Legal Permanent Residents Research Articles

Wait-times, visa queues and uncertainty: the barriers to American legal migration

ABSTRACT Legal permanent residency (LPR) removes the immediate threat of deportation and allows a permanent foothold in America. Yet despite its protections, LPR is an incredibly difficult status to achieve for legal immigrants who are not immediate relatives (spouses, parents or minor children) of American citizens. Within a climate of increased enforcement, immigrants are urged to migrate using legal channels. Yet these channels are often oversubscribed and may span decades depending on visa type or country of origin. Using data from the National visa Center (NVC) and the U.S. Department of State, this manuscript outlines the difficulties of American LPR within its two largest quota capped categories: family reunification and employment. Findings indicate that countries like India, China, Mexico and the Philippines have the longest wait-times in visa queues – averaging between 7 and 23 years. Data also indicate that for the 2017 and 2018 fiscal years, there were over 3.7 million petitions waitlisted in visa queues at U.S. consulates abroad. As such, this manuscript evaluates how the unpredictability of American LPR restricts immigrant pathways to legal integration. It also evaluates how time spent in long visa queues – in part engenders illegal immigration.

What Is the Size and Legal Composition of the US Foreign-Born Population?

We assess government estimates of the size and legal composition of the US foreign-born population from 2007 to 2015. We examine annual Census Bureau estimates of the total number of foreign born (by citizenship) and annual Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) estimates of the counts of the three noncitizen categories — legal permanent residents, legal temporary residents, and the unauthorized. Comparison of the annual Census estimates of the number of noncitizens with the estimates implied by the OIS estimates reveals that the OIS estimates are larger than the Census estimates by 3.4–4.7 million over the period. Besides documenting these discrepancies, we describe the data and methods used to produce the estimates, identify the possible sources of discrepancies, propose and implement an approach for reconciling the estimates, and contrast the reconciled estimates with the original estimates. Finally, we provide a foundation for improving estimates of the size of the four major categories of the foreign born, for example, by suggesting new methods to measure citizenship and to estimate such groups as legal permanent residents who become unauthorized. Because in most countries the four foreign-born subpopulations are constrained by distinctive rules, they each have different impacts on their host countries. Estimates of their size are critical for assessments of immigration policy, as differing constraints on employment and entitlement eligibility across these categories means that having accurate counts of their numbers is essential for assessing their economic and fiscal impacts in any country that hosts immigrants.

The International Medical Graduate

International medical graduates (IMGs) are graduates of medical schools located outside the United States (U.S.) and Canada. IMGs face various challenges on the road to U.S. residency training. These challenges include sitting for the United States Medical Licensing Examinations (USMLEs) to obtain certification from the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG). After that, IMGs are faced with a foreign application process whereby they must apply for and secure a position in a residency program through the Electronic Residency Application System (ERAS) and the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). Once accepted into a residency program, IMGs who are not US citizens or legal permanent residents are challenged with securing a visa to be able to practice in the U.S. In this article, we elaborate on these processes and highlight the challenges IMGs may face along the way.

Beyond the Border Spectacle: Global Capital, Migrant Labor, and the Specter of Liminal Legality

This essay systematically thinks through the relationship between undocumented immigrants, guestworkers, and nonstatus immigrants as sources of flexible and highly exploitable noncitizen labor. It argues that many businesses are increasingly likely to view unauthorized workers as more of a liability than an asset, and that this makes an ostensibly legal but intensely surveilled and ultimately deportable workforce look more attractive. Challenging the dominant conception that a so-called pathway to citizenship would resolve the plight of nonstatus and undocumented immigrants, I argue that this would institutionalize liminal legality by bringing undocumented immigrants directly into the surveillance apparatus of the Department of Homeland Security, without offering a realistic chance at obtaining legal permanent residency. To fight back against this potential outcome, the grassroots movement for migrant and immigrant justice must broaden its scope of action and place immediate, unconditional, and total amnesty for all at the center of its demands.

