Francisco I. Pedraza, Arizona State University; Jason L. Morín, California State University, Northridge, and Loren Collingwood, University of New Mexico

One of President Donald Trump’s major promises during the 2024 presidential campaign was to launch mass deportations of immigrants living in the U.S. without legal authorization.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has said that, since January 2025, it is detaining and planning to deport 600 to 1,100 immigrants a day. That marks an increase from the average 282 immigration arrests that happened each day in September 2024 under the Biden administration.

The current trend would place the Trump administration on track to apprehend 25,000 immigrants in Trump’s first month in office. On an annual basis, this is about 300,000 – far from the “millions and millions” of immigrants Trump promised to deport.

A lack of funding, immigration officers, immigration detention centers and other resources has reportedly impeded the administration’s deportation work.

The Trump administration is seeking US$175 billion from Congress to use for the next four years on immigration enforcement, Axios reported on Feb. 11, 2025.

If Trump does make good on his promise of mass deportations, our research shows that removing millions of immigrants would be costly for everyone in the U.S., including American citizens and businesses.

Food costs will increase

One important factor is that mass deportations would weaken key industries in the U.S. that rely on immigrant workers, including those living in the U.S. illegally.

Overall, immigrants without legal authorization make up about 5% of the total U.S. workforce.

Advertisement

But that overall percentage doesn’t reflect these immigrants’ concentrated presence within various industries. Approximately half of U.S. farmworkers are living in the country without legal authorization, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Some of these immigrant farmworkers are skilled supervisors who make decisions about planting and harvesting. Others know how to use and maintain tractors, loaders, diggers, rakers, fertilizer sprayers, irrigation systems, and other machines crucial to farm operations.

If those workers were to be suddenly removed from the country, Americans would see an increase in food costs, including what they spend on groceries and at restaurants.

With fewer available workers to pick fruits and vegetables and prepare the food for shipment and distribution, the domestic production of food could decrease, leading to higher costs and more imports.

National estimates of the restaurant and food preparation workforce, meanwhile, indicate that between 10% and 15% of those workers are immigrants living in the U.S. illegally.

Past state-level immigration enforcement policies offer an idea of what could happen at the national level if Trump were to carry out widespread deportations.

For example, a 2011 Alabama law called HB-56 directed local police officers to investigate the immigration status of drivers stopped for speeding. It also prohibited landlords from renting properties to immigrants who do not have legal authorization to work or live in the country. That law and its resulting effects prompted some Alabama-based immigrant workers to leave the state following workplace raids.

Advertisement

Their departure wound up costing the state an estimated $2.3 billion to $10.8 billion loss in Alabama’s annual gross domestic product due to the loss of workers and economic output.

Other industries that rely on immigrants

Part of the challenge of mass deportations for industries like construction, nearly a quarter of whose workers are living without legal authorization, is that their workforce is highly skilled and not easily replaced. Immigrant workers are particularly involved in home construction and specialize in such tasks as ceiling and flooring installation as well as roofing and drywall work.

Fewer available workers would mean slower home construction, which in turn would make housing more expensive, further compounding existing problems of housing supply and affordability.

Shocks from deportations would also slow commercial and public infrastructure construction. Six construction workers, for example, died in April 2024 in the sudden collapse of the Baltimore Key Bridge in Maryland. All of them were Latino immigrants living in the U.S. without legal documentation.

Examining the arguments

Trump administration officials and other politicians have argued that deporting large numbers of immigrants would help the country save money, since fewer people will use federal and state funds by attending public schools or receiving temporary shelter.

Trump said in November 2024 that there is “no price tag” for large-scale deportations.

“It’s not a question of price tag,” Trump said. “We have no choice. When people have killed and murdered, when drug lords have destroyed countries, and now they’re going to go back to those countries because they’re not staying here,” Trump told NBC News.

Advertisement

Trump and his supporters also argue that deporting immigrants would mean more jobs for American workers.

But there is compelling evidence to the contrary.

First, immigrants are filling labor shortages and doing jobs that many Americans don’t want to do, ones that might be unsafe or poorly paid.

Even if Americans were willing to do those jobs, there simply aren’t enough Americans in the workforce to fill existing labor vacuums, let alone an enlarged one following deportations.

Second, for employers, having fewer workers in the country translates into higher wages, which in turn means less capital to adapt and grow. For businesses based on consumer debt – think mortgages, car loans and credit cards – deportations would disrupt the financial sector by removing responsible borrowers who make consistent payments.

Third, immigrants living without legal documentation in the U.S. pay more than $96 billion in federal, state and local taxes per year and consume fewer public benefits than citizens.

Immigrants without legal authorization are not eligible for Social Security benefits and can’t enroll in Medicare or many other safety net programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Advertisement

The bottom line

In other words, people who are living and working in the U.S. without legal authorization are helping to pay, through taxes, the costs of caring for Americans as they age and begin to draw on the nation’s retirement and health care programs.

