It didn’t even take until Election Day for Donald Trump and his designated border czar, Tom Homan, former acting chief of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the president-elect's first administration, to try to redefine the planned mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. 

What Trump promised during his campaign would be the greatest deportation in U.S. history—comparing it to the Eisenhower-era workplace raids to reel in Mexican immigrants—was already being recast as a rational and controlled process. Lawbreaking undocumented immigrants will be the priority, the American public is told—but neither Trump nor Homan is clear on whether that means all people in the U.S. illegally, those who are charged or convicted of a felony or those who are guilty of driving with a broken tail light. 

The Wall Street Journal, in a Nov. 11 editorial board opinion, pointed to Trump’s admission during a pre-election interview that the issue of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants is “a complicated subject,” raising “human questions” about which “we have to have the heart, too.” Homan promised on CBS’ 60 Minutes that there won’t be “mass sweeps of neighborhoods” or “concentration camps.” The program will involve “targeted arrests” and “worksite enforcement operations,” he said.

What is clear is that the deportation plan is likely to end up as the Trump border wall program did: an effective media symbol aimed to discourage illegal border crossings rather than a fulfilled action that came anywhere close to its stated goals. Trump said that, in his first term, he created 500 miles of border wall, when the 500 miles actually includes mostly section repairs and secondary barriers. There was only about 50 miles of new construction—apparently enough to satisfy many Americans who want to stop what they think is the uncontrolled flow of migrants into the U.S. that Trump’s campaign pledge now targets.

How many of those undocumented are working in construction?

Start with the oft-repeated statistic that one out of four industry employees is a migrant. It’s likely, as some argue, that the ratio is closer to one out of three—or even higher for craft workers such as plasterers, painters or general laborers in high-immigrant states such as California, Texas and Florida. It's generally agreed that most are from Central and South America. 

But what proportion is undocumented? The pro-immigration American Immigration Council estimates that “nearly 14% of people employed in the construction industry are undocumented” and subject to removal, although the group does not clarify if the 14% refers to the proportion of craft workers only, or all industry employees.

Those statistics, it must be said, are almost always stated as applying to commercial and residential construction, including stick-built single family and multifamily housing—a separate sector not served by major open shop and union infrastructure, commercial and institutional contractors and their subcontractors. This latter group is what ENR covers.

This last idea is important because another concept that needs refining is that there is widely undisciplined hiring of undocumented migrants across the construction industry. Federal contractors and subs with qualifying contracts that have E-Verify clauses must confirm an employee’s legal eligibility to work in the U.S. 

E-Verify is mandatory for contractors on projects on which at least some of the work is done in the U.S., lasts 120 days or more and has a value exceeding $150,000.

Varying State E-Verify Laws

Beyond that, there is wide variety in state law about whether E-Verify must be used and when. Eight southern states require all or most employers to use it. Eleven states, including Texas and Pennsylvania, only require public employers and government contractors to do so. Many other states have no E-Verify use requirements. California enacted a law in 2013 that forbids the state or its cities and counties from requiring E-Verify use. 

Democrats deserve blame in this matter, for failing to take effective action soon enough to slow enough illegal border crossings during all the Biden administration years. That might have drained support for deportations.

With that perspective, we wonder how the decidedly anti-regulation Trump administration will carry out deportations without depleting a major supply of labor that undocumented immigrants represent? Border security, the emblem of Trump’s first term, is a far better option than deportation and the random cruelties that it entails. 

Find as many violent felons as you can, we say, and deport them. 

Future raids on workplaces, however, are bound to sweep up longtime U.S. residents who may be undocumented but also have a steady employment history, no connection to drug smuggling or violent crime, and families and deep roots in their communities. The threat of deportation will make these workers even more vulnerable to wage cheaters and unsafe working conditions than they already are. 

We understand that a majority of U.S. voters supported Trump this time and appear to agree with deportations. But that doesn’t make it any less of a bad idea, or mean that Americans will continue to support those actions once all the facts are clear and the consequences understood.