MISLEADING
Trump's claims about native-born American job creation relied on cherry-picked data from the household survey rather than the more reliable establishment survey. Economists noted the analysis misrepresented BLS methodology and ignored standard statistical practices for measuring employment.
Claims that native-born Americans lost jobs while immigrants gained employment used the household survey data selectively while ignoring the establishment survey. The household survey has higher volatility and smaller sample size, making month-to-month comparisons unreliable. Economists from across the political spectrum criticized the methodology, noting it cherry-picked data to support a predetermined narrative about immigration and employment.
The Claim
Trump claimed native-born Americans lost millions of jobs while immigrants gained employment [1].
The claim was used to argue immigration was harming American workers [3].
Data Problems
The claim relied on household survey data which has higher volatility than establishment data [2].
BLS recommends using establishment survey for overall employment trends [1].
Economist Response
Economists across the political spectrum criticized the methodology [10].
The analysis cherry-picked timeframes and ignored standard statistical practices [11].
Conclusion
The native-born job creation claim was misleading. It relied on cherry-picked data from a less reliable survey and misrepresented BLS methodology. Proper analysis shows a more complex employment picture.