The burden from recent inflation notwithstanding, an economy supported by immigrants living illegally in the U.S. protects Americans.

The U.S. would be unable to dodge the economic shocks and high costs that mass deportations would bring about.

Francisco I. Pedraza, Professor of political scinece, Arizona State University; Jason L. Morín, Professor of Political Science, California State University, Northridge, and Loren Collingwood, Associate Professor of political science, University of New Mexico

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

In a significant move aimed at addressing the ongoing housing crisis in Arizona, the state Senate has passed Senate Bill 1229, a piece of legislation that could transform the way municipalities regulate home designs and development standards. This bipartisan bill passed on March 5, 2025, with a narrow vote of 16-13, attracting support from both Democrats and Republicans who are united in their objective to enhance housing affordability in the Grand Canyon State.

Key Provisions of Senate Bill 1229

One of the most notable aspects of SB 1229 is its proposal to prevent municipalities from mandating shared amenities that require a Homeowners Association (HOA) for maintenance. This change is seen as a step toward safeguarding homeowners’ rights to decide the features, structure, and design of their properties without being subjected to burdensome regulations.

Moreover, the bill aims to prohibit cities from requiring certain elements such as screening, walls, or fencing on residential properties. It will also establish boundaries on how cities can regulate lot sizes and building setbacks. These provisions are designed to empower homeowners and help make housing more accessible.

Addressing the Housing Crisis

The initiative comes in light of a severe housing crisis that has plagued Arizona, making homeownership increasingly elusive for many residents. The language within the bill highlights the ongoing struggle for citizens in obtaining affordable housing: “It has become virtually impossible for many citizens of this state to achieve the American Dream of owning their own home.”

Supporters assert that the current highly-restrictive regulations contribute to this crisis and that SB 1229 presents a commonsense solution for families, teachers, first responders, and young professionals who have found themselves priced out of the housing market.

Bipartisan Support and Community Impact

Notably, the bill garnered a rare coalition of support from both parties, with nine Republicans and seven Democrats voting in favor. This broad backing could play a crucial role in advancing the bill to the House, where it may have a better chance of avoiding a veto from Governor Katie Hobbs.

State Senator Shawnna Bolick, a Republican representing District 2, expressed that this new legislation is a much-needed remedy to the housing challenges faced by many Arizona families. She emphasized that it aims to help working-class citizens secure homes that meet their needs and budget.

Echoing these sentiments, Democratic Senator Analise Ortiz shared her own struggles in the current housing market. “At 31, I cannot afford to own a home where I was born and raised and currently govern,” she stated. Ortiz’s personal experience underscores the urgency for legislative changes that prioritize affordable housing options for all residents.

Advertisement

Conclusion

As Arizona grapples with a pervasive housing crisis, Senate Bill 1229 represents a pivotal step towards unlocking new possibilities for homeownership and easing regulatory burdens that have long stymied development. By promoting flexibility in housing regulations, this legislation aims to pave the way for a brighter future for countless residents seeking to realize their dream of homeownership in Arizona.

The upcoming discussions in the House will be crucial in determining the fate of this bill. As passionate advocates for housing reform continue to support this initiative, many Arizona residents will be watching closely to see how it unfolds.

Related Links:

https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2025/03/07/starter-homes-act-smaller-more-affordable-housing-in-arizona

https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/arizona/arizona-senate-passes-bill-change-house-cities-regulate-housing-development-phoenix/75-de9a47e9-08c4-4878-be3d-59377341f8c8

https://www.kawc.org/news/2024-05-09/arizona-senate-passes-measure-on-affordable-housing

STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.

Advertisement

https://stmdailynews.com/

Erica Frantz, Michigan State University; Andrea Kendall-Taylor, Yale University, and Joe Wright, Penn State

With the recent confirmations of Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – two of the most controversial of President Donald Trump’s high-level administration nominees – the president’s attempt to remake government as a home for political loyalists continues.

Soon after coming to office for a second term, Trump aggressively sought to overhaul Washington and bring the federal government in line with his political agenda. He is spearheading an effort to purge the government’s ranks of people he perceived as his opponents and slash the size of long-standing bureaucratic agencies – in some instances dismantling them entirely.

At the helm of much of this is businessman Elon Musk, who is not only the world’s richest man but also the largest donor of the 2024 election and the owner of multiple businesses that benefit from lucrative government contracts.

Musk – and a small cohort of young engineers loyal to him but with little experience in government – descended on Washington, announced their control over multiple government agencies, fired career civil servants, and even strong-armed access to government payment systems at the Treasury Department, where the inspector general had just been sacked.

This unprecedented sequence of events in the U.S. has left many observers in a daze, struggling to make sense of the dramatic reshaping of the bureaucracy under way.

Yet, as researchers on authoritarian politics, we understand it is no surprise that a leader bent on expanding his own power, such as Trump, would see the bureaucracy as a key target. Here’s why.

