The repression of migrants in the United States is a matter that is, justifiably, of grave concern to many both within and beyond America’s borders. Newspapers, televised bulletins, and polemics, from across the globe converge to condemn the cruel deportations of migrants both “legal” and “illegal,” as well as proposed actions against US citizens. Yet among all this media buzz lies a distinct lack of analysis into the motives behind these actions. Usually, those critical of the repression simply say it’s a matter of racism, anti-immigrant sentiment, or bias against people from certain states. This is not a satisfactory conclusion. As Marxists, we understand the idealist origins of these concepts; we are aware that race and nationality are constructs of capitalism, and that they are ideals procured from the material conditions capitalism facilitates, not their origin. Thus, any politically educated Marxist will find themself unbewitched by these mystifications of the matter. These explanations thus require rectification. If one is to earnestly understand the American bourgeoisie’s current stance against immigration, one must inquire into its class motives.
Before we begin, I shall surmise the three predominant objectives of the American bourgeoisie’s recent actions against migrants. First is the need to control the vast, over-exploited ranks of the migrant proletariat. Second is the desire to extend this control to the rest of the American proletariat. Third and finally is the essential and ever-present liquidation of the petite-bourgeoisie and centralisation of capital. With the key points settled, let us begin.
Few segments of the migrant population have been as ravaged by these actions as the organised workers. Indeed, it seems that every week brings news of another labour leader’s arrest. David Huerta, Alfredo Juarez Zeferino, Maximo Londonio, and many more have been snatched away from their organisations, held in custody, and some even removed from the country1. This is no coincidence. Migrant labourers are among the most exploited in all the United States, as their illegal status leaves them vulnerable to the most brutal forms of exploitation. Pittance wages, harsh working hours, dangerous workplaces, trafficking, and a dozen other cruelties are unleashed upon this populace. All the while, individual workers have little recourse to their exploitation. They are not residents or citizens, and thus do not possess any sort of work rights. They, in the eyes of the state, are not in the country, and thus are not subject to its regulations. Any attempt to litigate these transgressions would serve to ‘blow their cover,’ surely leading to their arrest and deportation. Thus, the only effective means to combat these conditions is collective action. Inversely, as trade unionism is the only real option migrants have when fighting for improved conditions, migrants within trade unions are the most ‘troublesome’ to managers and owners, who are used to facing no resistance whatsoever.
It is thus imperative for the bourgeoisie presiding over armies of migrant labour to ensure these ‘troublesome’ elements are disenfranchised or purged. For the former, it is quite easy to turn trade unions against migrant labourers. Their miserable poverty forces them to work for subsistence wages, wages which often fall far below those that American-born workers expect. They are thus more attractive for employers who find utility in their low wage expectations and ease of exploitability. This economic reality, lubricated by ideals such as racism, nationalism, and anti-immigrant sentiment, constructs quite the convincing argument for trade unions to oppose migrant workers. After all, the principle duty of a trade union is to advocate for the interests of its membership, to represent its constituents when negotiating with employers and regulators, and to ensure labour power is being bought at market price under the conditions agreed on by all involved parties. They are not, as some may argue, intrinsically proletarian organisations. Some may serve in tandem with the broader proletarian movement, but trade unionism itself is not a proletarian form of organisation. Hence the enthusiasm of the United Farm Workers (UFW) in reporting undocumented immigrants throughout the 1970s and the AFL-CIO’s back-and-forth stance on migrant labour2.
However, simply turning trade unions against migrants is not enough. The reasoning for this is twofold: First, and most obviously, because migrants will simply form their own unions, be they open or clandestine. Second, because whilst the opposition to migrant labour within American trade unions is still strong, it is notably more contested now than it was in the 20th century. Both the UFW and AFL-CIO have, on occasion, taken stances that favour the induction of migrant labourers and support such members3. Additionally, new unions specifically serving migrant labourers have sprung up all across the country4. Disenfranchisement is therefore losing its efficacy as trade unions take a softer stance on the question of migrants, but the issue of keeping these workers in-line remains. What is the solution to this dilemma? To double down the state’s efforts against them. By detaining and deporting migrant workers, the state is able to cow remaining undocumented immigrants into line. The most organised workers are directly removed, and those that may have considered joining their cause are frightened into submission. In doing so, all migrant workers can be assured that action against their employer will result in deportation, and will thus choose to accept their loathsome lot. The brutal exploitation of these labourers is then allowed to continue unchallenged.