Calls for Stricter Legislation and Fear in the European Immigrant Community: Reflections of the Public Charge Debate Ongoing in the United States Comment on "A Crisis of Humanitarianism: Refugees at the Gates of Europe".

In the editorial, "A Crisis of Humanitarianism: Refugees at the Gates of Europe," Marianna Fotaki elegantly highlights the changing dynamics of governmental policy toward refugees, forced migrants into Europe and the move away from the principles of humanitarianism.1 The perceived threats to economy, security, and concerns of globalization and multiculturalism often are manifested as a "cry of wolf " about alleged health risks. This in effect has raised concerns of inadmissibility on health-related grounds and calls for stricter legislation for determining who is eligible for legal permanent residence, precipitated in part by the "public charge" debate occurring in the United States.2 As Marianna notes "anti-migration rhetoric is now a permanent fixture of European politics."

The Economic Effects of Providing Legal Status to DREAMers

Abstract This study quantifies the economic effects of two major immigration policies aimed at legalizing undocumented individuals that entered the United States as children and completed high school: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and the DREAM Act. The former offers only temporary legal status to eligible individuals, whereas the latter provides a track to legal permanent residence. Our analysis is based on a general equilibrium model that allows for shifts in participation between work, college, and non-employment. The model is calibrated to account for productivity differences across workers of different skills and documentation status, and a rich pattern of complementarities across different types of workers. We estimate that DACA increased gross domestic product (GDP) by almost 0.02% (about $3.5 billion), or $7,454 per legalized worker. Passing the DREAM Act would increase GDP by around 0.08% (or $15.2 billion), which amounts to an average of $15,371 for each legalized worker. The larger effects of the DREAM Act stem from the expected larger take-up and the increased incentive to attend college among DREAMers with a high school degree. We also find substantial wage increases for individuals obtaining legal status, particularly those that increase their educational attainment. Because of the small size of the DREAMer population, and their skill distribution, legalization entails negligible effects on the wages of US-born workers.

Implications of Changing Public Charge Immigration Rules for Children Who Need Medical Care

In October 2018, the Trump administration published a proposed rule change that would increase the chance of an immigrant being deemed a "public charge" and thereby denied legal permanent residency or entry to the United States. The proposed changes are expected to cause many immigrant parents to disenroll their families from safety-net programs, in large part because of fear and confusion about the rule, even among families to whom the rule does not technically apply. To simulate the potential harms of the rule change by estimating the number, medical conditions, and care needs of children who are at risk of losing their current benefits, including Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). A cross-sectional study used nationally representative data from 4007 children 17 years of age or younger who participated in the 2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to assess their potential risk of losing benefits because they live with a noncitizen adult. Statistical analysis was conducted from January 3 to April 8, 2019. The number of children at risk of losing benefits; the number of children with medical need, defined as having a potentially serious medical diagnosis; being disabled (or functionally limited); or having received any specific treatment in the past year. The numbers of children who would be disenrolled under likely disenrollment scenarios drawn from research on immigrants before and after the 1996 welfare reform were estimated. A total of 8.3 million children who are currently enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP or receiving SNAP benefits are potentially at risk of disenrollment, of whom 5.5 million have specific medical needs, including 615 842 children with asthma, 53 728 children with epilepsy, 3658 children with cancer, and 583 700 children with disabilities or functional limitations. Nonetheless, among the population potentially at risk of disenrollment, medical need was less common than among other children receiving Medicaid and CHIP or SNAP (64.5%; 95% CI, 61.5%-67.4%; vs 76.0%; 95% CI, 73.9%-78.4%; P < .001). The proposed rule is likely to cause parents to disenroll between 0.8 million and 1.9 million children with specific medical needs from health and nutrition benefits. The proposed public charge rule would likely cause millions of children to lose health and nutrition benefits, including many with specific medical needs that, if left untreated, may contribute to child deaths and future disability.

