legal statuses. It is crucial that theyhave access to resources that can help guide and support them through the various processes available to them, both legal and non-legal. It is not enough to ensure basic access to these resources; efforts must be made to make information about immigration statuses accessible and understandable for migrants.
Mackenzie Hoekstra is a senior majoring in Sociology at American University and a member of the Immigration Lab.
Edited by Dr. Ernesto Castañeda, CLALS, and Immigration Lab Director.
Mexico City has seen a rise in digital nomads, individuals who work remotely while exploring low-cost international destinations. Sofia Guerra, along with a colleague, conducted fieldwork during the summer of 2024 to study this phenomenon. One finding showcased a significant increase in tourism in Tepito, one of Mexico City’s most dangerous neighborhoods. There has been an attempt to rebrand it as ‘Reforma Norte’ to mitigate its notorious reputation. Despite these efforts, Tepito residents report little to no improvement in the safety of the area, which remains heavily associated with crime and gang activity. Digital nomads generally avoid living in Tepito, visiting only its markets with local guides during the day.
Mexico City has experienced a notable increase in the number of digital nomads from around the globe. Digital nomads are individuals who can work remotely, using their flexibility to explore and reside in different countries. This lifestyle allows them to earn a living while working away from their home base. Typically, they choose destinations with a lower cost of living compared to their hometowns, which results in them earning in one currency and spending in another. This constructs economic growth by attracting investment in the area but raises local prices.
I have been studying this social phenomenon through research conducted with my colleague Montse Hernandez by interviewing locals and digital nomads to gather data. One theme that impressed us the most was that, due to gentrification, Tepito—a neighborhood known as one of the six most dangerous barrios in Mexico—is now becoming an intriguing destination for digital nomads. One of our participants even claimed that tourism led to increased security in the area.
Being born and raised in Mexico City and always hearing about the crime surrounding Tepito, made this theme catch my attention and I decided to explore it further. Kristýna Omastová, conducted research to understand Tepito’s transformation from the 1960s to the present day. She describes how Tepito, initially known for its informal commerce, evolved into a major drug distribution hub in the heart of Mexico City. With the rise of the informal economy and growing demand for illegal goods, Tepito solidified its reputation as a place where illicit products were easily accessible. Tepito became a key center for drug distribution, and violence peaked and fell under gang control. To this day, remains a hub for drug trafficking operations, dominated by gangs like “La Unión Tepito,” which control not only the drug trade, but also other illegal activities such as extortion, kidnapping, and theft.
So, why has Tepito become a target for digital nomads? The real estate company Grupo UBK launched a new remarketing campaign for the area, driven by the rising demand for apartments in Mexico City. Tepito is being promoted as an affordable investment opportunity,making the rent prices in the area rise. A rebranding effort has emerged, and it involves renaming it ‘Reforma Norte’ to mitigate its reputation for insecurity. It’s important to note that the buildings are not located in the heart of Tepito, but rather on the outside of the neighborhood. Some locals don’t even know that the area is now being called Reforma Norte and believe that the promotion of Reform Norte will not change or affect the prices of the heart of Tepito, although they have seen an increase in foreign-born visitors in some of the busiest market areas. This showcases that the marketing strategy has digital nomads as their target, therefore causing an increase in tourists in that area.
Although there has been an increase in foreign-born visitors in Tepito, the area is still known for delinquency, drug trafficking, and informal commerce. Digital nomads are mostly living in safer neighborhoods such as Condesa, Roma, Polanco, and Juárez. In Tepito, tourists often visit for the day and go to the markets in the heart of the barrio, usually accompanied by a tour guide or locals who know the area. This suggests that the rebranding strategy by the real estate company has led them to believe that Tepito is becoming safer, although locals from Tepito themselves do not perceive any significant changes in the Barrio Bravo safety.
Sofia Guerra is a sociology graduate student at American University. She is a research assistant at the Immigration Lab and Center of Latin American and Latino Studies at American University. She has conducted research on migration, gender studies, and the bilateral relationship between Mexico and the United States. She has an interest in policy-making, migration studies, criminology, and academia. She currently working on her research regarding migration and interpersonal violence.
