Today, the US Bureau of Labor Force Statistics (BLS) released its annual summary of the Labor Force Characteristics of Foreign-Born Workers in the United States, based on data collected monthly via the Current Population Survey (CPS). While union membership is not among the BLS’ highlighted statistics, the CPS does cover such information. These numbers tell an important story about labor, immigration, and who holds power in today’s economy. They also underscore the importance of worker solidarity that transcends geographic origins, especially in the face of the Trump regime’s hostility toward both immigrants and organized labor.

Union membership density remains consistently lower among foreign-born workers — a category containing both naturalized citizens and non-citizens — than among their US-born counterparts. In 2024, the union nativity gap stood at 2.2 percentage points, the same as in 2023 (Figure 1). This may be at least partially attributable to the underrepresentation of foreign-born workers in the public sector, which is more heavily unionized.

Figure 1

Foreign-born workers’ proportionately lower union membership rates are often attributed to this population’s reduced attachment to the domestic labor market and more limited social integration. However, US immigration laws also put immigrant workers in a comparatively more precarious position in ways that can undermine collective power across workplaces and industries. The visa system can tie a worker’s legal status directly to employment with a specific firm, making organizing a proposition that risks not just a paycheck, but deportation. Immigrants also tend to have access to fewer government benefit programs should they find themselves without a steady source of income. These structural vulnerabilities don’t just affect immigrant workers. They tilt the balance of power toward employers across entire industries, increasing management’s leverage over immigrant and non-immigrant workers.

That said, changes in the number of workers in each group mean that the foreign-born’s relative share among union members has actually increased over time (Figure 2). In 1994, 8.4 percent of union members were foreign-born, a share that corresponded to 1.4 million workers; in 2024, it was 15.4 percent and 2.2 million workers, respectively. This makes foreign-born workers an increasingly vital constituency within the labor movement. The shifting composition reflects not only changing demographics but also immigrant workers’ vital role in keeping the labor movement alive.

Figure 2

Foreign-born union membership is also distinctive along gender lines. Among U.S.-born workers, men have historically been more likely than women to be union members.  Among the foreign-born, however, women’s union membership density has outpaced men’s since the early 2000s (Figure 3). And while native-born workers are more likely than foreign-born workers to belong to unions regardless of gender, the nativity gap in union membership is much smaller among women than among men.

Figure 3

US labor’s attitude toward immigrants has not always been rooted in solidarity. At times, unions have unfortunately aligned themselves with anti-immigrant sentiment and exclusionary policies.  Yet many of the US’ fiercest and most visionary labor leaders — Mary Harris Jones (Mother Jones), Emma Goldman, and Larry Itliong, to name just a few — were born elsewhere. Amid the increasingly lawless attacks on immigrant workers during Trump’s second term, the future of the labor movement depends on reclaiming that legacy. In addition to increasing outreach to foreign-born workers, unions must advocate for policies to prevent the exploitation of immigrant workers. These include whistleblower and retaliation safeguards (including for undocumented workers) and more flexible visa pathways that limit dependence on a single employer.

The labor movement is essential to building working class power. But to do so effectively, it must prioritize solidarity over protectionism, and treat foreign-born workers not as a special category but as a central force.