Advertisement

Dismantle democracy from within

A well-functioning bureaucracy is an organization of highly qualified civil servants who follow established rules to prevent abuses of power. Bureaucracies, in this way, are an important part of democracy that constrain executive behavior.

For this reason, aspiring strongmen are especially likely to go after them. Whether by shuffling the personnel of agencies, creating new ones, or limiting their capacity for oversight, a common tactic among power-hungry leaders is establishing control over the government’s bureaucracy. Following a failed coup attempt in 2016, for example, Turkish President Reccep Tayyip Erdoğan fired or detained as many as 100,000 government workers.

In the short term, greater executive control over the bureaucracy gives these leaders a valuable tool for rewarding their elite supporters, especially as diminished government oversight increases opportunities for corruption and the dispersion of rewards to such insiders. Erdoğan, for example, by 2017 had worked to fill lower-level bureaucratic positions with loyalists of his party, the AKP, to ensure the party’s influence over corruption investigations.

In the long term, this hollowing out and reshaping of the bureaucracy is part of a broader plan in which aspiring autocrats usurp control over all institutions that can constrain them, such as the legislature and the courts. As we document in our book, “The Origins of Elected Strongmen,” attacks on the bureaucracy constitute a significant step in a larger process in which elected leaders dismantle democracy from within.

Take control of bureaucracy

The seemingly bizarre series of events that have transpired in Washington since Trump came to power are highly consistent with other countries where democracy has been dismantled.

Take Benin, for example. Its leader, Patrice Talon – one of the wealthiest people in Africa – came to power in democratic elections in 2016.

Soon after taking control, Talon created new agencies housed in the executive office and defunded existing ones, as a means of skirting bureaucratic constraints to his rule. The central affairs of the state were in the hands of an informal cabinet, initially led by Olivier Boko, a wealthy businessman considered to be Talon’s right-hand man despite not having any official position in government.

Advertisement

Talon and his inner circle used this control over the state to enrich themselves, turning the country into what one journalist referred to as “a company in the hands of Talon and his very close clique.”

Consolidating control over the bureaucracy was just one step in a larger process of turning Benin into an autocratic state. Talon eventually amassed greater power and influence over key state institutions, such as the judiciary, and intervened in the electoral process to ensure his continued rule. By 2021, Benin could no longer be considered a democracy.

Purge civil service

A similar dynamic occurred in Hungary. After governing relatively conventionally for one term, Prime Minister Viktor Orban was defeated in elections in 2002. He blamed that outcome on unfriendly media and never accepted the results as legitimate.

Orban returned to office in 2010, bent on retribution.

Orban ordered mass firings of civil servants and put allies of his party, Fidesz, in crucial roles. He also used the dismantling of bureaucratic constraints to pad the pockets of the elites whose support he needed to maintain power.

As a Hungarian former politician wrote in 2016, “While the mafia state derails the bureaucratic administration, it organizes, monopolizes the channels of corruption and keeps them in order.”

Likewise in Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez had his cronies draw up a blacklist of civil servants to be purged for signing a petition in support of a referendum to determine whether Chávez should be recalled from office in 2004; government employees who signed were subsequently fired from their jobs.

Advertisement

More than a decade later, Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela’s current leader, would conduct his own purge of civil servants after they signed a petition to hold another recall referendum. After multiple rounds of government and military purges, Maduro was able to overturn an election he lost and jail his opponents, knowing full well the judges and generals would follow his orders.

Foster culture of secrecy and suspicion

Orban and Chavez, like Talon, were democratically elected but went on to undermine democracy.

In environments where loyalty to the leader is prioritized over all else, and purges can happen at a moment’s notice, few people are willing to speak up about abuses of power or stand in the way of a power grab.

Fostering a culture of secrecy and mutual suspicion among government officials is intentional and serves the leader’s interests.

As a World Bank report highlighted in 1983, in President Mobutu Sese Seko’s Zaire, now Democratic Republic of Congo, the bureaucracy had been “privatized by the ruling clique,” creating a climate in which “fear and repression … prevented any serious threat from dissenting groups.”

When leaders gain full power over the bureaucracy, they use it to reward and punish ordinary citizens as well. This was a tried-and-true tactic under the PRI’s rule in Mexico for much of the 20th century, where citizens who supported the PRI were more likely to receive government benefits.

In short, when aspiring autocrats come to power, career bureaucrats are a common target, often replaced by unqualified loyalists who would never be hired for the position based on merit. Recent events in the U.S., as unprecedented as they may seem, are precisely what we would expect with the return of Trump, a would-be autocrat, to power.

Erica Frantz, Associate Professor of Political Science, Michigan State University; Andrea Kendall-Taylor, Distinguished Practitioner in Grand Strategy, Jackson School of Public Affairs, Yale University, and Joe Wright, Professor of Political Science, Penn State

Advertisement

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.