By Ernesto Castañeda, Joseph Fournier, and Mary Capone
October 1, 2024
Graph elaborated by the authors with data collected from CNN Politics’ Midterm Election Results.
The above graph represents the proportional success of candidates who used anti-immigration sentiment in their campaigns for the 2022 midterm elections. Results data was taken from CNN Politics. Anti-immigration rhetoric was found in campaign material through Meta Ad Library, X (formerly Twitter), debate responses, campaign website archives, YouTube ad searches, and general Google searches. We focused on competitive elections defined as having electoral results within a 10% margin between candidates. Candidates in these competitive elections who used ani-immigrant sentiment were no more likely to win the election than those who did not; in fact, more candidates who campaigned on anti-immigration lost than won in 2022. This data provides evidence that not being anti-immigration is not a hindering campaign decision. It may be quite the opposite.
Immigration often emerges as a prominent talking point among candidates in presidential, congressional, and gubernatorial elections. Former President Donald Trump frequently employs anti-immigration rhetoric and continues to campaign under similar sentiments about the allegedly dangerous porosity of the southern U.S. border. In the presidential debate in June of 2024 against President Joe Biden, Trump mentioned immigration in 42% of the 38 times he spoke while Biden mentioned immigration 13% of the time. In the subsequent debate against Vice President Kamala Harris, out of 38 times when Trump spoke for more than two sentences, he incorporated immigration 10 times (26% of the time). In comparison, Harris did so 4 out of 27 times (15% of the time).
Anti-immigration rhetoric has become practically synonymous with the Republican Party as these candidates often use immigrants as scapegoats for shortcomings in national security, economics, and crime control. While several Democratic candidates support anti-immigration policies as well, it is less commonly a key aspect of their campaigns. The graphic below indicates the overall tone of immigration speeches in Congress and the president by party from the late nineteenth century until 2020. While the data excludes 2022, it encapsulates the general trends of immigration sentiments over time.
Source: Card et al., 2022 published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The top of the graph shows that trends in the rhetoric of Republican and Democratic congressional representatives were negative before the 1950s and became positive in both parties in the late 1950s and through the 1960s and 1970s. The divergence in sentiments is clearest in the early 1980s and beyond, with the greatest points of divergence occurring between 2000 and 2020. Card et al. acknowledge that the divergence also represents other trends in the polarization of other issues. However, they find that immigration polarization predated the rise in generic political polarization observed in Gentzkow et al. by more than a decade.
The lower part of the graph shows the variation in presidential sentiments through positive and negative language employed to discuss immigration. The anti-immigrant rhetoric of President Trump has been unseen since the presidency of Herbert Hoover. Overall, the graph represents the rise in anti-immigration rhetoric in congressional and presidential speeches by Republicans in recent years as it has become more of a political talking point.
Discourse gathered from the campaign sites and social media accounts of Republican candidates who ran in competitive elections in 2022 with anti-immigration campaigns includes several instances of strongly prejudiced statements. Republican Mark Robertson (Nevada District 1) sought to “turn off the illegal flow of people coming into our country… end chain-migration, visa lotteries and vacation-birth citizenship.” Ending “vacation-birth citizenship” implies a possible erasure of birthright citizenship. Anti-immigrant candidates describe policies like these in misleading ways to garner political support, despite understanding the implausibility of such a policy.
Numerous other candidates posit a link between undocumented immigration and drug cartels. Republican Congressman Bryan Steil, who won in Wisconsin District 1, claimed on his campaign website that “drug dealers (and) human traffickers” are crossing the border, framing it in such a way that implies the two are intertwined in their business dealings. Republican Congressman John James, who won reelection in 2022 for Michigan District 10, conducts a similar framing in a tweet highlighting “millions of illegal border crossings, millions of lethal doses of Chinese fentanyl.”