Health Implications of Migration: Cross-Classified Multilevel Models to Disentangle Country of Origin and State of Resettlement Effects of Bodyweight (P04-106-19)

ObjectivesPre- and post-migration environments have differing demographic, social and economic characteristics which can affect health (Figure 1). What level of variance in bodyweight is attributable to individual-, country of origin-, and state of resettlement-level factors? MethodsWe test what portion of the variance (as captured through intra-cluster correlations (ICCS)) in bodyweight is attributable to multi-level factors. Data come from the New Immigrant Survey (NIS), a nationally representative, longitudinal study of international migrants. The outcome of interest is BMI (kg/m2) (n = 7329). We utilize a cross-classified multi-level model approach (CCMM), where clustering in both country of origin and state of resettlement are modeled simultaneously using Bayes estimation. ResultsPreliminary results are based upon the public version of the NIS, which condenses states of resettlement into 15 states/regions and countries of origin into 27 countries/regions. For the conference, access to the restricted-access dataset will allow for expansion of level-2 clusters to include specific states and countries. Table 1 presents results of initial models for country-only, state-only, and CCMM-predicted BMI. In the null model (Model 1), the between-level variance in BMI was driven largely by the country of origin (4.3) and not by the state of resettlement (0.04). In the CCMM, the country ICC was 7.5% and the state ICC was 0.09% indicating that state-level variance was minimal. Throughout, estimates for CCMM are closely aligned with estimates in the country-only model, further indicating that country-level variance is playing a much larger part than state-level variance in individual-level BMI after being in the country for eight years on average. ConclusionsThe large share of the variance in BMI at the point of legal permanent residency in 2003 is attributable to individual-level factors. Some variance in this baseline BMI is also attributable to where an individual was born. This research helps contribute to our understanding of how environments shape health behaviors. Funding SourcesResearch reported in this presentation was supported in part by the NIDDK of the NIH. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. Supporting Tables, Images and/or Graphs▪▪

Investing in the Homeland: cross-border investments and immigrant wealth in the U.S.

ABSTRACT The ties that immigrants maintain across national borders are important indicators of both patterns of global interconnectedness and the incorporation of immigrants in their host countries. Scholars acknowledge that cross-border ties are extensive but debate the persistence of these ties following migration. We propose that simultaneously studying the home and host country financial investments of three large immigrant groups in the United States may provide unique insight into these important questions. Specifically, we study the home and host country investments of Mexican, Chinese, and Indian immigrants to the United States. We propose that home country financial ties are likely to decline over time but that host country financial ties will become stronger. However, significant and meaningful differences in these patterns are likely across the three groups we study. Using data from the New Immigrant Survey – a nationally representative multicohort longitudinal study of adult immigrants who are U.S. legal permanent residents – we find that cross-border investments are considerably less enduring than previous literature has found. However, portfolio composition and the location of critical assets vary in significant and informative ways by country of origin.

Beyond Eligibility: Access to Federal Public Benefit Programs for Immigrant Families in the United States

