
The Trump administration's fundamental misunderstanding about deportations
People attend a rally and march on July 11, 2025, in Oxnard, California. The rally and march came a day after around 200 people were detained by federal officers during a raid at a cannabis farm in nearby Camarillo.The Trump administration has offered little consolation to American businesses worried about losing undocumented workers to deportations.
US Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins did offer them one solution last week: to replace immigrant farmworkers with Americans who are now required to work in order to access Medicaid benefits, under the recently signed Republican spending bill.
'When you think about it, there are 34 million able-bodied adults in our Medicaid program,' she said Tuesday in a news conference. 'So, no amnesty under any circumstances, mass deportations continue, but in a strategic and intentional way, as we move our workforce towards more automation and towards a 100 percent American workforce.'
Unfortunately for the industries targeted in escalating immigration raids — at farms, construction sites, restaurants, hotels, and other businesses — that is not a serious proposal.
Agricultural and hospitality industry leaders are pushing back and raising concerns about how deportations could lead to labor shortages. Though President Donald Trump has appeared publicly sympathetic to those concerns, it's become clear that business interests aren't driving his policy.
Rather, it's immigration hardliners, led by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who are. Republicans have handed US Immigration and Customs Enforcement an additional $75 billion, and the agency is more well-resourced than ever as the administration aims for 3,000 immigration arrests per day and 1 million deportations in a single year.
'I have complete faith that Secretary Noem and Stephen Miller and everyone else in the administration is 100 percent committed to this agenda,' said David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
The conflict between those hardliners and the affected industries reveals a key fiction at the center of Trump's immigration policy: that masses of immigrant workers are taking away jobs from Americans who are willing and able to fill them. They aren't. But that hasn't stopped the administration from ramping up ICE raids that don't just endanger immigrants and the businesses that rely on them. They're also imperiling job opportunities and the affordability of goods and services available to all Americans.
Trump's mixed messages about deportations
Following the ICE raids in Los Angeles that spurred mass protests in early June, some business leaders started becoming more vocal about their fears that worksite immigration raids could upend their companies.
'Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform in June.
On July 4, he said he would put farmers 'in charge' of immigration enforcement when it came to their own businesses, but warned that if they did not do a 'good job, we'll throw [undocumented workers] out of the country.'
The Logoff
The email you need to stay informed about Trump — without letting the news take over your life. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
In practice, however, it's not clear that the Trump administration has retreated on immigration raids since then.
Bier said that he has not put any stock into Trump's overtures to industry leaders on deportations.
'I said when he first made a statement to this effect that he was not going to change anything about ICE's operations,' he said.
The fundamental misunderstanding behind Trump's immigration raids
Immigration hardliners in the Trump administration are operating under the assumption that businesses affected by raids can just hire Americans instead of undocumented immigrants.
In reality, many of those immigrants work jobs that no Americans want — even during times of high unemployment and especially when it comes to low-paid, back-breaking positions in agriculture.
'The idea that there are millions of people waiting around who are willing and able to do this type of farm labor is misguided,' said Tara Watson, director of the Center of Economic Security and Opportunity and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Bier said some of the best evidence of that is a study of the North Carolina agricultural industry in 2011.
Researchers found that, of the nearly half a million unemployed North Carolinians at the time, only 268 native-born Americans applied for 6,500 farm job openings despite the fact that employers were required to publicly advertise the positions. Over 90 percent of those applicants were hired, but most did not show up for their first day of work or quit within a month. Only seven completed the entire growing season.
Medicaid recipients in particular are even less likely to fill agricultural job openings than Americans overall, despite Rollins's suggestion to the contrary.
For one, there aren't actually many Medicaid recipients who don't already have a job and are able to work at all, let alone able to work a physically demanding job in agriculture. A Brookings study found that out of the roughly 71.3 million recipients of Medicaid, only 300,000 people did not qualify for exemptions to the new work requirements and were not working because they didn't want to.
'There's a reason why they're on Medicaid, and that's because they're kids, they're elderly, or they're disabled, or they already have a job that just doesn't provide them with the kind of health insurance that they need,' said Ben Zipperer, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute.
Medicaid recipients are also predominantly located in urban areas and aren't likely to relocate for a low-paid job in agriculture. They are very unlikely to swoop in and save farms hard-hit by immigration raids. The fact that the administration is pushing that fantasy shows that its theory of how its immigration policies will affect businesses and the broader economy is misguided.
The economic cost of immigration raids
Mass deportations of farm workers alone could deal the US a significant blow. It would likely slash domestic agricultural production, driving up food prices for most Americans.
Watson said that farms would find it almost impossible to hire people to do labor that cannot be automated, forcing some to move their production abroad. The US might have to start importing certain crops at a higher price depending on the outcome of Trump's tariff negotiations. He has already slapped a 17 percent tariff on Mexican tomatoes.