A more brazen example of such framing can be found in campaign material from Blake Masters’ failed bid for Arizona Senate, which shamelessly claims that “More than 225,000 illegal aliens pour into our country every month. And they bring enough fentanyl over each month to kill every American twice over.” In a recent conference on immigration at American University, Dr. Andrew Selee, head of the Migration Policy Institute, notes that these organizations are separate entities. Though they sometimes do collaborate, they are by no means the same and have independent organizational structures. This is a subtle yet important distinction that has been masked to criminalize migrants and conflate them with criminal enterprises such as drug cartels.
The criminalization of migrants was certainly not limited to linking them to cartels. Many candidates rely upon preconceived racist notions of immigrant populations (mostly Latinos) in making generalizations. Such candidates keep their statements on immigration vague, like Nevada Republican Senate hopeful Adam Laxalt: “[the] crisis at the border that has put communities across Nevada in danger…. [Laxalt] fought against dangerous sanctuary city policies and worked to help stop their spread.” The advantages yielded by anti-immigrant candidates in utilizing this sort of vagueness are twofold. The first is that it appeals to a voter base that has already constructed a negative bias toward immigrant populations, and it is this sort of rhetoric that energizes these voters. The second advantage of such vagueness is the removal of the burden of proof from Laxalt or other candidates. Because of this vagueness, the claim becomes difficult to disprove because the meaning can be fluid and easily manipulated at the whim of the candidate.
Overall, anti-immigration statements like those highlighted in the 2022 midterm election campaigns are prevalent across Republican candidates. Trends indicate a rise in such rhetoric in congressional and presidential speeches with a partisan divergence as Republican candidates are more likely to employ this as a strategy in campaigning. Nonetheless, there was limited success for anti-immigrant campaigns in the 2022 midterm elections. The data shows that anti-immigration rhetoric is not a guarantee for winning elections; in fact, it may be an electoral vulnerability as it does not lead to more success in competitive elections.
Ernesto Castañeda PhD, Director of the Immigration Lab and the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies, American University in Washington DC.
Joseph Fournier and Mary Capone are research assistants at the Immigration Lab and the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies at American University.
Card, D., Chang, S., Becker, C., Mendelsohn, J., Voigt, R., Boustan, L., Abramitzky, R., & Jurafsky, D. (2022). Computational analysis of 140 years of us political speeches reveals more positive but increasingly polarized framing of immigration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(31). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2120510119
Gentzkow, M., Shapiro, J. M., & Taddy, M. (2019). Measuring group differences in high dimensional choices: Method and application to congressional speech. Econometrica, 87(4), 1307–1340. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA16566
James, John. (JohnJamesMI). “Our border is plagued with chaos – millions of illegal border crossings, millions of lethal doses of Chinese fentanyl & incompetence from the White House. I’m glad to support the House GOP’s Commitment to America to fund border security & put an end to human & drug trafficking.” September 26, 2022. 3:10 PM. Tweet. https://x.com/JohnJamesMI/status/1574476402392457217.
Based on data from the Immigration Lab’s Immigration to the DMV (DC, Maryland, and Virginia) project, there is a new wave of immigration from El Salvador, even though people from this country have sought refuge in the U.S. for decades. Despite being better educated, many Salvadoran immigrants work in lower-income, service-oriented jobs due to credential recognition issues and language barriers. Addressing integration challenges through inclusive policies for immigrants is crucial for harnessing their full potential and strengthening society.
El Salvador is similar in size to New Jersey and has a population like Tennessee. Although a relatively small country, Salvadorans are the biggest immigrant group in Washington, DC. Seventeen percent of the population in DC is immigrants, 11% of which are from El Salvador.
Why did they choose to migrate? El Salvador experienced right-wing military regimes seizing power through rigged elections in the 1950s. The failure of land reform and political turmoil led to a civil war from 1979 to 1992, causing a 21.5% drop in GDP.
The United States justified its intervention in the Salvadorean civil war as preventing a left-wing party from taking power within the context of the Cold War. The conflict led to many refugees moving to the United States. A few of them formed gangs in Los Angeles, who were incarcerated and later deported, leading to the emergence of gangs in El Salvador, including MS-13. These gangs focused on territorial control and their violence caused some targeted people to look for safety in the United States.
