One of the main political points of Donald Trump ‘s political epic has certainly been the fight against illegal immigration, which at times has reached even exasperated tones, as when during the presidential debate with Kamala Harris the famous invective against dog- and cat-eating immigrants in Springfield, Ohio was uttered (despite the fact that both the city’s mayor and the state governor, both Republicans, as well as the police force, had described the allegations as not credible and not supported by any evidence). It is clear that the new president has everything possible to keep his promises to deport illegal immigrants from the United States.

The economic costs of deportations

It is important, in my opinion, to first analyse what the data and economic theory tell us on the subject of deportations. On this point, it is interesting to analyse an article by the Brookings Institute in which they first make estimates on the number of legal immigrants present within the United States, a number that amounts to around eleven million people, a figure that does not take into account many other immigrants with uncertain work and personal situations. Staying with the data, figures published by CNN Business (based on 2016 data) reveal that a deportation costs taxpayers around $11,000, almost half of which is just for detention, which on average lasts 31 days, and almost $2,000 per migrant just for transportation on special charter flights. In a simple calculation, assuming that these are the costs and that all deportations were carried out, this would result in an outlay of about 121 billion, which, net of new debt, would take resources away from American citizens, and this without even considering the loss of revenue for both the federal and individual state budgets and for Social Security and Medicare.

The impact of deportations on the labour market

The other key aspect to be analysed is the impact of deportations on the labour market. Analysing an article by several scholars published in the Journal of Labor Economics, in which the effects of the so-called Secure Communities policies are analysed, the conclusions of this article are very thought-provoking: it is estimated that for every 500,000 immigrants who are deported, around 44,000 jobs held by American citizens are lost. There are two plausible explanations: firstly, in jobs held by both immigrants and Americans, it is believed that the latter have higher labour costs and that this reduces the possible creation of new jobs; the second explanation offered concerns the decrease in consumption within the communities hosting these people, which therefore reduces the number of jobs due to the decrease in demand, generating possible economic vicious circles of demand deficit.

If we were to analyse only the economic side of the issue, therefore, we might come to the conclusion that these policies are absolutely wicked, even for the supporters of the MAGA movement, since as a result of the deportations, many Americans, who may have voted Trump in order not to see their jobs stolen by an immigrant, would also pay the price. However, it is important, in my opinion, to bear in mind that very often data and scientific research cannot be the only criteria for evaluating political choices.

On this issue, it must be recorded how the Democratic Party’s choices have always been oriented towards guaranteeing the unity of the multiracial coalition that made up its electorate, which has at least partly failed, by agreeing to support ‘liberal’ immigration policies even at the cost of losing votes within the white working class basin. Opinion polls on the issue have revealed how the percentage of Americans who believe that undocumented immigrants should not be allowed to remain in the country has risen from 24% in 2020 to 35% in August 2024.

According to a PEW Research Center poll, there are essentially three main reasons that are brought in support of this thesis: firstly, 86% of those who argue that illegal immigrants should not stay permanently in the United States believe that keeping these people inside the country can be seen as an incentive to break the law; 81% think that a soft stance on illegal immigration is unfair and unfair to those who have entered the country legally, often with very long and costly procedures in terms of money and time. This allows us to understand, at least in part, the shift of so many Latino voters towards the Republican party (from 28% who voted Trump in 2016 to 42% in the last election); finally, and here we realise the discrepancy that exists between economic theory and political reality, 76% believe that the idea on the basis of which illegal immigration leads to a loss of jobs and resources in general for American citizens is crucial.

There will be a lot to analyse over the next four years on the subject of migration, starting with what Trump will actually do once he arrives at the White House at the end of January, without neglecting the necessary change of pace for the Democratic Party with regard to its migration policies (a subject considered very important by 61% of all voters), who despite President Biden’s strong stance on the issue (which pushed Republicans to vote no to a bipartisan bill that would have significantly strengthened border protection, in order not to guarantee the President a political victory that could have been very relevant) were evidently unable to succeed in proposing an appealing vision even for so many segments of the electorate that until last November were considered to be firmly entrenched in the Democrats.