Legal Permanent Resident Status Research Articles

Does Place Matter? Dietary Change Among Immigrants to the US

ObjectivesOn average, U.S. immigrants experience increases in body mass during their time in the country. These changes are related to important shifts in diet post immigration but could also continue to be influenced by sending-area environments. We assess the level of variance in dietary change that is attributable to country of origin and U.S. state of residence-level factors. MethodsUsing longitudinal data on three measures of dietary change from the nationally-representative New Immigrant Survey (n = 7930), we use cross-classified multilevel models to test what proportion of the variance in dietary change is attributable to country of origin vs. U.S. state of residence. The three measures of dietary change are degree of change (1–10); whether any foods from the home country were abandoned; whether any new foods were adopted in the U.S. ResultsWhen foreign-born individuals received legal permanent resident status (+/– 8 years after arriving in the U.S.), country of origin explained 6% of individual variation in diet (a moderate but nontrivial amount), with state of residence explaining a much smaller amount of variance at 1.6%. Interesting, the interaction of country of origin and state of residence explained an additional 1.4%, suggesting that the context in which immigrants are “received” varies in some important ways across people of different national origins to shape dietary changes. When adding covariates at country or U.S. state level to explain the variance at these scales, higher availability of sweets in the country of origin and U.S. state levels of obesity were particularly important variables predicting dietary change. ConclusionsWhile “new” obesogenic and broader nutritional environments the foreign-born are exposed to after immigration may indeed have an impact on nutritional outcomes, “old” environments may continue to leave a mark on people’s dietary choices, and further shape the way in which new environments affect people’s dietary change. Funding SourcesResearch reported in this presentation was supported in part by the NIDDK of the NIH under Award Number R01DK115937. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

The Association Between Legal Status and Poverty Among Immigrants: A Methodological Caution.

Using nationally representative survey data, this research note examines the association between immigrant legal status and poverty in the United States. Our objective is to test whether estimates of this association vary depending on the method used to infer legal status in survey data, focusing on two approaches in particular: (1) inferring legal status using a logical imputation method that ignores the existence of legal-status survey questions (logical approach); and (2) defining legal status based on survey questions about legal status (survey approach). We show that the two methods yield contrasting conclusions. In models using the logical approach, among noncitizens, being a legal permanent resident (LPR) is counterintuitively associated with a significantly greater net probability of being below the poverty line compared with their noncitizen peers without LPR status. Conversely, using the survey approach to measure legal status, LPR status is associated with a lower net probability of living in poverty, which is in line with a growing body of qualitative and small-sample evidence. Consistent with simulation experiments carried out by Van Hook et al. (2015), the findings call for a more cautious approach to interpreting research results based on legal status imputations and for greater attention to potential biases introduced by various methodological approaches to inferring individuals' legal status in survey data. Consequently, the approach used for measuring legal status has important implications for future research on immigration and legal status.

High Prevalence of Food Insecurity and Factors Associated with Haitian Immigrants in Southern Chile.

The objective was to determine the association between sociodemographic factors and food insecurity (FI) in Haitian immigrants in southern Chile. An analytical cross-sectional design was used. The sample consisted of Haitian immigrants residing in Southern Chile, who were recruited from community centers and completed a sociodemographic questionnaire and the Latin-American and Caribbean Food Security Scale. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors associated with FI. FI prevalence in the 234 participants was 78%; 60% had severe FI. Having children (OR 3.6; 95% CI 1.6-7.4), limited Spanish proficiency (OR 3.5; 95% CI 1.8-7.3), no access to basic services (OR 2.8; 95% CI 1.2-6.4), and not being a legal permanent resident (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.1-6.1) were associated with significantly higher odds of FI. Over three-quarters of Haitian immigrants in southern Chile suffer from FI. Tailored intervention strategies are needed to address this major public-health issue, with a special focus on those at highest risk, including families with children, and those with limited Spanish proficiency, no access to basic services, and without legal permanent resident status.

