The surge in illegal immigration during the Biden administration has added pressure to an already strained housing market while creating additional costs for American taxpayers and workers, according to Brian Lonergan of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
Lonergan, FAIR’s director of strategic communications and content and co-host of the No Border, No Country podcast, joined Chicago’s Morning Answer with Jeanne Ives and Jim Iuorio, who were filling in for Dan Proft, to discuss the economic consequences of illegal immigration and the debate over immigration enforcement.
The conversation began with a Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas working paper examining the impact of unauthorized immigration on U.S. labor and housing markets. The hosts cited the paper’s finding that the large increase in unauthorized immigration between early 2021 and early 2024 added roughly 7 million people to the U.S. population, nearly twice the increase attributed to legal immigration during that period.
The working paper estimated that unauthorized immigration accounted for approximately 30% of employment growth between March 2021 and March 2024. It also estimated that the increase was responsible for roughly 30% of the growth in home prices and 20% of the growth in rents during the period.
Lonergan said the effect on housing is fundamentally a matter of supply and demand. When millions of additional people enter the country and need places to live, he argued, they become additional competitors for housing, putting upward pressure on prices and rents.
Ives and Iuorio noted that the housing shortage has been compounded by restrictions on new construction in many parts of the country. In their view, increased demand from immigration has occurred at the same time that regulations and other policies have constrained housing supply.
Lonergan also argued that the economic effects extend beyond housing. He said the costs associated with illegal immigration can affect schools, public services and the labor market, while contending that Americans are ultimately left to absorb many of those costs.
The discussion included the relationship between immigration and the welfare state. Iuorio cited economist Milton Friedman’s argument that a country cannot simultaneously maintain open immigration and an expansive welfare state without creating significant tensions.
Lonergan agreed that reducing access to government benefits and other incentives could make illegal immigration less attractive. He said the Trump administration has recently explored measures intended to prevent illegal immigrants from accessing financial services, arguing that employment opportunities and the ability to establish financial lives in the United States are among the incentives drawing people to the country.
The labor market was another focus of the interview. Lonergan argued that a large supply of workers willing to accept lower wages can put pressure on American workers, particularly those competing for lower-skilled jobs. He also said businesses benefit from access to a larger labor pool, creating what he characterized as an alliance between corporate interests seeking cheaper labor and political interests supporting more permissive immigration policies.
The hosts also questioned whether public attitudes toward immigration are changing after years of intense political debate. Lonergan said he sees what he described as contradictions in the political arguments surrounding immigration, particularly when politicians criticize wealthy Americans while simultaneously supporting policies that he believes benefit businesses seeking lower-cost labor.
The interview then turned to the Trump administration’s deportation efforts and the way those operations have been portrayed by the media.
Lonergan discussed a CBS News report involving a woman who had overstayed her visa and was subsequently detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He argued that the report presented the case primarily through an emotional lens while giving insufficient attention to the underlying immigration violation.
According to the discussion, the woman’s authorization to remain in the United States had expired in January 2024. Lonergan said that, regardless of whether someone has a criminal record, remaining in the country after lawful authorization has expired can make that individual subject to removal under federal immigration law.
The hosts and Lonergan also discussed visa overstays more broadly, noting that individuals who initially enter the United States legally can subsequently become unlawfully present if they remain beyond the period authorized by their visas.
Lonergan argued that visa overstays should not be dismissed as merely technical violations. With the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks approaching, the hosts noted that some of the hijackers had entered the United States legally and overstayed their visas.
The conversation also addressed President Donald Trump’s reported consideration of revoking business and tourist visas held by foreign nationals who have applied for asylum after entering the country.
Lonergan said the issue illustrates the importance of enforcing the conditions attached to visas and distinguishing between lawful immigration and people who enter legally but subsequently violate the terms of their admission.
On the question of mass deportations, Lonergan acknowledged that the policy carries political and practical challenges. He said public support can change when people see how immigration enforcement actually takes place, including arrests, detention and removal.
Ives and Iuorio also questioned the long-term consequences of immigration policy and whether the country needs to reconsider programs such as chain migration and the diversity visa lottery. Lonergan argued that these policies can substantially increase the foreign-born population over time and questioned whether they serve the interests of American workers and families.
The discussion included legal immigration programs as well, including H-1B visas. Ives raised concerns about the potential effect of importing highly skilled workers on Americans competing for technology jobs, particularly as artificial intelligence changes the employment landscape.
Lonergan said artificial intelligence raises a fundamental question about the need for continued immigration of lower-skilled workers. If the U.S. economy is increasingly transitioning toward automation and AI-driven productivity, he argued, policymakers should reconsider why the country would simultaneously continue importing large numbers of low-skilled workers.
The interview comes amid an ongoing national debate over immigration enforcement, labor markets, housing affordability and the economic effects of population growth. The discussion on Chicago’s Morning Answer focused on the argument that immigration policy cannot be separated from broader questions about housing supply, wages, public spending and the incentives created by government programs.
Lonergan argued that immigration policy should ultimately be evaluated by its effect on American citizens and working families, rather than solely by the interests of employers or immigration advocates. He maintained that tighter enforcement and changes to immigration incentives would reduce some of the economic pressures he believes have been intensified by the recent surge in unauthorized immigration.