'If the labor supply for farms is greatly restricted, then farms will produce less, and that will be passed on to consumers as higher prices,' Bier, of the Cato Institute, said.
Beyond agriculture, Trump's immigration raids could actually cause the overall job supply to shrink, rather than creating openings that Americans would readily fill.
A study by the Economic Policy Institute found that, if Trump meets his goal of deporting 1 million immigrants every year of his second term, it would eliminate the jobs of 3.3 million immigrants and 2.6 million US-born workers by the time he leaves office. The job supply in construction would be particularly hard-hit, falling almost 19 percent overall.
That's because immigrants typically have jobs that complement those worked by Americans, filling job openings that the latter will not, and because immigrants also create jobs as business owners and consumers of American goods and services.
For that reason, deporting immigrant workers who have no criminal record as part of Trump's 'America First' agenda is 'just building on a myth that immigrants in the US are 'taking American jobs,'' Watson said.
'There's been a huge amount of economics literature suggesting that that's not the case, and that, in fact, immigrants end up generating more jobs for US-born people,' she said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
15 minutes ago
- New York Post
Judge Judy recreates controversial American verdicts and challenges viewers in ‘Justice on Trial'
EXCLUSIVE – Judge Judith Sheindlin helps recreate some of the most controversial court cases in American history in her new show, 'Justice on Trial.' The show, which was over 10 years in the making and finally premiered on Prime Video last Monday, revisits eight of the most monumental court cases in American memory — allowing the viewer to decide if justice was truly served with each verdict. The main lawyers featured on the show are Larry Bakman and Daniel Mentzer. Advertisement Episode seven features a re-telling of 'Snyder v. Phelps,' in which a grieving father, Albert Snyder, sued Fred Phelps and his followers at the Westboro Baptist Church for emotional distress after church members protested his son Matthew's military funeral. The churchgoers, as depicted in the episode, carried signs reading, 'God Hates Your Son,' 'Thank God for Dead Soldiers,' and 'Thank God for 9/11,' to protest the military's tolerance of homosexuality. 7 The show, which was over 10 years in the making and finally premiered on Prime Video last Monday. Michael Becker/Prime 7 The main lawyers featured on the show are Larry Bakman and Daniel Mentzer. Michael Becker/Prime As Snyder noted during the trial, his son was not gay. The protesters were protesting the military at-large. The court showdown highlighted the legal boundaries of protected speech when it conflicts with potential harm to others. Advertisement A jury in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland agreed with Snyder and awarded him a total of $10.9 million, which the judge lowered to $5 million. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, holding that Phelps' speech was protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld the Fourth Circuit's ruling. The fiery Sheindlin had an opinion on the matter. While she and others may find the protesters' signs 'abhorrent,' she intoned that the Constitution does protect free speech. 7 A jury in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland agreed with Snyder and awarded him a total of $10.9 million. Courtesy of Prime 'Totally uncaring for people who are religious people, totally uncaring about the emotional trauma that that kind of demonstration might have on the family,' Sheindlin said of the Westboro protests in an interview with Fox News Digital. 'And yet the Supreme Court said in its decision that they had a right to express their views, even though their views were maybe abhorrent to the vast majority of Americans. I suppose you have to be able to… I wouldn't want to tolerate seeing the American flag burned in protest in America. Just wouldn't. It would offend me. But you have the right to do it. Is there a law that proscribes it? And I'd say probably not.' Advertisement So how do Americans reconcile their anger at a verdict with the Court's constitutional responsibilities? Sheindlin began her answer by referencing the movie 'American President.' 'I mean, we all would like our presidents to be like Michael Douglas, correct?' she said. 'And he said something at the end, but he's making the big speech at the end. He said, 'As an American, America is not easy, and you have to be able to defend somebody burning a flag, the American flag, as a protest, if you're going to insist that freedom of speech and expression exists.' And while we are all offended, it just didn't seem right that for no apparent reason, with no knowledge of who this young man was who was killed, just because they had a cause, they didn't care what the collateral damage was emotionally to the family of this young man.' 7 Judge Judy Sheindlin presiding over a courtroom trial. Courtesy of Prime 7 Judge Judy said there was one case, in particular, that spurred her to want to create 'Justice on Trial' and that may also leave some Americans feeling like justice may have taken a walk. Courtesy of Prime Advertisement Judge Judy said there was one case, in particular, that spurred her to want to create 'Justice on Trial' and that may also leave some Americans feeling like justice may have taken a walk. 'It was a case that happened in New York many, many years ago,' she shared. 'Two young thugs decided to rob an old man on the subway. Believe it or not, I remember the man's name. His name was Jerome Sandusky, and he was a man well in his 70s. And one of them was acting as a lookout. The other one went down the stairs with the pretty deserted platform and was beating up this old man in an attempt to take his watch and cash. And a transit police officer heard the screams of the old man coming from the subway, and he ran down into the subway. Pulled out his revolver and said, 'Stop, police!' And the young thug ran off and was running up the stairs. Police said, 'Stop, police!' He didn't stop, and the police officer shot him. And he shot him in the back as he was fleeing.' Then things got tricky in court and the situation seemed to turn on the victim. 