Federal benefit programs assist individuals and low-income families with basic expenses like food, housing, and health care. The eligibility rules associated with these programs impact access to health care and the health of immigrants, as well as natural-born citizens in the United States ( Salami, 2017 Salami A. Immigrant eligibility for health care programs in the United States. NCSL, Denver, CO2017http://www.ncsl.org/research/immigration/immigrant-eligibility-for-health-care-programs-in-the-united-states.aspx Google Scholar ). In 2016, about 44 million immigrants resided in the United States and accounted for 13.5% of the total U.S. population ( Gambino, 2017 Gambino C. Inside the American Community Survey: 2016 language data overhaul. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC2017https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/09/inside_the_american.html Google Scholar ). California has the largest population of legal permanent residents (LPRs); of the 38 million people in California, 27% are immigrants, and an estimated 3.3 million are LPRs ( Ponce et al., 2018 Ponce N.A. Quach T. Bau I. Suh D. Shimkhada R. Yue D. Hirota S. Immigrants, US values, and the golden state [Health Affairs Blog]. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20180817.59208/full/ Google Scholar ). The 2016 California Health Interview Survey estimated that 1.15 million LPR adults and 760,000 natural-born children with at least one LPR parent participated in a federal public benefit program ( Ponce et al., 2018 Ponce N.A. Quach T. Bau I. Suh D. Shimkhada R. Yue D. Hirota S. Immigrants, US values, and the golden state [Health Affairs Blog]. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20180817.59208/full/ Google Scholar ). However, most enrollees for public benefits programs are U.S.-born citizens (Batalova & Greenberg, 2018), and in California, noncitizens living at the federal poverty level are less reliant on public programs than U.S.-born citizens ( Ponce et al., 2018 Ponce N.A. Quach T. Bau I. Suh D. Shimkhada R. Yue D. Hirota S. Immigrants, US values, and the golden state [Health Affairs Blog]. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20180817.59208/full/ Google Scholar ). Genesis R. Bojorquez, Doctoral Student, University of San Diego, Hahn School of Nursing and Health Science, San Diego, CA. Eileen K. Fry-Bowers, Associate Professor, University of San Diego, Hahn School of Nursing and Health Science, San Diego, CA.

How do parental migration histories matter for children’s economic outcomes?

In 2015, nearly 78 million newcomers entered the United States. While about 1 million of these individuals are legal permanent residents (LPRs) with green cards and authorization to stay indefinitely, the remainder arrive on temporary statuses with authorization to stay for a finite amount of time. This reflects one part of the complex US immigration system that includes a permanent component and a temporary component. Whether newcomers enter with permanent or temporary status has profound and long-term consequences for their integration in the US, including income and job mobility. While these different statuses may have enduring effects for immigrant adults, it is unclear what the effects are for their offspring, many of whom are born in the US or arrive at a young age. This study examines whether the entry statuses of immigrant mothers and fathers (permanent vs. temporary) affects their children’s occupation type and income. This study analyzes data from the 2004 Immigration and Intergenerational Mobility in Metropolitan Los Angeles. Overall, the study finds that children whose mothers arrived as LPRs are less likely to be employed in blue collar occupations. However, there is no significant effect of father’s entry status on children’s occupation type.

Immigrant Legal Status and Health: Legal Status Disparities in Chronic Conditions and Musculoskeletal Pain Among Mexican-Born Farm Workers in the United States.

Immigrant legal status determines access to the rights and privileges of U.S. society. Legal status may be conceived of as a fundamental cause of health, producing a health disparity whereby unauthorized immigrants are disadvantaged relative to authorized immigrants, a perspective that is supported by research on legal status disparities in self-rated health and mental health. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on legal status disparities in physical health and examined whether a legal status disparity exists in chronic conditions and musculoskeletal pain among 17,462 Mexican-born immigrants employed as farm workers in the United States and surveyed in the National Agricultural Workers Survey between 2000 and 2015. We found that unauthorized, Mexican-born farm workers have a lower incidence of chronic conditions and lower prevalence of pain compared with authorized farm workers. Furthermore, we found a legal status gradient in health whereby naturalized U.S. citizens report the worst health, followed by legal permanent residents and unauthorized immigrants. Although inconsistent with fundamental cause theory, our results were robust to alternative specifications and consistent with a small body of existing research on legal status disparities in physical health. Although it is well known that Mexican immigrants have better-than-expected health outcomes given their social disadvantage, we suggest that an epidemiologic paradox may also apply to within-immigrant disparities by legal status. We offer several explanations for the counterintuitive result.