One will note that not every element of this theory appears apparent in the Trump administration’s current activities. For one, a great number of non-organised migrants have also been deported, which seems incongruent with the aforementioned aims of ‘beheading’ the migrants’ unions whilst preserving the workforce. For another, actions have also been taken against documented immigrants, and it’s been alleged that they may one day extend to American citizens. Does this disprove the prior notion? No. Whilst the organised segments of the migrant population are certainly among the most targeted, the broader deportation scheme is not solely an effort to crush the trade unions of undocumented immigrants. There are two further objectives at play: cowing the rest of the American working class into cooperation, and to continue the haute-bourgeoisie’s endless endeavour to liquidate the petite-bourgeoisie.
As explained above, the nationwide crackdown on organised migrant labour serves a twofold purpose: to directly remove unionised workers from the country, and to terrify the remaining workers into cooperating. Terror is an intentional consequence of the deportations, and both objectives needn’t be limited to undocumented immigrants. So long as there is dubiousness, or at least, a facade of dubiousness, the American state can easily justify deportations against documented migrants. Such is precisely what occurred in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, as well as others5. By exploiting uncertain circumstances, such as Garcia’s initial illegal immigration being retroactively tolerated by the American state, it is much easier to justify a broad effort against immigrant workers. This then serves the same ends as persecuting undocumented immigrants: behead their unions and terrify the rest into line.
The threat of deportation hangs in the air even for American citizens, and this too is tactical. From Trump’s vow to deport ‘homegrown criminals’ to El Salvador’s CECOT prison, to specific circumstances which have resulted in US citizens being deported, a broadened deportation of citizens is clearly on the table6. Such deportations, as far as is publicly aware, do not appear to be taking place in any widespread, coordinated, manner as of yet, though regardless of whether or not it actually becomes policy, the threat of it holds utility. If these plans are made real, it’s a simple extension of the terror currently cowing immigrant workers. If they are nothing but bluster, then they only serve as the latter element of this model: to frighten workers away from organising. Amid the recent surge of unionisation efforts and strike actions taking place in American workplaces, even if these efforts are largely economist, not proletarian, in nature, the American bourgeoisie is increasingly burdened by organised labour. The ability to directly decapitate such organisations, or at least intimidate them, helps stop these movements before they become truly threatening to their profits.
One can therefore quite clearly see the logic in the minds of most American bourgeois when choosing to pursue this recent program of mass deportations. These crackdowns crush fledgling workers’ organisations by removing their leadership. In doing so, not only are the experiences and capabilities of these leaders lost, but so too are the hearts of these movements. Then, left directionless without these seasoned leaders, the workers’ organisations fall apart. All the while, the terror of these crackdowns drives others away from organising, away from fighting for either an improvement of their conditions or any broader proletarian program. These tactics can then be rinsed and repeated against documented migrants and citizens, accomplishing the same ends through the same means. It is thus nothing particularly shocking to see, and it certainly isn’t anything ‘unprecedented,’ as the liberal press will have one believe. Rather, this is a continuation of the bourgeoisie’s efforts to crush trade unionism before it can interrupt or threaten their operations. The times may change, but the underlying class motives remain the same.
