Which places would be most affected by the Trump administration’s immigrant deportation proposals?

With President-elect Donald Trump set to take office next month for a second, nonconsecutive term, attention is turning to his policy agenda and its possible implications for individuals and communities. 

While the lack of a formal GOP platform during the campaign has rendered many aspects of that agenda ambiguous, Trump and his advisers have made clear many of the immigration policy actions they would seek to take in office. These include, among several others: conducting mass deportation of millions of unauthorized immigrants; revoking temporary legal status for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from countries suffering from violence and natural disasters; and suspending protections for students and workers whose parents brought them to the U.S. unlawfully when they were children. 

In a recent report, I argued that these actions and others would have disproportionate impacts on U.S. cities and urban areas, given that most foreign-born individuals live and work in these places. This report extends and deepens that analysis, drawing on other recent research to examine the profiles and locations of specific immigrant groups that Trump’s policy proposals may affect in the near term. As the analysis shows, those policies could reach a large and geographically diverse range of places, and dramatically disrupt local businesses, schools, public safety agencies, and community institutions. In addition to helping local and state leaders understand the potential impacts of these actions on their residents and communities, the report also suggests important ways in which these leaders might prepare and respond.  

The data that undergird this analysis come from a variety of sources noted below; many derive from data and reports issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees most aspects of U.S. immigration policy and enforcement.

An estimated 72% of unauthorized immigrants in the United States reside in just 11 states, and half live in just 34 major urban counties 

Noncitizens who entered the United States without permission, overstayed the period of their lawful admission, or otherwise violated the terms of their admission are variously referred to as “unauthorized,” “undocumented,” and “illegal” immigrants. This report refers to this group as “unauthorized immigrants.” They have arguably attracted the most attention from President-elect Trump and his advisers, who have promised a mass deportation of this population beginning on day one of his presidency.¹ 

According to DHS, an estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the United States as of 2022—about 3.3% of the overall U.S. population.² DHS defines unauthorized immigrants as all foreign-born noncitizens living in the United States who are not legal residents. Notably, this population includes individuals who have been granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS), Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), or humanitarian parole, which offer them legal protections from deportation. The report profiles the attributes and location of those specific subgroups below. 

Most unauthorized immigrants have lived in the United States for many years; DHS estimates that nearly 80% arrived before 2010. They are overwhelmingly in their prime working-age years (79% are aged 18 to 54), and 62% are from Mexico or one of three Central American countries (Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador). Contrary to rhetoric in the presidential campaign that associated unauthorized immigrants with rising crime, a large body of research finds a negative statistical relationship—or no relationship at all—between unauthorized immigration and crime rates at the state and local levels. 

The nation’s major immigrant gateway states house the majority of unauthorized immigrants. DHS estimates that in 2022, the 10 states with the largest unauthorized immigrant populations accounted for 72% of all such immigrants in the United States (Table 1). California and Texas each have more than 2 million unauthorized immigrants, while Florida, New Jersey, Illinois, and New York are home to between 400,000 and 600,000 each. Two newer gateway states, Georgia and North Carolina, also number among the top 10, as do the western states of Washington and Arizona. Collectively, these 10 states also account for 72% of all foreign-born U.S. residents, suggesting that unauthorized immigrants tend to settle in many of the same places as other immigrants. Indeed, many live in “mixed status” households where other family members are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. 

Because most people in these leading states of residence for unauthorized immigrants live in urban areas, it follows that their immigrant populations are also highly urbanized. Analysis from the Migration Policy Institute finds that in 2015-19, 34 large urban counties—which together contained one-quarter of total U.S. population—accounted for roughly half of the estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States (Table 2).³ Of these 34 large urban counties, 29 were in one of the 10 states with the largest unauthorized populations. 

In many of the urban counties with large numbers of unauthorized immigrants, those immigrants represent a significant share of the local population. In six of these counties, including those around Dallas, Houston, and New York, unauthorized immigrants accounted for at least 10% of all residents in 2015-19. In another four counties, including those around Atlanta and Washington, D.C., unauthorized immigrants represented at least one in 12 residents. Because unauthorized immigrants are more likely to be of working age and employed than the population overall, their share of the local workforce in these counties is undoubtedly higher.⁴ With large numbers of unauthorized immigrants comprising a significant share of local workers, these counties could experience among the most acute local demographic and economic impacts of mass deportation actions by the Trump administration.⁵

One in three individuals holding Temporary Protected Status lives in Florida 

One group of unauthorized immigrants that the incoming Trump administration may attempt to remove from the United States in the near term includes those residing here under Temporary Protected Status (TPS). These individuals are from countries that have experienced civil unrest, violence, or natural disasters that may compromise their safe return. According to the Congressional Research Service, as of early 2024, DHS has designated 17 countries for TPS for periods of six to 18 months, and approximately 864,000 foreign nationals are residing in the United States under TPS protections.⁶ The three TPS countries with the largest numbers of approved individuals are Venezuela (344,000), Haiti (200,000), and El Salvador (180,000).   