Differential Returns?: Neighborhood Attainment among Hispanic and Non–Hispanic White New Legal Permanent Residents

We use data from the New Immigrant Survey to examine patterns of residential attainment among Hispanic immigrants who recently became legal permanent residents (LPRs) relative to new LPR non–Hispanic white immigrants. We focus on whether these Hispanic and non–Hispanic white immigrants differ in their ability to transform human capital into residential advantage. Our results suggest that the answer depends on the neighborhood attribute in question. When predicting residence in tracts with relatively more non–Hispanic whites, the answer is yes, with evidence in support of the place stratification model of residential attainment. We find that non–Hispanic white immigrants have access to relatively whiter neighborhoods than their Hispanic immigrant counterparts, irrespective of differences in education levels. When assessing Hispanic immigrants’ ability to enter socioeconomically advantaged neighborhoods, however, the differences we observe are mostly accounted for by compositional differences in sociodemographic and acculturation factors. Taken together, our findings suggest that Hispanic immigrants are more similar to their white immigrant counterparts when it comes to converting higher education into higher income neighborhoods than into increased residential integration with whites; although their exposure to more socioeconomically advantaged neighborhoods at all levels of education remains lower than that of their white immigrant counterparts.

Precarious Entrepreneurship: Day Laborers in the U.S. Southwest

With the advent of globalization, neoliberalism, and immigration policy reforms that enlarged the non-White workforce in the United States, precarious employment—work that is contingent, risky, and socially stratified—has increased dramatically. The 2008 Great Recession exacerbated labor market uncertainty, deepening the demand for precarious labor. These same structural forces have conditioned a rise in precarious entrepreneurship in the informal economy; yet little is known about how precarity is experienced among “survival entrepreneurs” or its effects on their entrepreneurial outcomes. This study uses unique ethnosurvey data collected between 2012 and 2018 on 116 street corner day laborers in Texas, a state in the Southwest region of the United States, to investigate these relationships. In the context of a more precarious economy, findings reveal that undocumented Latino immigrant men continue to dominate day labor activity; however, the expanding supply and demand for day laborers has resulted in a more diverse day labor pool that includes legal permanent residents, naturalized citizens, and U.S.-born citizens, including Black and White Americans. At the same time, day labor remains a “bad job” characterized by exploitive and abusive working conditions and low hourly income. That said Latino immigrant day laborers are subject to a distinct process of criminalization and racialization that conditions a lower hourly income for this group, regardless of legal status. Findings suggest that day labor is a form of precarious entrepreneurship that is polarized by race and nativity.

Doctors as migration brokers in the mandatory medical screenings of immigrants to the United States

ABSTRACTApplicants for legal permanent residency in the United States are required to pass a medical screening. Most of these applicants are already living in the United States on non-immigrant and temporary visas and are screened by civil surgeons, physicians designated by the government to look for infectious diseases, incomplete immunisation records, and signs that the immigrant will pose a threat or become a public charge. Little is known about the work of these 4000+ physicians, who play a key role as migration brokers in a context where migration control has devolved to non-state actors. I present quantitative analysis of a random survey of civil surgeons, identifying features of this migration industry and constructing at typology of profit seekers, immigrant advocates, and screeners. Most civil surgeons are in the private sector, dominated by immigrant doctors who tend to pass most applicants and charge higher fees. A smaller subset are in the public sector, dominated by US born doctors who pass fewer applicants and charge lower fees. These patterns exacerbate inequalities among immigrants. I consider theoretical implications for literatures on migration industries and brokerage, co-ethnic economies, and street-level bureaucrats, as well as the implications of the US case for global migration management.