Among the immigrants interviewed in the Immigration to the DMV project, 95% answered that El Salvador’s violence, climate, and economic difficulties influenced their decision to immigrate to the U.S. Our interviewees cite a bad economic situation, a serious lack of security, and corruption as the reasons they left.
Female immigrants make up a significant portion of the sample in this interview. The data indicates an increasing trend of more female migrants, which aligns with previous research. Some of the factors contributing to this include the demand for care and domestic work in the U.S. and an increased probability for women to pursue higher in the United States. A young woman who came to Washington, D.C. in 2022 mentioned that she migrated for a better chance at self-development, to study college, and to become a nurse.
Even though the female participants in this study faced danger, including receiving contraceptive injections to avoid pregnancies during the arduous journey and threats of sexual violence, they desperately wanted to find long-term security and a chance to study.
New Generation of Salvadoran Immigrants
We interviewed Salvadoran immigrants who arrived in the U.S. fleeing the aftermath of the civil war, which they saw as a truly traumatic event. Political violence contributed to political corruption, economic failure, and widespread violence. Interviewers coming later also came looking for safety and economic opportunity.
People who arrived after 2019 are relatively proficient in English and more educated. Interviewees are from a country where only 33% of the population graduated from middle school, but 80% of the interviewees from this generation graduated middle school, and 60% graduated high school or with their GED. All of them had a better education than their parents. They had much better education and skills than their parents, but still, even though they are minors and part-timers, most still tend to work in lower-income jobs in the service sector. What causes this tendency?
Two main challenges face this group: language barriers and lack of recognition of relevant training and job experience. These factors hinder their integration into the U.S. job market and society.
One of the main challenges that Salvadoran immigrants face is credential recognition. The skills and experiences they obtain in their home country may need to be properly evaluated or acknowledged in the United States. This includes the requirement for a GED, a U.S. high school diploma, or a U.S.-specific certificate. This can prevent immigrants from utilizing their previous experience and instead require them to start from scratch.
A 24-year-old Salvadoran man who lives in DC has been certified in forklift management in El Salvador. Another former electric technician also mentioned a similar experience. Still, those certifications needed to be recognized in the U.S., and ultimately, their professional experience was dismissed. So, in this case, the electrician became a cook even though electricians and forklift drivers are in high demand and are well-paying jobs.
This experience can lead to immigrants’ struggle with “imposter syndrome,” which negatively affects their self-image and makes it harder to derive self-esteem from their work. Furthermore, it can be argued that language barriers are a significant obstacle for immigrants to fully participate in the labor market.
The pandemic’s profound economic repercussions severely impacted El Salvador, exacerbating the country’s preexisting high crime rates. Interestingly, statistical data indicates that language barriers among Salvadoran immigrants do not immediately result in income disparities. Their incomes are quite similar when comparing Spanish-speaking immigrants who arrived recently with English-speaking immigrants who arrived in 2010 (Median is $30,000 for English speakers versus $35,000 for Spanish speakers, and the average is $36,430 versus $37,000). Most interviewees noted that their ability to speak only Spanish did not pose a significant challenge in assimilating into society. Spanish speakers might even have an advantage when seeking certain jobs.
However, English-speaking individuals tend to have a wider range of job opportunities, which can influence their assimilation and long-term settlement. While Spanish-speaking immigrants typically work in service-oriented roles, English speakers often have access to a broader spectrum of employment options, including management positions and roles in non-governmental organizations. Language proficiency plays a crucial role in the employment opportunities available to immigrants, affecting their ability to assimilate and succeed long-term.
Although immigrants from El Salvador could get jobs with the help of friends and relatives, there is a risk that the occupation will be limited to the service industry only. A Salvadoran woman in her 20s who wants to be a Spanish teacher faced challenges getting information about how to become one due to language barriers.
In the DMV area, organizations like Northern Virginia Family Service, Maryland Multicultural Youth Centers, and DC Central Kitchen’s Culinary Job Training Program are available in multiple languages for immigrants. However, these services are decentralized and challenging for immigrants to access due to lack of time and transportation, creating barriers to utilization. In the data analyzed, almost none of the participants reported being part of a community organization, but most of them stated they were interested in learning opportunities and cultural activities.
