Immigration Enforcement: Native Employment Impacts and the Complementarity Trap

Immigration Enforcement: Native Employment Impacts and the Complementarity Trap

A central argument for immigration enforcement and lower immigration levels is that reducing the supply of foreign-born workers will draw inactive native-born workers back into the labor force and increase their wages. A primary empirical assessment of this transition in the United States is provided by Steven A. Camarota and Jason Richwine in their American Affairs study, "The Employment Effects of Immigration Enforcement: An Initial Assessment" (May 2026).

The Demographic Whiplash of 2025–2026

Camarota and Richwine document unprecedented demographic volatility in the mid-2020s. Under the Biden administration, the immigrant population (both legal and unauthorized) rose sharply from 45.0 million in January 2021 to a peak of 53.3 million in January 2025, representing a record 15.8% of the total U.S. population. Net international migration reached 2.8 million in 2024 alone—more than double any annual figure in prior U.S. history.

Following the inauguration of the Trump administration in January 2025, heightened border enforcement, increased deportations, and a decline in legal entries caused the immigrant population to decline. The authors characterize this sudden reversal as a major natural experiment for the domestic workforce:

"The sudden decline represents an opportunity for U.S. workers, who now face less competition from immigrant labor... Based on our view of the data, the theorized benefits of reduced immigration, such as drawing more low-skill natives back into the labor force, may be beginning to emerge."

Initial Employment Effects

Analyzing the initial labor market response, Camarota and Richwine report that the reduction in immigrant labor competition corresponds with a rise in native employment:

• Native Employment Gains: Comparing January 2025 to February 2026, the number of employed native-born workers rose by 412,000.
• Labor Force Re-entry: The share of prime-age, native-born workers (particularly those without a college degree) participating in the labor force began to tick upward, reversing a multi-decade decline in work rates among low-skilled Americans.

However, the authors caution that these gains may be limited or temporary unless enforcement and low-immigration policies are sustained over the long term:

"But in order to fully realize these gains, a sustained policy of low immigration will be necessary over the long term."

Reconciling Enforcement Gains with the "Complementarity Trap"

The findings of Camarota and Richwine (2026) present a sharp contrast with other recent empirical studies, highlighting a core debate in labor economics:

1. The Substitution Hypothesis: Proponents of restrictionism argue that low-skilled immigrants directly substitute for native-born workers. Under this view, removing immigrants creates a labor vacuum that is filled by native workers, raising their employment and wages.
2. The Complementarity and Capital Trap: In contrast, studies of past enforcement actions (such as the sudden termination of the Bracero program or local workplace raids) suggest that firms often respond to labor shortages not by hiring native workers, but by automating, reducing production, or shifting capital away¹ Low-Skilled Immigration: Complementarity, Technology Adoption, and Output Mix Adjustments.

Furthermore, as documented by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Unauthorized Immigration and Local Labor and Housing Markets: Post-Pandemic Evidence, the post-2024 slowdown in unauthorized immigration has had a disproportionately negative impact on construction and manufacturing employment growth. This suggests that while some low-skilled native workers may be drawn back into the labor force, the aggregate reduction in labor supply can act as a structural drag on key productive sectors, potentially limiting the overall economic benefits of enforcement.