U.S. immigration law permits DHS, at its discretion, to designate or terminate TPS for specified countries and their foreign nationals. President-elect Trump has vowed to remove TPS for Haitians, while advisers and allies have promised to end use of the status altogether.⁷ Most of these changes would not happen immediately; under current law, DHS cannot terminate TPS before the end of a country’s designation period. However, current TPS designations will expire for nine of the 17 countries within the first six months of the incoming administration. Among several other affected populations, more than 8,000 Afghan nationals, many of whom assisted the United States during its two-decade military presence in their country before evacuating in 2021, could lose removal protections.⁸ 

TPS holders live in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Because of its proximity to Venezuela and Haiti, Florida is the most common state of residence for TPS holders. Nearly 300,000—or one in three—TPS-approved individuals declared Florida as their state of residence on their most recent application. Texas (94,000), New York (68,000), and California (68,000) are the next most common states. Many other states with large numbers of unauthorized immigrants (e.g., New Jersey, Georgia, North Carolina) similarly house many TPS holders, as do Maryland and Virginia (where many Salvadorans have settled) and Massachusetts (another important destination for Haitians). Florida is also home to far more individuals with TPS status on a per-capita basis than any other state, with roughly 13 per 1,000 residents, versus five per 1,000 residents in Maryland, the second-highest concentration (Map 1). 

While TPS holders do not have a dedicated pathway to legal permanent residence or citizenship, they are authorized to work, and consequently make significant economic contributions to their communities. The American Immigration Council finds estimates in 2021, 95% of TPS holders were employed. Many Haitian TPS holders in Springfield, Ohio—who became the target of conspiracy theories during the presidential campaign—moved there to fill vacant positions in local factories and warehouses. Venezuelan TPS holders in the Washington, D.C. area have mounted mopeds and helped transform the local food delivery industry. And in Houston, thousands of Salvadoran janitors, many of whom have held TPS in the United States for more than two decades, have organized for better pay and benefits. 

TPS resembles another Biden administration program that President-elect Trump has promised to terminate: special humanitarian parole for some residents of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV). Starting in January 2023, people fleeing these countries who have been vetted by DHS and have a U.S.-based sponsor may receive visa-free authorization to live and work in the United States for two years. According to DHS, as of October 2024, more than 530,000 individuals have arrived from these countries and been granted parole. No data are publicly reported on where CHNV parolees reside, but if (as seems likely) their settlement patterns mirror those of their TPS counterparts, the same communities most impacted by TPS terminations would also bear the consequences of CHNV parole termination.⁹

Nearly three-quarters of DACA recipients live in 10 states, and they make up significant shares of the population in many agricultural communities 

Another subgroup of unauthorized immigrants are Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients. DACA is a determination that DHS grants to eligible applicants who came to the United States without authorization as children. DACA permits these individuals to remain in the United States and work for a period of two years at a time, subject to renewal. DACA recipients must have resided in the United States in 2012 when the program was initiated, have been living here for at least five years at that time, and have come to the United States before their 16th birthday. The previous Trump administration attempted to end DACA, but was blocked by the Supreme Court from doing so. Changes in the court’s composition since then could pave the way for the incoming administration to succeed in terminating the program. 

As of June 2024, DHS reports that 535,000 DACA recipients live in the United States, and that 434,000 of these recipients (81%) were born in Mexico. Most are now in their 30s, and immigration advocacy organization FWD.US finds that 96% hold a high school diploma, 49% have at least some college education, and 83% are in the labor force. They further estimate that 1 million U.S. citizens live with DACA recipients, signaling the broader potential familial impacts of repealing recipients’ temporary legal authorization. 

Like TPS holders, DACA recipients live in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., but a disproportionate number live in California and Texas, which are together home to 45% of all DACA recipients (Map 2). Altogether, 74% of recipients live in the 10 states with the largest DACA populations, which are the same 10 states with the largest unauthorized immigrant populations, though not in the same rank order. For instance, DHS estimates that Illinois has the fifth-largest number of unauthorized immigrants among states, but reports that it has the third-highest number of DACA recipients. 

The metro areas with the most DACA recipients—Los Angeles, New York, Dallas, Houston, and Chicago—parallel recipients’ state locations. These five metro areas collectively account for 31% of all DACA recipients nationwide (versus 12% of the U.S. population). Based on DACA recipients’ share of total population, however, Los Angeles ranks only 13th among all metro areas (Map 3). Recipients are most prevalent in smaller agricultural and industrial areas in California, Washington, the Texas border region, Georgia, and Indiana. These regions attracted millions of Mexican and Central American migrant laborers in the 2000s, and their children comprise important parts of these local economies and communities as adults today. 

