The national conversation surrounding immigration intensified following a statement attributed to Hunter Biden, suggesting that “illegal immigration fills jobs Americans won’t do.” This remark, reportedly made during an interview with journalist and YouTuber Andrew Callaghan, sparked immediate controversy. While the precise verbatim quote is widely circulated, the available information confirms the interview and the contentious nature of his comments on immigration, which were characterized as an “explosive rant” against former President Trump’s immigration policies, employing “harsh language” that generated significant public and political backlash.
The White House swiftly distanced itself from Hunter Biden’s statements. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson reportedly “hit back hard,” specifically referencing “violent crime by illegal immigrants” in her response. This rapid political disavowal underscores the profound sensitivity and highly charged nature of the ongoing immigration debate in the United States, where discussions often intersect with economic realities, national security concerns, and humanitarian considerations. The public discourse surrounding such statements frequently focuses on their implications for labor markets and border policy, prompting a closer examination of these complex issues.
II. The “Jobs Americans Won’t Do” Argument: Economic Realities and Labor Market Dynamics
The assertion that immigrants fill jobs Americans “won’t do” resonates with the observable labor dynamics in several U.S. industries. Empirical evidence points to significant labor shortages in sectors heavily reliant on immigrant workers. For instance, the agricultural sector faces projected deepening labor shortfalls following the Trump administration’s termination of work permits for over 530,000 immigrants, a policy change that was upheld by the Supreme Court. This policy shift, which ended humanitarian parole programs initiated under the Biden administration, transformed hundreds of thousands of legally working individuals into undocumented status, directly impacting the labor supply in critical industries like farming and meatpacking.
Similarly, California’s construction industry has reported substantial labor shortfalls. General contractors indicate a marked reduction in available workers, with many “hiding” due to fears of increased Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, despite the industry’s reliance on highly skilled undocumented labor. These shortages have translated directly into longer construction delays and increased costs for consumers, as the fewer available workers demand significantly higher wages, sometimes double the hourly rate. This direct link between immigration policy, labor availability, and consumer prices illustrates how abrupt policy shifts can create immediate, tangible disruptions in industries dependent on immigrant labor, lending practical weight to the “jobs Americans won’t do” argument within these specific sectors.
Beyond sector-specific needs, a substantial body of economic research indicates that immigration, on balance, contributes positively to the U.S. economy. Immigrants bolster overall economic growth by expanding the labor force and increasing consumer spending. They also exhibit higher rates of entrepreneurship, playing a significant role in new business formation; notably, immigrants have been involved in the development of 30% of patents in strategic industries, and over 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the increased level of immigration expected between 2024 and 2034 could boost the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $8.9 trillion.
Immigration has been the primary driver of U.S. labor force growth over the past two decades. Between 2000 and 2022, the foreign-born population accounted for nearly three-quarters of all growth in the civilian, prime-age (25-54) labor force. As the U.S. population ages and a growing number of U.S.-born residents enter retirement, immigration is projected to become increasingly crucial for sustaining labor force growth.
While some policymakers suggest immigration depresses U.S. wages, most academic research finds little long-run effect on Americans’ overall wages. Economic theory suggests that when immigration increases the labor supply, firms tend to increase investment to offset any reduction in capital per worker, thereby preventing average wages from falling over the long term. Immigrants are often imperfect substitutes for native-born workers, meaning they frequently fill different roles or complement existing labor rather than directly competing for the same jobs. Studies have even found a small but positive effect on the average wages of native workers over recent decades. However, the most direct competition and potential, albeit small, wage declines (typically a few percentage points) are generally observed among less-educated workers, including earlier immigrants.
The economic contributions of immigrants are summarized in Table 1:
Table 1: Economic Contributions of Immigrants
| Contribution Area | Data Point |
| Projected GDP Boost (2024-2034) | $8.9 trillion |
| Patents in Strategic Industries | 30% developed by immigrants |
| Fortune 500 Companies Founded | Over 40% by immigrants |
| Prime-Age Labor Force Growth (2000-2022) | Nearly 75% accounted for by foreign-born |
| Average Native Wages | Little long-run effect; small positive effect observed |
| Less-Educated Native/Earlier Immigrant Wages | Small declines (few percentage points) in some studies |
III. The Border Crisis: Competing Narratives on its Origins and Drivers
The question of whether the “Biden team is driving the crisis” at the border is met with two fundamentally opposing narratives, each supported by distinct interpretations of policy and data.
A. Accusations Against the Biden Administration
Critics assert that President Biden’s policies have actively undermined border security and the integrity of the U.S. immigration system. Key actions cited include halting construction of the Mexico–United States border wall , attempting a 100-day halt on deportations (though blocked by courts) , suspending new enrollments in Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP, or “Remain in Mexico”) , and terminating Asylum Cooperative Agreements (ACAs) with Central American countries. The administration’s proposed FY2023 budget, which suggested cuts to border security funding, also drew criticism.
