Week of October 22–28, 2024

The economic impact of immigration on the U.S. is largely positive, despite ongoing debates. Most economists agree that immigrants contribute to economic growth by expanding the labor force, starting businesses at high rates, and driving innovation—over 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that immigration will add $8.9 trillion to U.S. GDP between 2024 and 2034.

Although immigrants use public services like education and healthcare, they also contribute significantly through taxes, including sales, property, and payroll taxes. Even unauthorized immigrants often pay payroll taxes using false or borrowed Social Security numbers. While immigrants tend to cost local governments more due to education spending for their children, studies show that at the federal level, immigrants pay more in taxes than they consume in services.

Immigration has been critical in offsetting the aging U.S. population and stabilizing the workforce. From 2000 to 2022, immigrants accounted for nearly three-quarters of prime-age labor force growth. With U.S.-born population growth slowing, immigration is expected to drive all net population growth by 2040.

While some argue that immigrants reduce wages for low-skilled U.S. workers, studies find minimal wage impact. Immigrants often fill jobs that complement those held by U.S.-born workers. Overall, immigration supports economic expansion, job creation, and tax revenues, positioning immigrants as net contributors to the U.S. economy.

City leaders in the U.S. are concerned about the potential impacts of a second Trump term, especially his administration’s stance on immigration. Trump has criticized cities like Milwaukee, New York, and Philadelphia as dangerous or declining, and warns that similar fates await the entire country if Kamala Harris were elected. Previously, Trump’s administration clashed with local governments over issues like public safety, census administration, and funding, but immigration remains a top concern.

Trump’s immigration agenda, as highlighted in campaign statements and the GOP’s “Mandate for Leadership,” includes strict measures: deporting 11 million undocumented migrants, reducing refugee admissions, ending diversity visas, limiting family-based immigration, cutting back on high-skilled and seasonal work visas, repealing temporary protections, ending DACA, and reinstating the travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries. Stephen Miller, a Trump adviser, asserts that a second term would bring an intense crackdown on immigration.

Brookings analysis shows that these policies could greatly affect cities, where immigrant populations play vital roles. Major urban areas, which house most immigrants, could see demographic and economic shifts, disrupting labor markets and local economies reliant on immigrant workers. This proposed immigration crackdown could face legal and funding challenges, but if implemented, it would deeply impact U.S. cities and the contributions of immigrants across the country.

Media reports reveal that Elon Musk worked illegally in the U.S. early in his career, highlighting complexities in the U.S. immigration system. This irony is noted, as Musk is a vocal critic of illegal immigration, yet faced his own challenges working legally in America as a young entrepreneur. The Washington Post reports that Musk and his brother, Kimbal, lacked legal work status when founding their first venture, Zip2. Kimbal admitted to lying at the U.S.-Canada border to attend a business meeting, risking permanent barring from the U.S. if discovered.

Musk’s story underscores how difficult it is for international students and entrepreneurs to stay and work legally in the U.S. Despite some work options, such as Optional Practical Training (OPT), international students often struggle to secure long-term work visas. The limited H-1B visa, capped annually at 85,000, uses a lottery system with only about 25% success for applicants. Additionally, the lack of an entrepreneur visa presents another barrier; in 2022, Congress proposed such a visa, but it failed to pass.

Musk has donated millions to support Donald Trump, whose policies largely restricted legal immigration pathways for high-skilled workers. These challenges emphasize a system in need of reform to support aspiring immigrants, particularly in fields driving U.S. innovation and economic growth.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, YouGov surveyed registered voters on eight key issues, including immigration, exploring voters' primary concerns, preferred policies, and trusted candidates.

The findings reveal a significant divide between Trump and Harris supporters on immigration. For Trump supporters, immigration ranks as a top-three issue for 77%, compared to only 14% of Harris supporters. Trump voters emphasize border enforcement, while Harris supporters prioritize pathways to citizenship and preventing immigrant-family separations.