It would be helpful to create a centralized portal that provides professional skills enhancement and digital-based social networking, integrating Salvadoran cultural influences.
It is important to acknowledge that immigrants, specifically Salvadorans, contribute to diverse cultural environments and enrich communities economically and socially. Addressing their integration challenges through inclusive policies and accessible support systems is crucial for developing a united and strong society.
By Ernesto Castañeda, Edgar Aguilar, and Natalie Turkington
A new report from CLALS and the Immigration Lab finds that recent immigrants are a key driver of economic growth in the United States.
The report presents an original calculation that finds that only in 2022:
Immigrants who sent money home contributed over $2.2 trillion dollars to the U.S. economy.
This contribution by migrant labor constitutes about 8% of the U.S. GDP.
Remittances represent just 4% of the total output generated by immigrants, even if they add up to $81.6 billion annually, disputing the narrative that immigrants drain the U.S. economy.
Immigrants who remit contribute around $2.2 trillion annually to the U.S. economy. Despite concerns that remittances drain U.S. dollars, they only represent 4% of immigrants’ total contributions. This estimate is based on crediblesources indicating that 17.5% of immigrants’ income is sent as remittances and considering a combined yearly salary of approximately $466.5 billion. Using data from the World Bank, the Association for Central Banks of Latin America, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, however, this is just a good approximation to quantify some of the benefits of migration. Immigrants’ contributions to the economy are greater as not all send remittances through formal channels. Additionally, it overlooks the economic growth immigrants stimulate by spending their wages in the U.S., creating demand, and generating jobs. Not to say anything about the human, cultural, culinary, and creative contributions. Below are more details about this novel estimation and projections of future contributions by immigrants to the U.S. economy.
The Congressional Budget Office’s Demographic Outlook 2024-2054, which has gotten some deserved media attention, estimates that in 2034 the U.S. economic output will be $7 trillion larger due to new immigration. Tax revenues would also be higher and the deficit lower because of immigration all else equal.
The quote from the CBO Director’s press release is, “in our projections, the deficit is also smaller than it was last year because economic output is greater, partly as a result of more people working. The labor force in 2033 is larger by 5.2 million people, mostly because of higher net immigration. As a result of those changes in the labor force, we estimate that, from 2023 to 2034, GDP will be greater by about $7 trillion and revenues will be greater by about $1 trillion than they would have been otherwise.”
We estimate immigrants’ contribution to the U.S. economy between 2023 and 2034 will be greater. Using the same immigration estimates as the Congressional Budget Office’s (see graph below), we calculate new immigrants have the potential to elevate the U.S. economic output by a staggering $17 trillion just in 2034.
However, if the number of new immigrants and asylum seekers continues at the same pace as in estimated for 2024, 3.3 million per year (10,000 per day as happened in December of 2023), we calculate that the U.S. would enjoy an increased economic output of over $37 trillion just in 2034.
As the Economic Policy Institute writes, “The unemployment rate for U.S.-born workers averaged 3.6% in 2023, the lowest rate on record. Obviously, immigration is not causing high unemployment among U.S.-born workers.” They further write, “immigrants that make up 18.6% of the U.S. labor force are playing key roles in numerous industries and are employed in a mix of lower, middle, and higher-wage jobs. And as the Congressional Budget Office recently reported, immigration is contributing to strong economic growth—with future immigration forecasted to boost real gross domestic product by 2% over the next 10 years—as well as increasing government revenue. Immigrants are also complementing U.S.-born workers by contributing to overall population and workforce growth. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that if the U.S. were to have lower-than-expected immigration levels, the population would begin to decline in 20 years, and if there were suddenly zero immigration, the population would begin to decline next year, deeply harming economic growth.”
A Washington Post article states that around 50% of the growth in the labor market in 2023 was due to foreign-born workers. The same was the case in the 1990s.