Family Matters: Claiming Rights across the US-Mexico Migratory System.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) created an immigration system favoring the immigration of spouses, children, and parents of US citizens, thereby establishing family unity as the cornerstone of US immigration policy. Despite this historical emphasis on family unity, backlogs and limited visas for non-immediate relatives of US citizens and legal permanent residents, the militarization of the US-Mexico border, punitive measures for those who enter without inspection, such as the forced separation of children from their parents at the US border, and an aggressive policy of deportation have made it more difficult for members of Mexican binational families to unify. How do members of Mexican binational families manage the hardships that result from US immigration policies that prolong and force family separation? Immigrants and return migrants alike may not be aware of their rights and the legal remedies that exist to enforce them. Structural barriers such as poverty, legal status, fear of deportation, lack of proficiency in English, and lack of familiarity with government bureaucracies no doubt prevent many migrants in the United States and return migrants in Mexico from coming forward to request legal assistance and relief in the courts. Despite these barriers, when it comes to family matters, members of some Mexican binational families can and do assert their rights. In this article, we analyze an administrative database of the Department of Legal Protection of the Mexican consular network that documents migrant legal claims resulting from family separation, along with findings from 21 interviews with consular staff and community organizations in three consular jurisdictions - El Paso, Raleigh, and San Francisco - to investigate the sociolegal processes of claims. Our investigation centers on the mediating role the Mexican state - via its consular network - has developed to assist binational families as they attempt to assert their rights and resolve child support and child custody problems resulting from prolonged and forced family separation. We find that the resolution of binational family claims in part depends on the institutional infrastructure that has developed at local, state, and federal levels, along with the commitment and capacity of the receiving and sending states and the binational structures they establish. These binational structures transcend the limitations of national legal systems to achieve and implement family rights and obligations across borders.

Museums as Vital Resources for New Americans: The Citizenship Project

ABSTRACTWhat does it mean to be an American? Legal permanent residents (LPRs) in the United States have had to seriously contemplate this question as the immigration debate has proven one of the most divisive issues of the past two years. Many have begun actively pursuing American citizenship, which includes studying 100 questions about American history, government, and integrated civics to pass the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services naturalization test. The rote memorization involved in this process, however, does not inspire political involvement or a sense of belonging for new citizens. Using museum education pedagogy, the New-York Historical Society has created the Citizenship Project to help LPRs of the United States prepare to pass the civics portion of the naturalization test and become engaged members of American society. Museums are in a unique position to use their collections along with educational and community engagement expertise to help immigrants become citizens and, beyond that, to help students deeply engage in the complicated stories behind standardized test questions, to feel connected to the many figures and issues that shaped American history, and to appreciate their own agency in shaping our country’s present and future.

Immigration and the War on Crime: Law and Order Politics and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) was a momentous law that recast undocumented immigration as a crime and fused immigration enforcement with crime control (García Hernández 2016; Lind 2016). Among its most controversial provisions, the law expanded the crimes, broadly defined, for which immigrants could be deported and legal permanent residency status revoked. The law instituted fast-track deportations and mandatory detention for immigrants with convictions. It restricted access to relief from deportation. It constrained the review of immigration court decisions and imposed barriers for filing class action lawsuits against the former US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). It provided for the development of biometric technologies to track “criminal aliens” and authorized the former INS to deputize state and local police and sheriff's departments to enforce immigration law (Guttentag 1997a; Migration News 1997a, 1997b, 1997c; Taylor 1997). In short, it put into law many of the punitive provisions associated with the criminalization of migration today.Legal scholars have documented the critical role that IIRIRA played in fundamentally transforming immigration enforcement, laying the groundwork for an emerging field of “crimmigration” (Morris 1997; Morawetz 1998, 2000; Kanstroom 2000; Miller 2003; Welch 2003; Stumpf 2006). These studies challenged the law's deportation and mandatory detention provisions, as well as its constraints on judicial review. And they exposed the law's widespread consequences, namely the deportations that ensued and the disproportionate impact of IIRIRA's enforcement measures on immigrants with longstanding ties to the United States (ABA 2004).Less is known about what drove IIRIRA's criminal provisions or how immigration came to be viewed through a lens of criminality in the first place. Scholars have mostly looked within the immigration policy arena for answers, focusing on immigration reform and the “new nativism” that peaked in the early nineties (Perea 1997; Jacobson 2008). Some studies have focused on interest group competition, particularly immigration restrictionists’ prohibitions on welfare benefits, while others have examined constructions of immigrants as a social threat (Chavez 2001; Nevins 2002, 2010; Newton 2008; Tichenor 2009; Bosworth and Kaufman 2011; Zatz and Rodriguez 2015).Surprisingly few studies have stepped outside the immigration policy arena to examine the role of crime politics and the policies of mass incarceration. Of these, scholars suggest that IIRIRA's most punitive provisions stem from a “new penology” in the criminal justice system, characterized by discourses and practices designed to predict dangerousness and to manage risk (Feeley and Simon 1992; Miller 2003; Stumpf 2006; Welch 2012). Yet historical connections between the punitive turn in the criminal justice and immigration systems have yet to be disentangled and laid bare.Certainly, nativist fears about unauthorized migration, national security, and demographic change were important factors shaping IIRIRA's criminal provisions, but this article argues that the crime politics advanced by the Republican Party (or the “Grand Old Party,” GOP) and the Democratic Party also played an undeniable and understudied role. The first part of the analysis examines policies of mass incarceration and the crime politics of the GOP under the Reagan administration. The second half focuses on the crime politics of the Democratic Party that recast undocumented migration as a crime and culminated in passage of IIRIRA under the Clinton administration.IIRIRA's criminal provisions continue to shape debates on the relationship between immigration and crime, the crimes that should provide grounds for expulsion from the United States, and the use of detention in deportation proceedings for those with criminal convictions. This essay considers the ways in which the War on Crime — specifically the failed mass incarceration policies — reshaped the immigration debate. It sheds light on the understudied role that crime politics of the GOP and the Democratic Party played in shaping IIRIRA — specifically its criminal provisions, which linked unauthorized migration with criminality, and fundamentally restructured immigration enforcement and infused it with the resources necessary to track, detain, and deport broad categories of immigrants, not just those with convictions.