The Biden administration’s decision to end Title 42, a public health authority used for rapid migrant expulsions, was a major point of contention. Critics warned it would lead to a significant surge, with internal warnings of up to 1 million immigrants potentially crossing the Southern Border within six weeks. Furthermore, granting USCIS officials authority to grant asylum claims without prior immigration court review is claimed to increase the granting of “frivolous claims”. Initial guidelines for ICE agents, which prioritized violent crimes and de-prioritized less serious offenses, reportedly led to “record-low immigration enforcement” in FY2021, with significant drops in arrests and deportations of convicted criminals compared to FY2020.
Critics contend that the administration’s policies have fostered “open borders” through “mass-parole schemes” and “catch-and-release” policies. Programs like the CBP One app, which has facilitated over 852,000 appointments since January 2023, and the Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan (CHNV) parole program, which saw over 530,000 arrivals, are highlighted. Concerns have been raised about vetting procedures and widespread fraud within these programs, with the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) noting that TSA cannot ensure its vetting prevents high-risk noncitizens from boarding domestic flights through CBP One. The pausing of the CHNV program due to widespread fraud further validates these concerns, indicating that even policies designed to create orderly pathways can have significant vulnerabilities or unintended consequences, contributing to the perception of a “crisis.”
Statistical data is presented by critics as direct evidence of a crisis. Since the start of Fiscal Year (FY) 2021, CBP has recorded over 10.8 million encounters nationwide, including 8.72 million at the Southwest border, a substantial increase compared to approximately 3 million from FY2017-2020. “Known gotaways” (undetected illegal crossings) since FY2021 are estimated at 2 million, roughly four times the number recorded in the preceding four fiscal years. Encounters at the northern border also surged by over 600% in FY2024 compared to FY2021.
Critics link the border situation to a growing national security crisis and threats to American safety. They cite over 390 apprehensions of individuals on the terrorist watchlist attempting to cross between ports of entry since FY2021 (a 3000% increase compared to FY2017-2020) and a significant rise (over 1000%) in Chinese nationals apprehended, including those with ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army. Increased fentanyl seizures (9,055 pounds seized between ports of entry by Border Patrol since FY2021, compared to 1,604 pounds from FY2017-FY2020) are also attributed to weak border enforcement. As of July 2024, nearly 650,000 criminal illegal aliens were reportedly on ICE’s Non-Detained Docket. These figures are presented as direct consequences of policies that critics argue have weakened border control.
B. Alternative Perspectives and Contributing Factors
An alternative perspective challenges the narrative that President Biden solely caused the crisis, arguing that the border surge actually began before Biden took office and largely subsided before he left. This view contends that Biden, from his first day, actually increased border enforcement, including arrests, detentions, and removals.
A primary driver identified by this perspective is the “unprecedented labor demand” in the U.S. economy, which incentivized migration. From February 2021 to August 2024, there were more open jobs each month than in any month before Biden’s term, and as labor demand cooled in 2024, immigration fell. This strong labor market, coupled with slower economic recoveries in other parts of the world, made the U.S. a powerful draw for migrants. Unprecedented access to the internet and social media, which nearly doubled in Central America from 2018-2021, is also cited as a factor, providing migrants with information and connections to smugglers, thereby facilitating migration from around the world.
Paradoxically, Title 42, a Trump-era expulsion policy, is argued to have incentivized repeat crossings by returning migrants to Mexico without legal consequence, allowing them to immediately attempt re-entry. It also cut off access to asylum, pushing more people to attempt illegal evasions. Biden’s eventual increase in legal entries for groups previously restricted by Title 42 (like Haitians, Cubans, and Venezuelans) is seen by some as contributing to the crisis’s end by providing alternative, safer pathways. This perspective suggests that releases of migrants into the U.S. occurred not because Biden intentionally cut removals, but because the sheer volume of migration grew faster than the administration could increase removals, making it logistically complicated to remove certain demographic groups like families and children back to Mexico.
The differing interpretations of the same quantitative phenomena, such as high border encounter numbers, highlight the complexity of attributing causality. While critics point to these numbers as direct evidence of Biden’s failed policies, others argue they reflect underlying economic pulls and the perverse incentives of previous policies, rather than solely an “open border” agenda.
