A critical immigration policy question is whether state and federal policy can deter undocumented workers from entering the United States. We examine whether Arizona SB 1070, arguably the most restrictive and controversial state immigration law ever passed, deterred entry into Arizona. We do so by exploiting a unique dataset from a survey of undocumented workers passing through Mexican border towns on their way to the United States. Results indicate the bill's passage reduced the flow of undocumented immigrants into Arizona by 30 to 70 percent, suggesting that undocumented workers from Mexico are responsive to changes in state immigration policy. (JEL J15, J18, J61, K37)
A critical immigration policy question is whether state and federal policy can deter undocumented workers from entering the U.S. We examine whether Arizona SB 1070, arguably the most restrictive and controversial state immigration law ever passed, deterred entry into Arizona. We do so by exploiting a unique data set from a survey of undocumented workers passing through Mexican border towns on their way to the U.S. Results indicate the bill's passage reduced the flow of undocumented immigrants into Arizona by 30 to 70 percent, suggesting that undocumented workers from Mexico are responsive to changes in state immigration policy. In contrast, we find no evidence that the law induced undocumented immigrants already in Arizona to return to Mexico.
We examine the effect of the increase in violence that Mexico experienced after launching an aggressive campaign against drug-trafficking organizations on immigration into the U.S. We instrument for violence using electoral cycles, and consider two channels through which violence impacts migration: local and transit violence. Violence at the municipality of residence increased migration. Conversely, violence on the route to the U.S. deterred individuals from migrating.Back-of-the-envelope calculations show that between 2007 and 2012, local and transit violence had an overall positive effect on migration. Violence was responsible for a 1.53 percentage point increase in the migration rate.
In 2019, Hispanics in the US had a life expectancy advantage of 3.0 years and 7.1 years over non-Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Blacks, respectively, despite having real-household income values 26 percentage points lower than Non-Hispanic White households. Hispanics appear to have equal or even better health outcomes relative to non-Hispanic Whites across various health measures. This is known as the Hispanic health paradox. This paper underscores the importance of disaggregating Hispanics by ancestry and age profile when discussing the paradox across key health outcomes. It also provides an overview of the leading explanations, such as the salmon bias and the healthy immigrant effect. Further, it highlights the role of healthcare access and usage in this discussion. Ignoring these sources of bias have important consequences for how morbidity and mortality among Hispanics are measured within widely used national datasets.
This article considers labour market discrimination by supervisors as a potential contributor to racial and gender wage gaps. Empirical analysis reveals evidence that all workers, except Hispanic males, earn significantly higher hourly wages when working for a supervisor of the same race and sex as themselves. Furthermore, the results suggest that sex has a larger impact on wages than race for workers with white supervisors, while race has a larger impact on wages than sex for workers with minority supervisors. Based on past research, we theorize that the degree of labour discrimination workers face may also be dependent upon the location and size of the firm in which they are employed. However, decomposing the samples by firm location and size suggests that these two factors cannot adequately explain the observed matched supervisor-worker wage effects, which supports the notion that these wage effects are largely driven by factors other than supervisor discrimination.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.