Trump's handling of immigration garners higher trust among voters, especially on issues like border security, a border wall, and deportations. In contrast, Harris is more trusted on pathways to citizenship and family separation issues, aligning with her supporters' concerns. Although Trump's and Harris's immigration policies receive similar average support overall, Trump’s policies are notably more polarizing, with strong backing from his base and minimal support from Harris's.

Popular policies include Harris's support for drug-detection technology funding and pathways to citizenship, while Trump’s proposed use of the Alien Enemies Act and ending catch-and-release gain support from both camps. However, Trump’s travel ban on certain Muslim-majority countries is less popular, though still more favored than Harris's plan to increase refugee admissions. Generally, voters are aware of Trump's focus on enforcement, including his border wall and deportation policies, while Harris is associated more with expanding immigration than with restrictive measures.

The 2024 presidential race highlights contrasting approaches to U.S. immigration policy between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. While Harris has moved closer to strict border enforcement, her approach fundamentally differs from Trump’s. Harris supports policies aimed at fixing the U.S. asylum system and securing the border while acknowledging immigrants' contributions. She backs a Senate bill that emphasizes deterrence while also opening legal pathways for Dreamers and essential workers to gain legal status. Her plan builds on Biden’s executive measures, which have reduced unauthorized crossings, focusing on a balanced strategy that includes border security, new asylum regulations, and a more efficient immigration process.

Trump’s approach, however, involves a more punitive vision. He has proposed massive deportations, restricted legal immigration, and reintroduced programs like "Remain in Mexico," which required asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for court hearings, often in dangerous conditions. His prior administration also used Title 42 to expel migrants during COVID-19 and instituted a zero-tolerance policy that led to family separations. Despite these hardline measures, Trump’s tenure saw record-high migration and crossings. His stance is marked by anti-immigrant rhetoric that some fear may incite hostility and harm America’s global image as a land of opportunity. Thus, voters face a choice between Harris's reform-driven pragmatism and Trump's crackdown-centered approach.

Former President Donald Trump has used repetition to push false claims about immigration, linking unauthorized immigrants to crime, job loss, and economic harm. He frequently describes immigrants as “criminals,” “gang members,” and “poisoning” the country. Research reveals that hearing a statement repeatedly can make it feel more truthful, a phenomenon known as the “illusory truth effect.” Trump has relied on this tactic, with over 350,000 public statements examined showing he has repeated certain false claims hundreds of times. His frequent assertions include claims that unauthorized immigrants are linked to crime, that Democrats support “open borders” and noncitizen voting, and that a border wall is necessary. These claims, despite being unsupported by data, have led to hardline policies such as family separation, stricter border security, and deportation programs.

Reports also show the impact of Trump’s rhetoric, with polls indicating increased public support for strict immigration policies. Claims of immigrants causing crime or taking jobs, though unsubstantiated, have fueled xenophobia and tougher policies across state and federal levels. In contrast, Vice President Kamala Harris has shown a more positive tone, advocating for DACA and a pathway to citizenship, yet supporting stricter border enforcement. Experts continue to emphasize that immigrants, both documented and undocumented, have lower crime rates than native-born citizens, despite their continued scapegoating by political leaders.

Over the weekend, Elon Musk responded to a Washington Post report alleging he had worked illegally in the U.S. during the early years of his career. The article, based on court documents and interviews with former colleagues, suggested that Musk, who came to the U.S. on a student visa, faced potential deportation while launching his first company in the 1990s. Musk denied the claims on X (formerly Twitter), asserting he was legally allowed to work and accused President Biden of lying after Biden referenced the report.

In his posts, Musk detailed his visa history, saying he transitioned from a J-1 exchange visa to an H-1B work visa. However, immigration experts raised questions, as a J-1 visa typically requires active academic enrollment for work authorization, which Musk would have lost when he left school to start his company.

Musk’s comments have reignited scrutiny over his past immigration status, especially as he frequently criticizes illegal immigration while supporting increased legal immigration. Musk’s brother, Kimbal, previously stated they were “illegal immigrants” during the startup phase, though Elon Musk has disputed this, calling it a “gray area.” Critics argue that Musk’s focus on immigration contrasts with his own complex journey through the system, highlighting potential hypocrisy. Musk’s case underscores how immigration policies and enforcement practices have evolved, particularly after 9/11.