Table 2: U.S. Border Encounters and “Gotaways” (FY2017-FY2024)
| Category | FY2017-FY2020 Total | FY2021-FY2024 Total | Percentage Change (Approx.) |
| Nationwide Encounters | ~3 million | >10.8 million | +260% |
| Southwest Border Encounters | ~2.37 million | >8.72 million | +268% |
| Known “Gotaways” | ~521,247 | ~2 million | +284% |
| Northern Border Encounters (FY2024 vs. FY2021) | N/A | >600% increase | +600% |
| Terrorist Watchlist Apprehensions | N/A | >390 since FY2021 | +3000% |
| Chinese National Apprehensions | N/A | >1000% increase since FY2021 | +1000% |
| Fentanyl Seized (between ports of entry) | 1,604 pounds | 9,055 pounds since FY2021 | +464% |
IV. Policy Shifts and Their Consequences: A Comparative Look
The Biden administration’s approach to immigration marked a significant departure from its predecessor, characterized by a series of policy reversals and the introduction of new programs aimed at a more orderly and humanitarian migration system. Upon entering office, President Biden immediately halted construction of the border wall, ended the Trump travel ban, and rescinded the controversial family separation policy. He also terminated the national emergency declared for the border wall and directed the redirection of funds.
The administration reaffirmed protections for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients and urged Congress for permanent protections. Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) for Liberians was also reinstated. A significant focus was placed on restoring the U.S. asylum system, including an executive order for a comprehensive plan for safe, lawful, and orderly migration across the southern border and a review of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program. The administration actively encouraged legal pathways, expanding access to the CBP One mobile application for scheduling asylum appointments, which facilitated 813,000 entries between January 2023 and August 2024, and opening regional processing centers in Latin America. The Biden administration extensively utilized parole, including humanitarian parole for detained migrants and targeted programs for specific nationalities. For instance, a program allowed up to 30,000 migrants per month from Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, or Haiti to legally fly to the U.S.. However, this CHNV program was terminated in August 2024 due to widespread fraud concerns after approximately 520,000 migrants had utilized it.
The administration’s enforcement strategy has also evolved. While initial ICE guidelines in early 2021 prioritized enforcement actions against violent criminals and de-prioritized less serious offenses , leading to criticism of reduced overall enforcement , later data showed a surge in deportations, reaching a 10-year high in FY2024. Furthermore, a June 2024 executive order aimed to shut down the border if illegal crossings reached an average of 2,500 migrants a day in a given week, which subsequently led to a drop in migrant encounters to 2020 levels. This dynamic approach to enforcement, shifting from initial prioritization to later increases in removals, complicates a simple “open borders” narrative.
The impact of Trump-era policies and their subsequent reversal or reinstatement also plays a critical role. The Biden administration initially suspended new enrollments in MPP and actively fought to end the program at the Supreme Court , though it was later reinstated under court order. Critics argue that the reversal of MPP “chipped away at the progress made securing the border”. While Title 42 was a Trump-era public health measure, Biden’s administration did invoke it for Venezuelan migrants in October 2022 , and its eventual termination was a significant point of concern for potential border surges. However, some argue that Title 42 itself paradoxically incentivized repeat crossings due to its nature of immediate expulsion without legal consequence.
The U.S. Department of Labor’s stance further illustrates the shifting administrative priorities. It announced new guidance to prevent illegal immigrants from utilizing taxpayer-funded workforce development resources and grants. This action was explicitly taken to carry out President Trump’s executive order 14218, “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders,” and replaced previous Biden Administration guidance that was perceived to incentivize illegal immigration. The new guidance aims to ensure taxpayer-funded workforce resources remain focused on strengthening the American workforce. This highlights how policy changes at the federal level can impact access to resources for immigrants, reflecting a broader shift in administrative approach and priorities.
V. Conclusion: A Multifaceted Challenge
The immigration debate, as illuminated by Hunter Biden’s controversial statement and the subsequent discussion of the border crisis, is a deeply multifaceted challenge shaped by political rhetoric, economic realities, and evolving government policies. Hunter Biden’s claim about “jobs Americans won’t do” touches upon a genuine economic dynamic where certain U.S. industries, such as agriculture and construction, demonstrably rely heavily on immigrant labor. Disruptions to this labor supply, often caused by shifts in immigration enforcement or policy, can lead to tangible economic costs for businesses and consumers, affecting everything from food prices to housing construction timelines.
The question of whether the “Biden team is driving the crisis” is subject to competing interpretations. While critics point to significant increases in border encounters, “gotaways,” and national security concerns under Biden’s tenure, attributing these to policy reversals and new programs, alternative analyses suggest the surge largely predated his administration. These alternative views emphasize the influence of broader factors such as robust U.S. labor market demand, increased access to information for migrants, and even the perverse incentives created by previous policies like Title 42.
The “full story” demands an understanding of the Biden administration’s shift towards legal pathways and humanitarian approaches, alongside the challenges and criticisms these policies have faced, including issues with vetting and fraud in parole programs. It also requires acknowledging the dynamic nature of enforcement strategies, which have evolved from an initial prioritization of serious crimes to later surges in overall deportations. Ultimately, the overall picture of U.S. immigration is one of complex, interconnected factors, rather than a single cause or simple solution, requiring a comprehensive and balanced perspective to grasp its full scope.