A National Bureau of Economic Research study quantifies what supply chain economics has been signaling for months: ICE enforcement is costing American jobs. The ratio is stark—for every six immigrants removed from the workforce, one U.S.-born worker loses their job.
Researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder analyzed labor market data from Trump administration immigration crackdown periods. In areas with heightened ICE activity, approximately 7,574 undocumented male workers stopped working. During the same period, 1,200 U.S.-born male workers left the labor force.
The Complementarity Problem
The study's core finding challenges the substitution theory that's driven immigration policy debates for decades. Lead author Chloe East stated directly: "If anything, job opportunities for U.S.-born workers are going down as a result."
The researchers documented that undocumented immigrants and U.S.-born workers are complements, not substitutes. Construction provides the clearest example. When immigrant laborers leave, entire business models collapse. Companies scale back operations and reduce demand for U.S.-born workers in supervisory, planning, and specialized roles.
Employment rates for U.S.-born construction workers declined 3% due to ICE activity. That's not theoretical—it's measurable job losses in sectors that depend on immigrant labor.
The 17-Month Impact
Over 17 months of heightened immigration enforcement, more than 1.2 million foreign-born workers left the labor force. The study found "no evidence that it is benefiting U.S.-born workers" in terms of employment rates, wages, or job opportunities.
The supply chain implications extend beyond construction. Agriculture, hospitality, food processing, and light manufacturing all demonstrate similar complementarity patterns. Remove workers at one skill level, and you eliminate the economic justification for employment at other skill levels.
Policy Implications
This is where economics and politics diverge. The data shows enforcement reduces overall employment. But immigration policy isn't driven by labor market optimization—it's driven by political coalition dynamics.
The Fortune analysis notes that neither party has strong incentive to adjust policy based on this research. Immigration enforcement signals commitment to border security constituencies. Labor market effects are externalities.
Business Response
Companies facing labor disruptions have three options: automate, relocate, or contract. Automation requires capital investment most small businesses lack. Relocation means offshoring work that could have remained domestic. Contracting reduces scale and eliminates jobs across skill levels.
The construction industry has already demonstrated all three responses in markets with sustained immigration enforcement. The result is lower overall employment and reduced economic activity.
What the Numbers Actually Tell Us
The 1-to-6 ratio isn't a policy recommendation—it's a measurement of economic interdependence. Labor markets are complex systems. Removing workers at any skill level creates cascading effects.
The study provides data. What policymakers do with that data depends on whether labor market optimization is actually the objective. The evidence suggests it isn't.