With the upcoming U.S. presidential election, HR professionals should brace for a potential immigration slowdown, impacting labor supply and business operations. Both candidates, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, have proposed contrasting immigration policies that will shape the workforce landscape.

Immigrants play a critical role in sustaining the U.S. economy, making up 18.6% of the civilian workforce in 2023, which mitigates labor shortages and bolsters economic growth. Harris's platform includes comprehensive immigration reform to streamline work authorization processes, increase visa quotas, and support asylum applicants, potentially easing workforce pressures. However, a faster asylum process may also raise rejection rates if legal resources remain scarce.

Conversely, Trump’s policies focus on restricting immigration, including plans for mass deportations and reviving prior programs like the “Remain in Mexico” policy. A Trump administration could also limit the H-1B visa program, which would reduce foreign worker availability. However, Trump has shown some support for granting green cards to vetted foreign graduates of U.S. institutions, which may appeal to employers.

If immigration decreases, HR professionals might face challenges in hiring and talent retention, especially in industries reliant on immigrant labor, such as construction, healthcare, and agriculture. This labor shortage may drive HR teams to prioritize upskilling existing employees. A decline in immigrant-driven consumer spending could further strain businesses, emphasizing the need for strategic talent management to adapt to the evolving workforce dynamics.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that Canada will reduce its immigration targets due to challenges in managing post-pandemic population growth. Originally planning to accept 500,000 new permanent residents annually over the next two years, the revised target will be 395,000 for 2024, decreasing to 380,000 in 2026 and 365,000 in 2027. Trudeau admitted his government didn’t “get the balance right” between labor needs and population sustainability, impacting housing affordability and other social services.

This shift responds to mounting criticism of Canada’s immigration policies, even within Trudeau’s Liberal Party, as the country’s population reached 41 million in 2023, up from 37.5 million in 2019. Trudeau emphasized that controlled and sustainable immigration is vital for Canada's future, allowing necessary adjustments in healthcare, housing, and social services.

Immigration Minister Marc Miller noted the public’s growing concern over immigration levels and linked the new targets to Canada’s housing shortage. Trudeau also criticized corporations for exploiting temporary worker programs, along with some colleges for over-recruiting international students.

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre blamed Trudeau’s policies for breaking the long-standing national consensus on immigration, suggesting that Trudeau’s approach has worsened housing and other social challenges. Political experts argue that Canada’s immigration goals, while economically sound, lack coordination with provincial responsibilities, straining public resources and intensifying public discontent.

Former President Donald Trump’s proposed mass deportation plan, if implemented, could cost the U.S. billions annually and significantly impact the economy. The American Immigration Council estimates the deportation of one million people each year could cost $88 billion, while removing millions of workers would reduce the gross domestic product by $1.7 trillion. Tom Homan, former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) head under Trump, argues that this is a necessary expense for national security.

Current ICE operations focus on targeted arrests, often prioritizing undocumented immigrants with criminal records. For instance, ICE officers in Maryland recently arrested a Guatemalan man with a past assault conviction but spared his non-criminal driver. ICE Director Matt Elliston emphasizes that resources are aimed at enhancing public safety, not indiscriminate arrests.

Mass deportation would strain ICE, which has around 6,000 officers, far fewer than the 100,000 personnel needed for such a massive initiative. Jason Houser, former ICE chief of staff, highlights the significant costs: $150 per detention night, an average 46-day stay, and flights costing $250,000 each. Additionally, immigration enforcement requires specific skills and training that most law enforcement personnel lack, making it challenging to recruit from other agencies. The logistics and resources needed for Trump’s proposed plan pose substantial economic and practical hurdles.

In the two hours following the September presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, abortion was the most searched topic online, followed by immigration. Research by reproductive epidemiologist Heidi E. Jones highlights the intersection of immigration and abortion policies, particularly among U.S. immigrant populations.

