Friday, December 2, 2016
McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), People on the move: Global migration’s impact and opportunity
Migration is a key feature of a more interconnected world. Despite significant concerns about its economic and social implications, the movement of people across the world’s borders boosts global productivity. The countries that prioritize integration stand to make the most of this potential—improving outcomes for their own economies and societies as well as for immigrants themselves.
More than 90 percent of the world’s 247 million cross-border migrants moved voluntarily, usually for economic reasons. The remaining 10 percent are refugees and asylum seekers who have fled to another country to escape conflict and persecution. Roughly half of these 24 million refugees and asylum seekers are in the Middle East and North Africa, reflecting the dominant pattern of flight to a neighboring country. But the recent surge of arrivals in Europe focused the developed world’s attention on this issue.
Roughly half of the world’s migrants have moved from developing to developed countries, where immigration is a key driver of population growth. From 2000 to 2014, immigrants contributed 40 to 80 percent of labor force growth in major destination countries.
Workers moving to higher-productivity settings boosts global GDP. MGI estimates that migrants contributed roughly $6.7 trillion, or 9.4 percent, to global GDP in 2015—some $3 trillion more than they would have produced in their origin countries. North America captured up to $2.5 trillion of this output, while up to $2.3 trillion went to Western Europe. Migrants of all skill levels make a positive economic contribution, whether through innovation, entrepreneurship, or freeing up natives for higher-value work.
Employment rates are slightly lower for immigrants than for native workers in top destinations, but this varies by skill level and by region of origin. Refugees typically take longer than voluntary migrants to integrate into the destination country. Immigrants generally earn higher wages by moving, but many studies have found their wages remain some 20 to 30 percent below those of comparable native-born workers.
Extensive academic evidence shows that immigration does not harm native employment or wages, although there can be short-term negative effects if there is a large inflow of migrants into a small region, if migrants are close substitutes for native workers, or if the destination economy is experiencing a downturn.
The costs of managing entry are typically less than 0.2 percent of GDP across major destinations but can escalate when there is a large wave of refugees. Most studies indicate that immigrants have a small but net positive fiscal impact in their destination countries and play a positive role in easing pension burdens.
The economic, social, and civic dimensions of migrant integration need to be addressed holistically. An examination of 18 major destination countries reveals that not a single one is addressing all three of these aspects effectively. We identify more than 180 promising interventions from around the world that can improve integration outcomes. Some of their guiding principles include changing the narrative to recognize the economic opportunity inherent in immigration; beginning integration interventions early and sustaining them over the long term; empowering local stakeholders to implement initiatives that work for their communities; making integration a two-way process between native-born and immigrant communities; and building partnerships with the private sector and NGOs.
Narrowing the wage gap between immigrant and native workers from 20–30 percent to 5–10 percent through better economic, social, and civic integration would translate into an additional $800 billion to $1 trillion in global output annually. The success or failure of integration across areas such as employment, education, health, and housing can reverberate for many years, influencing whether second-generation immigrants become fully participating citizens or remain in a poverty trap.
To complement this global perspective, a companion report takes a deeper look at how these issues are playing out in real time across Europe today. Europe’s new refugees: A road map for better integration outcomes examines the surge of 2.3 million refugees and asylum seekers who arrived in Europe during 2015 and 2016. Although this episode is only a small part of the broader global phenomenon, it presented Europe with the most dramatic wave of forced migration the continent has experienced since the aftermath of World War II.
This cohort is unique in some ways. More than half of the asylum seekers originally came from the war-torn regions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria (exhibit). Their movement occurred in two steps: after initially fleeing to safety in a neighboring country, many found harsh conditions and subsequently undertook longer, and often perilous, journeys to Europe, hoping to find a more viable life. Given recent trends in the acceptance rates of asylum applications, we expect that roughly 1.3 million will attain refugee status, which grants them the right to stay—and many could decide to put down roots for the long term.
From the Bookshelves: POLICING IMMIGRANTS: LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ON THE FRONT LINES by Doris Marie Provine, Monica W. Varsanyi, Paul G. Lewis, and Scott H. Decker
Policing Immigrants traces the transition of immigration enforcement from a traditionally federal power exercised primarily near the US borders to a patchwork system of local policing that extends throughout the country’s interior. Since federal authorities set local law enforcement to the task of bringing suspected illegal immigrants to the federal government’s attention, local responses have varied. While some localities have resisted the work, others have aggressively sought out unauthorized immigrants, often seeking to further their own objectives by putting their own stamp on immigration policing. Tellingly, how a community responds can best be predicted not by conditions like crime rates or the state of the local economy but rather by the level of conservatism among local voters. What has resulted, the authors argue, is a system that is neither just nor effective—one that threatens the core crime-fighting mission of policing by promoting racial profiling, creating fear in immigrant communities, and undermining the critical community-based function of local policing.
Thursday, December 1, 2016
The Economic Contribution of Unauthorized Workers: An Industry Analysis. By Ryan Edwards, et al. National Bureau of Economic Research. Nov. 2016. 45 p.
This paper provides a quantitative assessment of the economic contribution of unauthorized workers to the U.S. economy, and the potential gains from legalization. We employ a theoretical framework that allows for multiple industries and a heterogeneous workforce in terms of skills and productivity. Capital and labor are the inputs in production and the different types of labor are combined in a multi-nest CES framework that builds on Borjas (2003) and Ottaviano and Peri (2012). The model is calibrated using data on the characteristics of the workforce, including an indicator for imputed unauthorized status (Center for Migration Studies, 2014), and industry output from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Our results show that the economic contribution of unauthorized workers to the U.S. economy is substantial, at approximately 3% of private-sector GDP annually, which amounts to close to $5 trillion over a 10-year period. These effects on production are smaller than the share of unauthorized workers in employment, which is close to 5%. The reason is that unauthorized workers are less skilled and appear to be less productive, on average, than natives and legal immigrants with the same observable skills. We also find that legalization of unauthorized workers would increase their contribution to 3.6% of private-sector GDP. The source of these gains stems from the productivity increase arising from the expanded labor market opportunities for these workers which, in turn, would lead to an increase in capital investment by employers.