What is less unanimous among the bourgeoisie is the final plank of this recent scheme: the liquidation of the petite-bourgeoisie. How is this so, and what are its implications? Quite simply, whilst these mass-deportations will harm the labour force of all businesses relying on migrant labour, this harm will not be evenly distributed. Large enterprises will be able to survive, replacing these workers with other migrants, or with documented immigrants or citizens. Meanwhile, small enterprises, whose pockets are much shallower and whose workforce is much smaller, will suffer more for each deported worker, and will have less funds to burn through as they replace them. Such businesses will thus face closure or consolidation into conglomerates as they’re forced to shut down or sell out to a larger firm. In either case, this will be immensely profitable to the haute-bourgeoisie. Failing small business owners, seeing the writing on the wall, will eagerly sell their enterprises to large corporations to recoup their losses. Meanwhile, large conglomerates will be able to acquire land, real estate, and other material assets from these companies at a massive discount. This will result in the proletarianisation of petite-bourgeois whom are hit particularly hard by these labour shortages, whilst also centralising their holdings into the hands of an ever-shrinking group of capitalists. Moreover, other petite-bourgeois will turn inward as they cope with the labour shortage, surrendering local markets to larger companies, and thus, further bolstering the latter’s wealth and centrality. All the while, the small proprietors are strung along this path by the practical utility of deportations, as explained previously. Like the village who was swindled by the Pied Piper, the petite-bourgeoisie is enchanted by short-term success as it’s led off a cliff.
There are two clarifications to be made on this point. First, this final plank is decisively historically progressive. The liquidation of small firms and the proletarianisation of their owners was studied by Marx in ‘Wage Labour and Capital,’ who found it to expand the workforce7. In doing so, this expanded army of labour is utilised by larger capitalists, and this in turn accelerates the development of capitalism and brings it closer its demise. These arguments have been echoed by subsequent Marxists, such as Rosa Luxemburg in ‘The National Question,’ who connected Marx’s aforementioned theory of market centralisation with both ‘national liberation’ struggles and the political-economic centralisation of states8. All of this, the centralised ownership of the means of production, a large, multinational state, and a highly centralised political system, was what she argued lent itself best to proletarian revolution, and would be necessary for a successful, internationalist, workers’ state. This understanding is also corroborated by the works of Lenin, whose ‘Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism’ argues the centralisation of industries and states is a prerequisite for imperialism- the most developed form of capitalism9. Whilst the United States has certainly already arrived at the imperialist stage of capitalist development, the further centralisation of its internal market will only accelerate the political-economic centralisation that Marx and Luxemburg deemed progressive. Thus, the proletarianisation of the petite-bourgeoisie and the consolidation of firms into large conglomerates is, irrespective of which theorist one wishes to use, historically progressive. It is not only a refinement of capitalism, but a necessary step toward its final conclusion.
The second clarification is much simpler. Whilst the benefits of crushing organised labour, be it immigrant or ‘homegrown,’ is readily apparent in the minds of the American bourgeoisie, the ambition of liquidating the petite-bourgeoisie is likely not so unanimous. Small business people are either ignorant to these effects, believe they won’t be affected by them, or are actively critical of these policies. Likewise, many within the Trump administration, particularly those of lesser economic literacy, are likely also oblivious to this economic motive. It is unlikely that Donald Trump sat at the Resolute Desk in January and said “right, let’s liquidate the petite bourgeoisie!” Rather, this is shared calculus that both the petite and haute bourgeoisie have made. To be sure, there are surely some who are aware of the effect this will have on small proprietors, of the boons that shall come from these ex-capitalists, but this cynical, opportunistic viewpoint is almost certainly not unanimous among either the American bourgeoisie or the Trump administration.
Is this understanding not more productive? Rather than rendering the issue of America’s deportations a mythical, innate evil that is far too esoteric to understand, us Marxists are able to cut through the layers of sloganeering and arrive at the heart of the issue. Bigotry, though it may be the face of the matter to both supporters and opponents of the deportations, are but the oil that greases the machine of capital. What the bourgeoisie is doing is nothing but another move to crush organised labour, the wild game of whack-a-mole it has played since the 19th century. It is nothing but an effort to root out the most troublesome elements of a highly-exploited workforce, and a move to extend this control to the rest of the American working class. In doing so, it shall certainly catch many ‘innocents’ in the crossfire, both proletarian and petite-bourgeois, and these circumstantial casualties too shall serve a purpose. For the unorganised workers, their deportations shall unleash a productive terror on the proletariat. For the small proprietors, their liquidation will be historically progressive, enriching the haute-bourgeoisie in the short term and paving the way for capitalism’s fall in the long term. Nothing about this is magical or mythical, nothing about it is odd or unprecedented. These are the ends the bourgeois state has always pursued, and the means have merely adapted to the conditions of modernity.