From “Migrant” to “Citizen”: Labor Market Integration of Former Live-In Caregivers in Canada

This study examines the impact of attaining permanent resident status on the employment integration of migrant caregivers in Canada. The authors use survey data from 631 caregivers who arrived as migrants under a temporary foreign worker program before transitioning to permanent residency, as well as data from 47 focus group discussions. The authors find that although most caregivers do switch out of caregiving work over time, they often remain within a few, lower-skilled occupations. Postsecondary education acquired before migration has no impact on occupational mobility. Caregivers’ lack of financial stability and the stigmatization of their employment experience often constrain their labor market options; moreover, an emotional bond and sense of obligation toward employers often hinder their ability to move out into other occupations, even after receiving legal permanent resident status. From the empirical results, the authors provide theoretical insights into the complex relationship between immigration patterns and labor markets.

Common US immigration consequences of mergers and acquisitions

Purpose – Observes that, with increasing federal scrutiny and the risk of raids, fines and even prosecution, businesses engaged in mergers and acquisitions must ensure that violations of US immigration law are minimized through due diligence and planning. Design/methodology/approach – Examines the common US immigration consequences of mergers and acquisitions under the sub-headings of ensuring I-9 compliance; preserving qualifying corporate relationships for L-1A/L-1B intra-company transferees; retaining current H-1B visa employees; corporate ownership and maintaining eligibility for E-1/E-2 visas; and employees awaiting legal permanent resident status. Findings – Shows that, while there are a number of US immigration consequences that flow from a merger or acquisition, critical considerations include the effect on current employees; ease of future global mobility in hiring and transferring personnel; and compliance to avoid fines and other sanctions. Practical implications – Argues that failure to adequately consider US immigration consequences can prove costly, as foreign employees may face inconvenient limitations or outright termination of their ability to work in the USA on the basis of changes in corporate structure, ownership or occupation. Social implications – Draws attention to the fact that, in the midst of a merger or acquisition, US immigration matters are often an afterthought to be addressed by in-house counsel lacking immigration expertise, or by outside immigration counsel potentially engaged late in a transaction. Originality/value – Concludes that the consequences of mergers and acquisitions affect current personnel, global mobility of future hires and liabilities pertaining to regulatory compliance. As a result, due diligence and early involvement of qualified US immigration counsel are critical to ensure a smooth transition for businesses and employees alike.

The challenges of American legal permanent residency for family- and employment-based petitioners

One of the most debated issues in contemporary immigration policy surrounds the acquisition of the ‘greencard’ or legal permanent resident status (LPR). For many migrants who enter the country on temporary visas, legal permanent residency is crucial to upward mobility and removes the looming threat of deportation and illegality. Despite this, the pathway to permanent residency for temporary visa holders who do not adjust their status due to their direct relationship with American citizens as spouses, minor children or parents is an uncertain one. After filing to adjust status, migrants often have to deal with visa backlogs and lengthy wait periods in queues which are capped by country of origin and level of demand. Official statistics document that wait times for family- and employment-based visas can span from five years to several decades keeping petitioners in long ‘probationary’ periods of uncertainty. Using data from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services Performance Analysis System, and placing emphasis on the two largest immigration channels: family and employment, this article examines the total number of applications for LPR which were approved, pending and denied for the 1992–2007 fiscal years. From this, it is argued that assimilation is not only a social process but a complicated legal one. It is also suggested that lengthy wait periods in visa queues retards the incorporation of legal immigrants into the American stratification order and inhibits chances for upward mobility and incorporation.

Legalization Programs and the Integration of Unauthorized Immigrants: A Comparison of S. 744 and IRCA

Experiences under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) may prove to be a poor guide for understanding how smoothly today's unauthorized immigrants will integrate into the economy under reform proposals such as the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744). While IRCA provided a relatively quick path to legal permanent resident status, S. 744 proposes a decade-long process with much attendant uncertainty. This and other provisions in S. 744 may adversely affect immigrants' integration and economic mobility.

Immigration Obstacles and the Sixth Circuit Court's Harsh Interpretation of Legal Permanent Resident Status

Immigration Obstacles and the Sixth Circuit Court's Harsh Interpretation of Legal Permanent Resident Status

WAGE AND MOBILITY EFFECTS OF LEGALIZATION: EVIDENCE FROM THE NEW IMMIGRANT SURVEY*

ABSTRACT Using New Immigrant Survey data, we identify immigrants who were unauthorized to work prior to obtaining Legal Permanent Resident status, and examine whether lacking legal status to work in the United States constrains employment outcomes of illegal immigrants. The data reveal no evidence of improved employment outcomes attributable to legal status, except among the high‐skilled. In light of evidence that unauthorized immigrants experienced increased wages as a result of receiving amnesty through the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act, we interpret the results as consistent with a reduced threat of employer sanctions combined with widespread availability of false work authorization documents.