In 2021, 45 million immigrants lived in the United States, accounting for 14% of the country’s population. Immigrants are integrated into American social, economic, cultural, and political life. The Immigrant Research Initiative calculates that “Immigrants account for 17 percent of the U.S. economic output (GDP), even higher than their share of the population. The United States has a $19.6 trillion economy according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis 2021 statistics, which means immigrants are conservatively responsible for $3.3 trillion of economic output.” This supports our calculation of around 2.2 trillion only from immigrants who send money abroad because many do not send remittances.
Estimates and projections vary, but what is clear is that there would be no economic growth without recent immigrant arrivals. If immigration (of all types) decreases in the following years, economic growth will most likely plummet, and inflation will rise. Furthermore, this does not only apply to the United States but to other countries as well.
You can find coverage of the report in Spanish here:
The U.S. and Mexico have strategies to control migration that dehumanize migrants and sometimes lead to their deaths becoming invisible. The U.S. border infrastructure forces migrants to be exposed to extreme natural environments causing deaths while crossing. Some paths to the U.S. are controlled by criminal organizations making them experience violence. The lack of transparency, visibility, and care create invisible deaths.
The U.S./Mexico border has become a dangerous path for immigrants when crossing, creating thousands of deaths. An invisible death is when people die while migrating, later to be found without any form of identification and no information about who the person is and why they passed away. Jason De Leon conducted a deep dive into invisible deaths within the U.S./Mexico border. He argues that the existing border infrastructure is the result of a federal strategic plan to deter migration that facilitates death but hides its strategy by redirecting blame to migrants.
The U.S. federal strategy pushes migrants into physically demanding natural environments like deserts, rivers, and extreme temperatures. This endangers the migrant’s lives and risks the possibility of death while crossing. USA’s federal strategy also involves developing infrastructure such as walls, militarization, ground sensors, checkpoints, and other measures to impede migrants’ passing. These strategies cause migrants to face isolation and physiological strain, making the migration process more challenging and leading to higher mortality rates.
Like the U.S., Mexico has an infrastructure of checkpoints and militarized immigration stations, but with increased anti-immigrant policies criminal organizations further interfere in the movement of people across “their” territories. Corruption has allowed the growth of criminal activities, affecting the safety of migrants passing through. Thus, Mexico has also developed a quiet strategic federal plan against migrants that consists of extreme violence. Mexican trials to get to the US have become a site of intense violence, exploitation, and profit-making among gang members. They encounter abuse, rape, kidnapping, dismemberment, and death. Their migrant journey is used to make a profit and form part of the strategic corruption in the criminal world. This makes the Mexican drug war members control some of the routes that immigrants take within Mexico, making migrant smuggling blend into criminal activity. Migrants’ lives are at risk when encountering the criminal world while crossing; those who die due to criminal activities are likely to have an invisible death. This is due to the lack of transparency that organized crime has with its victims.
Although the USA and Mexico have different federal strategic plans to dissuade land migration, it becomes evident that their strategies do not favor life but instead create a systematic weapon against migrants. In the USA, migration is seen as a dangerous crisis, while in Mexico, migration is seen as an opportunity for profit. Migrants are dehumanized, and therefore, their lives are not protected, increasing the invisibility of their death.
Copyright Creative Commons. Reproduction with full attribution is possible by news media and for not-for-profit and educational purposes. Minor modifications, such as not including the “About the Study” section, are permitted.
* Sofia Guerra is a sociology graduate student at American University. She is a research assistant at the Immigration Lab and Center of Latin American Studies at AU. She has conducted research on migration, gender studies, and the bilateral relationship between Mexico and the United States. She also has an interest in policy-making and expanding her research expertise.
A young girl holds an American flag during a stand for immigrants’ rights in Chicago, May 1, 2006. Photo credit: Joseph Voves. CC GPA Photo Archive/ Creative Commons License
From its presence at Thanksgiving dinners and presidential debates, immigration is a recurrent topic of debate in the U.S. and around the world. Unfortunately, people often fail to see the full impact immigration can have. One aspect of immigration that is rarely discussed is the effect immigration has on immigrants and their families. Growing up in a diverse environment, I saw the lack of support immigrants and their children encounter in the United States. Just imagine arriving in a new country with little idea of how anything works, often being unable to ask for help due to a language barrier.