7 Then things got tricky in court and the situation seemed to turn on the victim. Courtesy of Prime 7 'The young man pled guilty to the robbery, was sentenced, but hired a lawyer who sued the transit authority in the city of New York and received a judgment, a jury verdict for $4.3 million,' Sheindlin continued. Michael Becker/Prime 'The young man pled guilty to the robbery, was sentenced, but hired a lawyer who sued the transit authority in the city of New York and received a judgment, a jury verdict for $4.3 million,' Sheindlin continued. 'And then Mr. Sandusky, who took a very long time to recover from his physical wounds, but who would, you know — if you're a crime victim emotionally, you really never get over being a victim of violent crime. And Mr. Sandusky, he said, 'Well, that's sort of outrageous. I was the victim.' And so he hired a lawyer because now this thug had $4.3 million and his lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations. So there are many facets to that case. Whether or not, ultimately, justice was served is an issue. And if you ask 10 people, given those set of facts, you will get at least eight different opinions.' Advertisement All eight episodes of 'Justice on Trial' are streaming now on Prime Video. Other cases covered by the series include the famous Scopes Monkey trial, Gideon v. Wainwright and People v. Turriago. In the latter case, troopers stopped Leonardo Turriago for a speeding violation on the New York State Thruway, which led police to discover a decomposing body locked in a steamer trunk. The episode explores the question of whether or not the search of the truck was legal. The series is created and executive produced by Sheindlin. Casey Barber, David Carr and Randy Douthit are also executive producers. Amy Freisleben is a co-executive producer.


The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
Top medical group presses RFK Jr. to keep health screening panel
A top U.S. health lobbying group is calling on Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to not dismiss a preventive task force following a report he's planning to remove all of its members in the same way he ousted an entire vaccine advisory board earlier this year. The American Medical Association (AMA) wrote to Kennedy on Sunday to express its 'deep concern' over reporting that Kennedy is planning to dismiss all members of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). 'USPSTF members have been selected through an open, public nomination process and are nationally recognized experts in primary care, prevention and evidence-based medicine. They serve on a volunteer basis, dedicating their time to help reduce disease and improve the health of all Americans—a mission well-aligned with the Make America Healthy Again initiative,' the AMA wrote in a letter to Kennedy. The Wall Street Journal reported late last week that Kennedy was planning to dismiss the entire 16-member panel for being too 'woke' in his eyes, citing people familiar with the decision. The report comes after Kennedy in June dismissed the entire Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, replacing the members with some known spreaders of vaccine information. When reached for comment by The Hill, a spokesperson the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said, 'No final decision has been made on how the USPSTF can better support HHS' mandate to Make America Healthy Again.' Just last month, the USPSTF's powers to make recommendations survived legal scrutiny when the Supreme Court upheld their constitutionality. Plaintiffs in the case argued the panel was unconstitutional. The case began when a Texas business did not wish to cover HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis, which is recommended by the USPSTF. 'Given the essential role USPSTF members play in weighing the benefits and harms of preventive services such as screenings, behavioral counseling, and preventive medications, and making evidence-based recommendations for implementation in primary care settings, we urge you to keep the previously appointed USPSTF members and continue the task force's regular meeting schedule to ensure recommendations are put forth, updated, and disseminated without delay,' the AMA told Kennedy.


The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
Megyn Kelly hires Hope Hicks as she expands media company
Conservative pundit Megyn Kelly has hired Hope Hicks, a political operative and close ally of President Trump, to help run her growing media company, which Kelly launched after a career in cable and network news. Hicks, who worked as an executive at Fox Corp. before joining Trump during his first term as communication director, will serve as chief operating officer for Devil May Care Media, Kelly's media outfit that encompasses her popular podcast, YouTube show and other verticals. 'Hope Hicks is exactly the kind of woman I want running my company with me – strong, smart, strategic and the embodiment of class and poise,' Kelly said in a statement. Hicks, who had been working as a corporate consultant since leaving the first Trump administration, in prepared remarks praised Kelly as having 'used her talent, integrity, and unparalleled credibility to create content unlike anything else available today.' Hicks will report to Kelly in her new role and will oversee a team of staff 'dedicated to the continued success of Kelly's media company, with expansions in new lines of business and partnerships.' Kelly, an outspoken supporter of Trump, has used her new platform to grow a sizable audience and often rips 'corporate media' outlets she and other independent content creators say are out of touch with viewers and listeners.