Migration as Crisis, Labor as Discipline

Photo via Foreign Affairs

***

In his second term, President Donald Trump has rapidly escalated immigration enforcement, implementing a series of executive orders that have significantly expanded the U.S. border regime. Among the most controversial measures is the repurposing of Guantanamo Bay as a detention site for undocumented migrants, a move that symbolically and materially reinforces the criminalization of migration. The passage of the Laken Riley Act, which mandates the detention of noncitizens accused of crimes, further embeds a system where immigration status is conflated with criminality. Simultaneously, asylum protections are being dismantled, deportation raids are intensifying, and local law enforcement is empowered to collaborate more closely with federal immigration authorities. These policies are not isolated developments but part of a broader trend in which migration is strategically governed to serve economic and political interests.

Borders are not merely territorial markers but mechanisms of control that regulate mobility, enforce social hierarchies, and sustain economic disparities. Often justified as instruments of national security, contemporary border regimes function as expansive systems of governance, extending far beyond physical boundaries. States reinforce and adapt their borders through fortifications, external enforcement agreements, and increasingly sophisticated surveillance infrastructures. The expansion of border walls, biometric tracking, and offshore detention centers illustrates how borders have evolved into dynamic instruments of power, shaping migration flows and labor markets in ways that benefit both state and corporate interests.

The political function of borders lies in their capacity to define and enforce categories of belonging. By criminalizing certain forms of movement, states create legal distinctions that determine who may enter, who must remain in questionable conditions, and who faces deportation. This process is not confined to the physical border; it extends through visa regimes, employer sanctions, and digital surveillance systems that monitor and police migrant populations. Borders also carry significant symbolic weight, often mobilized to reinforce nationalist ideologies and justify militarized enforcement. The rhetoric of “border security” constructs an image of migration as a threat, reinforcing public perceptions that legitimize exclusionary policies. Yet, these policies do not prevent migration; rather, they regulate it to serve economic and political interests.

This framework offers a critical context to examine labor mobility through the lens of human capital theory. This theoretical framework posits that individuals invest in their education and skills to enhance their economic value, with migration often serving as a strategic avenue to maximize returns on these investments. However, the current policy landscape presents significant challenges to this paradigm. In the initial days of his second term, President Trump enacted a series of executive orders aimed at overhauling the immigration system. The administration has suspended asylum claims at the southern border, increased deportation efforts, and revoked programs that previously offered legal pathways for migrants, such as the CBP One application and certain humanitarian parole initiatives. These actions collectively constrain avenues for legal migration and heighten the risks associated with unauthorized entry.

From a human capital perspective, these restrictive policies undermine the potential economic benefits that labor mobility can offer both migrants and host economies. By limiting legal entry and increasing the precarity of migrant status, the administration effectively devalues the investments individuals have made in their own human capital. This not only hampers the ability of migrants to contribute productively to the economy but also deprives the host nation of the diverse skills and talents essential for innovation and growth. Moreover, the deployment of militarized enforcement and the expansion of detention facilities serve as deterrents that discourage the movement of labor across borders. This approach neglects the economic principle that labor mobility is a critical component of a dynamic and responsive labor market. Restricting this mobility can lead to labor shortages in key industries, stifle economic dynamism, and perpetuate cycles of poverty and inequality both domestically and globally.

The characterization of migration as a crisis serves a dual function: it justifies the expansion of border enforcement while simultaneously reshaping labor markets to favor capital. The depiction of migrants as an overwhelming influx—whether through media narratives or political rhetoric—provides states with a pretext to escalate policing, surveillance, and detention measures. However, beyond its security framing, the manufactured sense of crisis plays a crucial role in structuring economic hierarchies by rendering migrant labor both indispensable and precarious.

The sudden arrival of large numbers of migrants is often framed as an economic burden, but in reality, it is systematically leveraged to discipline labor. By flooding low-wage labor markets with a vulnerable workforce, states and corporations create conditions in which wages are driven down not only for migrants but for all workers. Employers capitalize on the desperation of migrants who, due to their legal precarity, are often willing to work for substandard wages. This, in turn, weakens the bargaining power of local laborers, as the fear of replacement stifles demands for better working conditions and higher pay. Historically, the use of migrant labor to suppress wages has been a fundamental feature of capitalist economies. Whether through guest worker programs, temporary visas, or outright undocumented employment, migration is strategically governed to ensure that an underclass of workers remains readily exploitable. The criminalization of migration further compounds this dynamic, as undocumented workers, lacking legal protections, are forced into conditions of hyper-exploitation with little recourse against abuse.

Beyond wage suppression, migration crises are used to construct a labor force that is both necessary and disposable. By criminalizing migration and restricting pathways to legal status, states ensure that migrant workers exist in a constant state of legal limbo. Policies such as indefinite detention, mass deportations, and punitive labor laws reinforce the insecurity of migrant labor, making it nearly impossible for these workers to assert their rights. This dynamic is particularly evident in industries such as agriculture, construction, and domestic labor, where migrants form the backbone of the workforce while remaining subject to extreme exploitation. Employers benefit from this legal precarity, as it allows them to circumvent labor protections, avoid unionization efforts, and maximize profit margins. 

Meanwhile, the constant threat of deportation serves as a disciplinary tool, preventing migrant workers from organizing or resisting exploitative conditions. By framing migration as a crisis, states not only expand their policing powers but also facilitate the creation of a segmented labor market in which migrants are confined to the most precarious and underpaid forms of work. This manufactured division between migrant and citizen laborers fractures class solidarity, redirecting economic anxieties away from structural exploitation and toward xenophobic scapegoating. In this way, migration crises function as a critical mechanism for labor discipline, reinforcing corporate power while keeping both migrant and citizen workers in a state of economic vulnerability.

The criminalization of migrant workers, the artificial restriction of labor mobility, and the expansion of border enforcement all serve a singular purpose: to sustain a system in which capital moves freely while labor remains shackled by legal precarity and political exclusion. But this contradiction is not immutable. If migration is weaponized to discipline labor, then labor must recognize migration as central to its liberation. The fragmentation of workers along national, racial, and legal lines has been a key strategy in suppressing collective resistance. A true challenge to capital’s domination requires rejecting these divisions and recognizing that the right to mobility is, fundamentally, a labor right. Just as anti-monopoly frameworks seek to dismantle corporate control over markets, an anti-border movement must emerge to break the monopolization of labor mobility by states and capital. To reclaim the future, we must reject the logic that some people are more entitled to movement, security, and dignity than others. The conditions of migration crises today are not accidents; they are the result of deliberate policies that serve capital at the expense of workers. But just as these systems were built, they can be dismantled. The struggle against borders is a struggle against the structures that render labor precarious, sustain artificial scarcity, and uphold exploitation. In the end, the path forward is not to reform the border but to render it obsolete.

***

This article was edited by Brianna Budhram and Michael Adcock.