References
- Mejia, Brittny. 2025. “Union Leader Faces Federal Charge of Conspiracy to Impede an Officer.” Los Angeles Times. June 9, 2025. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-06-09/union-leader-federal-charge.,
Leal, Nicholas Dale. 2025. “Farmworker Activist Alfredo Juárez Zeferino’s ICE Ordeal: An Express Arrest and Three Months in Limbo.” EL PAÍS English. July 10, 2025. https://english.elpais.com/usa/2025-07-10/farmworker-activist-alfredo-juarez-zeferinos-ice-ordeal-an-express-arrest-and-three-months-in-limbo.html.,
Yoon-Hendricks, Alexandra. 2025. “Green Card Holder Returning to U.S. Held at Sea-Tac Airport for 4 Days.” The Seattle Times. May 20, 2025. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/another-filipino-green-card-holder-returning-to-wa-detained-at-sea-tac/. ↩︎ - Gutiérrez, David G. 2007. Walls and Mirrors : Mexican Americans, Mexican Immigrants, and the Politics of Ethnicity. Berkeley: Univ. Of Calif. Press.,
Wells, Miriam J. 1996. Strawberry Fields : Politics, Class, and Work in California Agriculture. Cornell University Press. ↩︎ - Ibid,
Graauw, Els de, and Shannon Gleeson. 2020. “Labor Unions and Undocumented Immigrants: Local Perspectives on Transversal Solidarity during DACA and DAPA.” Critical Sociology 47 (6): 941–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920520980123. ↩︎ - Ibid. ↩︎
- Finley, Ben. 2025. “What to Know about Kilmar Abrego Garcia.” AP News. June 24, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/kilmar-abrego-garcia-smuggling-deportation-release-523fdb48ead56dde2a3c2c4b28fef6d9.
Refugee Congress. 2025. “Unlawful Detentions and Forced Removals without Due Process Violate Rights, Endanger Refugees and U.S. Citizens.” Refugee Congress. March 20, 2025. https://refugeecongress.org/news-updates/unlawful-detentions-and-forced-removals-without-due-process-violate-rights-endanger-refugees-and-us-citizens. ↩︎ - Acevedo, Nicole. 2025. “U.S. Citizen Child Recovering from Brain Cancer Deported to Mexico with Undocumented Parents.” NBC News. March 12, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/us-citizen-child-recovering-brain-cancer-deported-mexico-undocumented-rcna196049.
Dakin Andone. 2025. “3 Children Who Are US Citizens — Including One with Cancer — Deported with Their Mothers, Lawyers and Advocacy Groups Say.” CNN. April 27, 2025. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/27/us/children-us-citizens-deported-honduras/index.html.
Chappell, Bill. 2025. “Would It Be Legal for Trump to Send U.S. Citizens to El Salvador’s Jails?” NPR. February 5, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/05/nx-s1-5287670/trump-el-salvador-americans-prison.
Gamboa, Suzanne, Carmen Sesin, and Julia Ainsley. 2025. “Attorneys Dispute Trump Officials’ Claim That Deported Moms Willingly Took Their U.S. Citizen Children.” NBC News. April 29, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/deported-moms-citizen-children-cancer-trump-officials-rcna203398.
Linton, Caroline. 2025. “Trump Says He Would ‘Love To’ Send American ‘Homegrown Criminals’ to Foreign Prisons.” Cbsnews.com. CBS News. April 15, 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-homegrown-criminals-foreign-prisons-cecot/. ↩︎ - Marx, Karl. 2019. “Wage Labour and Capital. Chapter 9.” Marxists.org. 2019. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch09.htm. ↩︎
- Luxemburg, Rosa. 2025. “Rosa Luxemburg: The National Question (Chapter 3).” Marxists.org. 2025. https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/ch03.htm. ↩︎
- Lenin, Vladimir. 1917. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. London: Penguin. ↩︎