Despite the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade, abortion remains legal in New York up to 24 weeks or later if a person’s health is at risk. In 2024, nearly half of those seeking medication abortion at NYC Sexual Health Clinics were born outside the U.S. or Puerto Rico. New York City’s clinics do not ask about immigration status.

Jones, a professor at the City University of New York, has studied reproductive health for over 25 years. She emphasizes that immigrant populations face unique barriers to abortion access due to legal status, mistreatment, cultural differences, and limited healthcare options. Migrant workers, particularly undocumented individuals, may fear accessing care due to legal concerns.

Her research identifies three main obstacles: mistreatment in healthcare, challenges navigating the system, and lack of knowledge about legal rights. Solutions include universal healthcare access, cultural competency training, multilingual outreach, and stronger referral systems.

Several organizations, such as the New York Abortion Access Fund and national groups like the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, work to support abortion access for immigrants. In New York City, abortion services remain accessible, but cultural attitudes and legal changes continue to shape reproductive autonomy.

Since the start of the Biden administration, Texas and the federal government have clashed over immigration policy, with ongoing disputes over authority and enforcement. This conflict has played out in the media, courts, and on the ground.

Three white papers offer an overview of the ongoing battle between Texas and the Biden administration, focusing on key areas where Texas has challenged federal control. The first paper, Texas v. the Biden Administration: How Recent Lawsuits Have Redefined the Federal Immigration Agenda, examines how Texas leaders have used litigation to influence federal policies on border security and interior enforcement. The second, Operation Lone Star: Texas’s Logistical and Political Fireball, explores the impact of Texas's controversial Operation Lone Star initiative, which affects the federal government, U.S. cities, Texas border communities, and migrants. The third paper, Where Texas Goes, the Nation Follows: State Legislatures and Immigration Enforcement, looks at Texas’s 2023 immigration legislation and its far-reaching consequences, including constitutional concerns and the spread of similar laws in other states.

Together, these papers highlight the broader implications of Texas’s efforts to shape the national conversation on immigration and redefine the federal government’s role in enforcement.

Under the Biden administration, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for vulnerable immigrants has grown significantly, with over 863,000 people currently benefiting—more than double the number four years ago. TPS grants temporary protection and work authorization for individuals from countries experiencing war or natural disasters. It’s supported industries facing labor shortages, such as home care, janitorial services, and construction.

Despite its success, TPS faces uncertainty if Donald Trump reclaims the White House, as he has promised to end protections for certain countries. TPS has expanded to cover 16 countries, with Lebanon soon added. Protections last for 18 months and must be renewed, but if Trump returns to power, he is expected to target these programs for termination.

TPS has been critical for employers, especially in auto manufacturing and direct care for seniors. Workers with TPS have high participation rates in the workforce, benefiting industries across the US. Many employers, especially in sectors like auto manufacturing, now rely on TPS workers, as seen in Ohio where they make up a significant portion of the labor force.

Though critics argue that TPS encourages illegal immigration, its expansion has been hailed by immigrant advocacy groups. The program’s future depends on political decisions, as Congress has shown limited will to pass permanent immigration reforms. For many, TPS remains their only path to work authorization and a stable life in the US.

With nine days until Election Day, former President Trump has escalated his attacks on the Biden administration’s immigration policies, promising the largest deportation in U.S. history if re-elected. There are over 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., with many having lived here for more than a decade.

Trump’s key immigration advisor, Tom Homan, who previously led ICE, has supported this deportation promise. Homan argues that mass deportation, targeting primarily illegal immigrants, is necessary following the ongoing immigration crisis. He insists it wouldn’t involve sweeping neighborhood raids or concentration camps, but would focus on targeted arrests. Deportations could be carried out through work-site enforcement operations, especially in industries with illegal workers.

Critics warn that mass deportation could harm sectors like construction and agriculture, reducing the U.S. GDP by $1.7 trillion. While Homan focuses on public safety and national security threats, he acknowledges that deporting anyone who entered illegally might also be part of the plan, even if it means arresting people with long-standing ties to the country.