While researching this topic, I realized that many first-generation immigrants (those born abroad) end up relying on their young children for support. Published works that shed light on the experiences of 1.5- or 2nd-generation immigrants tend to focus on the male experiences or the experiences of specific ethnic groups. Similarly, many papers researched the correlation between acculturation stress and criminal or negative behavior within immigrant groups.
To bridge this gap in research, I conducted interviews with 1.5- and 2nd-generation female immigrants to learn more about their experiences. I wanted to see if they faced acculturation stress, usually associated with first-generation immigrants. Many of the participants shared similar experiences surrounding immigration regardless of their ethnic background. Feelings of not belonging and high family responsibilities were constant among participants.
A participant who immigrated as a child—1.5 generation—from Central America stated:
“I am held responsible for my parents because I am the English speaker, I am the translator, I am the one […] that saves them whenever they face certain scenarios that they can’t get themselves out of.”
Similarly, a participant who was born in the U.S.—2nd-generation—of South American descent, stated:
“I feel like it’s always a pressure when they tell you that you have to speak for them […] or do things for them like make appointments or go with them to help translate […] it’s going to keep happening […] sometimes it is a lot.”
The sense of responsibility that participants felt towards their parents affected the choices they made later in life. 1.5- and 2nd-generation female immigrants considered financial stability of high importance, seeing it as a means to honor the sacrifices their parents made during their immigration journey. A participant who immigrated as a child from the Caribbean stated:
“I also had to be able to provide […] get to a place where I have financial stability […] sometimes that means sacrificing what you really want to do.”
Throughout the interview, this participant consistently mentioned how her parents never supported or approved of her creative endeavors, forcing her to let go of such passions.
When comparing the experiences of 1.5- and 2nd-generation female immigrants to those of first-generation female immigrants, similarities were found. First-generation immigrants’ stress on the importance of financial stability coincided with that of 1.5- and 2nd-generation immigrants. However, there were key differences among those similarities. Unlike 1.5 or 2nd generation immigrants, first-generation immigrants aimed for financial stability to achieve personal goals. First-generation female immigrants were not attempting to make their family members happy or proud; instead, they were attempting to achieve self-satisfaction. For example, a first-generation female Afghan immigrant stated:
“If I wanted to have a good career I should get out and go to the Western countries because in Afghanistan […] it was tough on women.”
These similarities and differences did not come as a surprise but as a reassurance that while immigration affects first-generation, 1.5- and 2nd-generation immigrants in unique ways, there is consistency in their experiences. Knowing this, I wonder what we can do to support our immigrant community better. There is an unfair reality in the United States, where there are generations unable to achieve their dreams knowing they will always have to look out for their parents. As a result, many participants mentioned the importance of mental health and the positive effects therapy had or could have had on them. Participants stated that they would have benefitted from mental health services as they dealt with the responsibilities placed upon them by their parents. Among the interviewees, we found some cases of first-generation immigrants who were able to receive mental health support. Nonetheless, young children of migrants often did not have the vocabulary to ask for access to mental health professionals. Parents may also be reluctant to bring their children to therapy because this could wrongly imply their failure as parents.
A plethora of questions appear as we look deeper into the experiences of 1.5- and 2nd-generation female immigrants. Would providing counseling at school help these children navigate the burden of responsibility? Is there a way to assist first-generation parents so that the responsibility does not so fall heavily on their children? Can we aid the advancement of the United States by helping both first-, 1.5-, and 2nd-generation immigrants, are we also? Given these questions, it is important to continue research on the impact of immigration-related stress on the children of immigrants.
Copyright Creative Commons. Reproduction with full attribution is possible by news media and for not-for-profit and educational purposes. Minor modifications, such as not including the “About the Study” section, are permitted.
* Marcela Ventura came to the United States at age 11 from Peru. She is an active of the Immigration Lab at American University, where she is also taking graduate classes.
AULA Blog 