State and local leaders can prepare for and respond to likely policy changes affecting immigrant populations 

The data presented in this report indicate the residential locations of unauthorized immigrants in the United States—including those of the notable subgroups of TPS holders and DACA recipients—and in so doing, highlight locations that could face disproportionate impacts from the incoming Trump administration’s possible efforts to remove these immigrants and their family members.¹⁰ In particular, major immigrant gateway states (California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois) and their large cities and counties; newer gateway states and cities in the mid-Atlantic and Southeast; and smaller agricultural metro areas throughout the country could find their immigrant communities in these policies’ crosshairs. 

Because unauthorized immigrant removals could cause significant disruptions in local labor markets, schools, businesses, governments, and community institutions, local and state leaders should strive to understand the potential impact of forthcoming federal immigration policy actions on their places, and what they can do to prepare for and respond to those actions. To be sure, significant practical realities—including access to money, manpower, and infrastructure, as well as numerous legal challenges and proceedings—will likely impede the incoming administration from carrying out millions of deportations in the near term. Still, if the rhetoric about these policies gets ahead of their actual implementation, as seems likely, proactive local and state leadership can help combat confusion, misinformation, and concern in the delivery of public services and for affected communities. Two areas seem especially ripe for the attention of governors, county executives, mayors, and other subnational public sector officials: 

• Law enforcement: Officials should understand the current and desired nature of their law enforcement agencies’ relationship with federal immigration enforcement. As of May 2024, 135 states and localities—many in Florida and Texas, which are states with large estimated numbers of unauthorized immigrants—have signed voluntary cooperation agreements with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that deputize local law enforcement officers to perform certain ICE functions. Immigration advocacy organizations have criticized these 287(g) agreements for diverting law enforcement attention to low-priority candidates for deportation; creating unsustainable costs for local public safety agencies; and hindering community policing strategies.  

In contrast to jurisdictions with 287(g) agreements, many cities have adopted laws that limit local law cooperation with ICE. These so-called “sanctuary policies” may include those that prohibit: the jurisdiction from signing such agreements; local officials from asking individuals about their immigration status; establishing immigration detention centers within their borders; and sharing certain information about immigrants with federal officials. In the wake of November’s election, some cities and states are reaffirming a commitment to their sanctuary policies, while others have adopted new laws in anticipation of the incoming administration’s actions. Still, other cities lie within states that expressly prohibit the adoption of local sanctuary policies.¹¹ 

The first Trump administration attempted to withhold federal dollars from cities and counties that maintained sanctuary policies, but courts at the time largely sided with local jurisdictions on those matters. The incoming administration may nonetheless again attempt to condition federal grants on active cooperation with federal immigration enforcement policies. What’s more, President-elect Trump and his advisers have signaled their plans to employ the U.S. military to assist in mass deportations, presumably in cities and states where unauthorized immigrants reside. For these reasons, city, county, and state leaders should be clear in advance on the policies their public safety agencies will follow in this arena. 

• Legal and policy information and assistance for immigrant communities: We do not yet know the speed and scope of the incoming administration’s actions to remove unauthorized immigrants. It is certain, however, that those actions will increase the need for accurate, professional information and assistance for affected individuals, families, and communities.  

Most immigrants in removal proceedings are afforded hearings before an immigration judge, but they frequently lack access to legal counsel, which greatly affects their chances of success in the proceedings. Some cities and states have responded by appropriating public funding for immigration legal services. In a 2021 study, the National Immigration Forum highlighted efforts that ranged from cities funding universal representation for immigrants in detention (New York and San Francisco), to directing funds to nonprofit immigrant legal services organizations (Seattle, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.), to sponsoring public-private partnerships that leverage philanthropic funding to support representation for immigrants (Baltimore, Denver, and Los Angeles). More cities and states may want to consider similar efforts that ensure fair due process for impacted immigrant populations. 

Beyond immigrants in formal legal proceedings, other members of immigrant communities—family members, educators, business owners, and other service providers—will benefit from greater access to up-to-date, accurate information on the implications of federal policy changes and local responses. Over the past decade-plus, many major U.S. cities and several states have established offices of immigrant affairs to facilitate immigrants’ access to local public services, assist in broader immigrant integration efforts, and—more recently—coordinate resettlement for a new wave of asylum seekers. Local and state officials can leverage the trusted, culturally competent relationships these offices have built with immigrant communities to share information, answer questions, combat misinformation, and attract and channel resources where they are most needed in a time of increased uncertainty. 

The full scope, means, and pace of the incoming administration’s efforts to remove unauthorized immigrants from the United States are still coming into view. Nevertheless, local and state leaders concerned about the health of their economies, neighborhoods, and civic institutions should not delay in preparing for and responding to the potential impacts of the actions administration officials have promised to carry out.