Enforcement and Immigrant Location Choice

Watson, Tara

doi:10.3386/w19626

Cited by 44 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The estimates show no effects of 287(g) programs on migration into or out of the United States. Watson (2013) further finds that the relocation effects in noncitizens tend to be among college graduates, perhaps suggesting that the policy misses its target (and perhaps suggesting that the effect is higher on authorized immigrants). The small scale of the 287(g) programs in terms of the share of the population covered by the agreements (less than 4 percent) means that the estimated effect on population movements is very modest.…”

Section: Effects On Population Of Unauthorized Immigrantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For both groups, using difference-in-differences estimation with countylevel data, adopting a 287(g) program is associated with a decline in the share of the group in the county's population. Watson (2013) considers additional dimensions of migration and the effects of the 287(g) task force model (now discontinued) versus the jail enforcement model. She finds the strongest effects for the task force model on cross-area outflows among the foreign-born (i.e., across states, divisions, and regions).…”

Section: Effects On Population Of Unauthorized Immigrantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Cost-Benefit Framework for Analyzing the Economic and Fiscal Impacts of State-Level Immigration Policies

Karoly¹,

Pérez‐Arce²

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/rr1397Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2016 RAND CorporationR® is a registered trademark.iii Preface Traditionally, immigration policy has been a federal responsibility, but, in the past decade, states have begun to adopt policies through legislation and other actions to respond to trends in unauthorized immigration. In some states, policies have taken the form of omnibus legislation designed to place restrictions on immigrants who are in the United States without authorization, through actions of law enforcement and employers, as well as limits in other aspects of public life. In other states, policies have been adopted one by one, such as requiring employers in the public and private sectors to verify employment eligibility through E-Verify, to preclude access to driver's licenses for individuals who are not authorized to be in the country, and to exclude unauthorized students from eligibility for in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. At the same time, some states have also adopted policies toward unauthorized immigrants that are unrestrictive-for example, by making driver's licenses available to all regardless of immigration status or basing access to in-state tuition solely on residency requirements, regardless of immigration status.The expanding role of states in these areas of policy raises questions about the consequences of state-level action for various stakeholders in the public and private sectors. Within this context, the goals of this study are to• develop a cost-benefit framework for classifying the potential impacts of specific statelevel policies, identifying the potential domains of impact and how different stakeholders in the public and private sectors would be affected • review the research literature to identify empirical evidence, where it exists, regarding the likely magnitudes of the impacts of specific state-level immigration-related policies • use the cost-benefit fr...

show abstract

Section: Effects On Population Of Unauthorized Immigrantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Effects On Population Of Unauthorized Immigrantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Cost-Benefit Framework for Analyzing the Economic and Fiscal Impacts of State-Level Immigration Policies

Karoly¹,

Pérez‐Arce²

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Compared to the more widely studied Secure Communities initiative (e.g., Miles and Cox 2014;Watson 2013), the 287(g) program data better suit our purposes for three reasons. First, although Secure Communities was first piloted in late 2008 in a handful of counties, it was mainly implemented from 2010 to 2013, too late to cause foreclosures in 2006 to 2010.…”

Section: Section 287(g) Local Immigration Enforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The final reason we select 287(g) local enforcement is that it drove a historic increase in noncriminal deportations (Capps et al 2011;Watson 2013). In the absence of 287(g) enforcement, many otherwise law-abiding Latino immigrants may not have been deported (Golash-Boza 2015).…”

Section: Section 287(g) Local Immigration Enforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deporting the American Dream: Immigration Enforcement and Latino Foreclosures

Rugh¹,

Hall²

2016

SocScience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decade, Latinos have been buffeted by two major forces: a record number of immigrant deportations and the housing foreclosure crisis. Yet, prior work has not assessed the link between the two. We hypothesize that deportations exacerbate rates of foreclosure among Latinos by removing income earners from owner-occupied households. We employ a quasi-experimental approach that leverages variation in county applications for 287(g) immigration enforcement agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and data on foreclosure filings from 2005-2012. These models uncover a substantial association of enforcement with Hispanic foreclosure rates. The association is stronger in counties with more immigrant detentions and a larger share of undocumented persons in owner-occupied homes. The results imply that local immigration enforcement plays an important role in understanding why Latinos experienced foreclosures most often. The reduced home ownership and wealth that result illustrate how legal status and deportation perpetuate the racial stratification of Latinos.

show abstract

“…Amuedo-Dorantes and Lozano (2015) find that the law had minimal effect, while Sanchez (2015) reports that the law resulted in a temporary one-year reduction of 10 to 16 percent in the proportion of noncitizen Hispanics. Finally, Watson (2013) examines how state and local enforcement of federal immigration law affects immigrants' locational decisions. This paper complements this existing research by examining the impact of Arizona SB 1070 on the flow of illegal immigrants to and from Arizona from Mexico.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Illegal Immigration, State Law, and Deterrence

Hoekstra

Orozco-Aleman

2017

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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)

show abstract

Enforcement and Immigrant Location Choice

Cited by 44 publications

References 25 publications

A Cost-Benefit Framework for Analyzing the Economic and Fiscal Impacts of State-Level Immigration Policies

A Cost-Benefit Framework for Analyzing the Economic and Fiscal Impacts of State-Level Immigration Policies

Deporting the American Dream: Immigration Enforcement and Latino Foreclosures

Illegal Immigration, State Law, and Deterrence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About