Under President Biden, ICE has largely focused on individuals posing national security or public safety threats, whereas Trump’s plan could shift the focus to a wider pool of undocumented immigrants. While specifics on the scale of deportations remain unclear, Homan claims ICE can handle large operations. Critics worry about the potential human and financial costs of such a campaign.efore dawn

The eighth annual Global Talent Chamber Network (GTCN) Convening in October brought together over 20 representatives from 17 chambers of commerce across the U.S. to discuss the business community’s role in advocating for immigrant inclusion. Despite rising anti-immigrant rhetoric, business leaders from diverse political backgrounds focused on the need to modernize the immigration system to benefit local and national economies.

The event, hosted in Columbus, Ohio, allowed participants to engage in fact-based discussions on immigration policy and workforce development. Keynote speakers, including the American Immigration Council’s Jeremy Robbins and AILA’s Ben Johnson, highlighted the importance of business voices in shaping federal legislation and addressing workforce shortages, particularly through immigrant contributions.

A panel of direct-service organizations shared best practices for connecting immigrants to businesses, stressing the importance of culturally competent policies and strategies for workforce inclusion. The Columbus Chamber of Commerce also introduced a new resource, “An Employee Guide to Hiring Global Talent in Central Ohio.”

Chamber leaders discussed overcoming political divides in their states and advancing programs like workforce development and return-to-work initiatives. The day concluded with a visit to The Ohio State University James Cancer Center, showcasing ways to integrate immigrants into the healthcare sector through education and culturally aware practices.

The event emphasized the commitment of business leaders to building inclusive, thriving local economies that recognize the skills immigrants contribute, even amidst political challenges surrounding immigration.

On the latest Last Week Tonight, John Oliver analyzed Donald Trump's promise of mass deportations, a key element of his campaign. While 54% of Americans and 86% of Republicans support deportation, Oliver emphasized that many may not fully understand its implications. Deporting 13 million people, many of whom have lived in the U.S. for decades, would require massive resources, including hiring up to 409,000 new staff and building detention facilities. This would cost an estimated $88 billion annually, totaling nearly $1 trillion over a decade.

Oliver refuted claims that mass deportation would solve issues like unemployment, crime, or the housing crisis. He cited studies showing that deporting undocumented workers would harm the economy, potentially reducing GDP by 4.2–6.8%, similar to the Great Recession. He also pointed out that immigrants are essential to industries like construction, and removing them would worsen the housing crisis. Contrary to claims, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than U.S.-born citizens, and crime rates have been decreasing.

Oliver also warned that mass deportation could be a pretext for Trump to gain more power, citing false immigrant “invasions” in cities like Aurora, Colorado. He concluded by encouraging people to engage in conversations about immigration policies, noting that understanding the reality of these policies often leads to more humane solutions. He criticized both parties for their handling of immigration, urging voters to avoid choosing leaders who demonize immigrants.

The U.S.-Mexico border is often portrayed as lawless and chaotic, but the reality is more complex, as a CBS News crew discovered during a 1,600-mile trip from McAllen, Texas, to California. In Laredo, Texas, ranked as one of the safest cities in the state, Mayor Victor Trevino rejects the portrayal of his city as a crime-ridden Wild West. Laredo's economy thrives with $320 billion in goods passing through its port annually, including car parts from General Motors and Tesla. In Presidio, Texas, Mayor John Ferguson notes the reliance on Mexican workers crossing the border legally for local jobs, a crucial economic lifeline. Meanwhile, in Columbus, New Mexico, Mayor Philip Skinner highlights the cross-border flow of services, with residents traveling to Mexico for dental care, as local businesses depend on border trade.

In Arizona, which sees heavy drug smuggling, a significant share of fentanyl seizures occur in the Tucson sector. Douglas, Arizona’s Mayor Donald Huish supported a bipartisan Senate border bill that failed after criticism, citing its potential to increase Border Patrol agents. Sheriff Mark Dannels of Cochise County, Arizona, faces challenges with drug trafficking and human smuggling, but expresses uncertainty about the future, as political divisions complicate border security efforts. Across the border, frustration is felt as communities balance economic needs with security concerns.