Did Employer Sanctions Lose Their Bite? Labor Market Effects of Immigrant Legalization

Taking advantage of the ability to identify immigrants who were unauthorized to work prior to obtaining Legal Permanent Resident status, we use the New Immigrant Survey to examine whether lacking legal status to work in the U.S. constrains employment outcomes of illegal immigrants. With the exception of high-skilled unauthorized immigrants, the data fail to reveal evidence of improved employment outcomes attributable to legal status. In light of evidence that unauthorized immigrants experienced increased wages as a result of receiving amnesty through the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act during the 1990s, we interpret the results as evidence of ineffective employer sanctions.

Through the Front Door: The Housing Outcomes of New Lawful Immigrants

Immigrants represent an increasingly vital component of the U.S. housing market, though there is a substantial and growing gap in homeownership rates between natives and the foreign born. We employ the New Immigrant Survey-2003 to examine the housing tenure of immigrants recently adjusted to new legal permanent resident status. The results reveal important cross-national differences in the linkages between transfers to the origin country relationships with U.S. mainstream financial institutions, previous unauthorized experience, and housing tenure. Analyses also document that immigrants occupy three distinct housing outcomes in America; renting, owning, and living for free.

Determinants of Recent Immigrants’ Locational Choices

High levels of immigration to the United States have caused the size of the foreign-born population to increase dramatically in recent years. Recent immigrants are concentrated in several states, particularly California. This article examines the determinants of the intended state of residence of new recipients of legal permanent resident status and new refugees from 1989 to 1994. The presence of other foreign-born people is the primary determinant of the locational choices of new legal permanent residents, but there are some differences among immigrant groups by admission category and by country of origin. Only refugees’ locations appear to be sensitive to welfare generosity.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986: America amends its immigration law.

This disucssion of the Immigration and Control act of 1986 covers legalization, employer sanctions, and foreign agricultural worker reforms. It also identifies other changes in immigration law. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 recognizes 4 types of aliens who are eligible to receive legalization benefits: those who have resided "continuously" in the US since January 1, 1982; those who have worked in US perishable crop agriculture for 90 "man-days" each year ending on May 1, 1984, May 1, 1985 and May 1, 1986 (special agricultural workers) or who have performed such labor for 90 man-days between only May 1, 1985 and May 1, 1986; those who have been in the US since before January 1, 1972; and those classified as "Cuban-Haitian entrants" and who have been in the US since January 1, 1982. Each legalization category has specific eligibility requirements, its own application procedures, and its own process for obtaining legal permanent resident status. The IRCA forbids employers from knowingly employing unauthorized aliens. For the 1st time in US immigration history, an employer would be punished for employing aliens without work authorization. An employer would be able to establish an "affirmative defense" in his or her behalf if the employer examined certain documents which appear to be genuine or the applicant was referred to him by a State employment agency which previously has verified the applicant's employment eligibility. If the employer is found to have violated the provisions, a cease and desist order will be issued with a civil penalty of between $250-2000 for each unauthorized alien for the 1st time the violation occurs, between $2000-5000 for each alien for the 2nd violation, and between $3000-10,000 for each alien for subsequent violations. The Act provides for criminal penalties for employers who engage in a "pattern or practice of violations." Employer sanctions will not be effective for 18 months following passage of the Act. The changes which the IRCA introduced in terms of foreign agricultural workers fall into 2 broad categories: a formula for recruiting foreign agricultural workers for permanent residence in the US beginning with 1990 (replenishment workers); and changes in the existing system of temporary foreign workers for agricultural work. Among other things, the Act also increases colonial quotas to 5000 from 600, offers special immigrant status to certain officers and employers of international organizations and their immediate family members; and offers nonimmigrant status for parents and children of aliens given spcial immigrant status.