The Economic Effects of Providing Legal Status to Dreamers

This study quantifies the economic effects of two major immigration reforms aimed at legalizing undocumented individuals that entered the United States as children and completed high school: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and the DREAM Act. The former offers only temporary legal status to eligible individuals; the latter provides a track to legal permanent residence. Our analysis is based on a general-equilibrium model that allows for shifts in participation between work, college and non-employment. The model is calibrated to account for productivity differences across workers of different skills and documentation status, and a rich pattern of complementarities across different types of workers. We estimate DACA increased GDP by almost 0.02% (about $3.5 billion), or $7,454 per legalized worker. Passing the DREAM Act would increase GDP by around 0.08% (or $15.2 billion), which amounts to an average of $15,371 for each legalized worker. The larger effects of the DREAM Act stem from the expected larger take-up and the increased incentive to attend college among DREAMers with a high school degree. We also find substantial wage increases for individuals obtaining legal status, particularly for individuals that increase their educational attainment. Because of the small size of the DREAMer population, legalization entails negligible effects on the wages of US-born workers.

Trends in food insecurity among California residents from 2001 to 2011: Inequities at the intersection of immigration status and ethnicity

Although immigrants are healthier than non-immigrants on numerous outcomes, the reverse appears to be true with regards to food insecurity. Most studies ignore heterogeneity in the risk for food insecurity within immigration status and by ethnicity, even though significant variation likely exists. We consider how immigration status and ethnicity are related to trends in food insecurity among Latinos and Asians in California from 2001 through 2011. Data come from the 2001 to 2011 restricted California Health Interview Survey (n=245,679). We categorized Latinos and Asians as US-born, naturalized/legal permanent residents (naturalized/LPR), and non-LPRs (students, temporary workers, refugees, and undocumented persons). Multivariable weighted logistic regression analyses assessed temporal trends over the 10-year period after adjustment for demographics, socioeconomic characteristics, and program participation. Across this period, US-born Asians reported similar levels of food insecurity as US-born Whites. Conversely, Latinos, regardless of immigration status or nativity, and Asian immigrants (i.e., naturalized/LPR and non-LPR) reported greater food insecurity than US-born Whites. Further, from 2001 through 2009, non-LPR Latinos reported higher risk of food insecurity than naturalized/LPR Latinos. Thus, food insecurity differs between ethnic groups, but also differs within ethnic group by immigration status. Efforts to reduce food insecurity should consider the additional barriers to access that are faced by immigrants, particularly those without legal permanent residency.