This report offers the first detailed estimates of how a policy of mass deportation would affect specific industries. If all undocumented workers were immediately removed from the country, Edwards and Ortega forecast a decline of 9% in agricultural production and declines of 8% in construction and leisure and hospitality over the long term. These are the industries most dependent on undocumented labor. Relative to the overall economy, however, the most important effect would be a decline in manufacturing output of $74 billion over the long term, followed by somewhat more modest declines in wholesale and retail trade and financial activities.” (Chicago Tribune, Nov. 16, 2016).
From the Bookshelves: Patrisia Macías-Rojas, From Deportation to Prison: The Politics of Immigration Enforcement in Post-Civil Rights America
Criminal prosecutions for immigration offenses have more than doubled over the last two decades, as national debates about immigration and criminal justice reforms became headline topics. What lies behind this unprecedented increase?
From Deportation to Prison unpacks how the incarceration of over two million people in the United States gave impetus to a federal immigration initiative—The Criminal Alien Program (CAP)—designed to purge non-citizens from dangerously overcrowded jails and prisons. Drawing on over a decade of ethnographic and archival research, the findings in this book reveal how the Criminal Alien Program quietly set off a punitive turn in immigration enforcement that has fundamentally altered detention, deportation, and criminal prosecutions for immigration offenses.
Patrisia Macías-Rojas presents a “street-level” perspective on how this new regime has serious lived implications for the day-to-day actions of Border Patrol agents, local law enforcement, civil and human rights advocates, and for migrants and residents of predominantly Latina/o border communities. From Deportation to Prison presents a thorough and captivating exploration of how mass incarceration and law and order policies of the past forty years have transformed immigration and border enforcement in unexpected and important ways.
The University of California today (Nov. 30) announced that it will vigorously protect the privacy and civil rights of the undocumented members of the UC community and will direct its police departments not to undertake joint efforts with any government agencies to enforce federal immigration law.
“While we still do not know what policies and practices the incoming federal administration may adopt, given the many public pronouncements made during the presidential campaign and its aftermath, we felt it necessary to reaffirm that UC will act upon its deeply held conviction that all members of our community have the right to work, study, and live safely and without fear at all UC locations,” said UC President Janet Napolitano.
The University issued its Statement of Principles in Support of Undocumented Members of the UC Community after Napolitano met earlier today with UC staff coordinators who support undocumented students at all 10 UC campuses. Napolitano also reviewed the recommendations of a UC task force that she established to study the most effective ways to protect undocumented students and other undocumented members of the UC community.
The principles are to be implemented through policies and procedures at all UC campuses and medical facilities.
For the rest of the statement, click here.
Immigration Article of the Day: Chinese Immigrants in the United States: New Issues and Challenges by Xiaochu Hu
Chinese Immigrants in the United States: New Issues and Challenges by Xiaochu Hu, University of the District of Columbia; George Mason University - School of Public Policy, October 2, 2016 People of Color in the United States: Contemporary Issues in Education, Work, Communities, Health, and Immigration. [4 Volumes]. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO Greenwood (2016)
Abstract: This chapter aims at an overall portrait of Chinese immigrants in the U.S. using the most update data and information, identifying relevant literature and research sources, filling in the issues of China-born immigrants in the U.S. that the previous literature hasn’t mentioned, as well as pointing out relatively new phenomenon and discussing the emerging challenges.
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
In this thoughtful op/ed in the Los Angeles Times, immigration expert Wayne Cornelius explains why the self-deportation strategy endorsed by President-Elect Donald Trump and Kris Kobach will not work. As he concludes,
"When my research team asked hundreds of immigrants working illegally in California how they obtained their most recent U.S. job, more than three out of five reported that their employer probably knew, or knew for sure, that they were not authorized to work in the United States. Absent a significant increase in worksite investigations and criminal prosecutions, such employers will not change their hiring practices.
Mass self-deportation is destined to remain a fantasy of immigration hawks. Turning the U.S. into a police state to get rid of a large chunk of the labor force that most citizens consider indispensable is not politically sustainable, let alone economically sensible."
Later this morning, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Jennings v. Rodriguez, a class action challenge to the U.S. government's immigrant detention policies and denial of bond hearings. Here is my preview of the argument for SCOTUSBlog. As Grace Meng of Human Rights Watch explains, Jennings is an important case. The case has taken on greater significance with the election of Donald Trump. As discussed here and here, he has promised that a Trump administration will aggressively use detention as an immigration enforcement tool.
There is only one argument this morning. Ian H. Gershengorn, Acting Solicitor General, will be arguing the case for the Petitioners. Ahilan T. Arulanantham of the ACLU of Southern California, a 2016 MacArthur Fellow, will argue the case for the Respondents.
Alejandro Rodriguez/ACLU Picture
I will be posting a recap of the oral arguments in the next day or so on SCOTUSBlog and will post a link on the ImmigrationProf blog. Stay tuned!
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
This surely was the tweet of the day:
Of course, our readers know that flag burning is protected speech - see Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman. It certainly isn't the basis for "loss of citizenship." For any non-immprof readers out there, let me take a moment to note that the vast majority if U.S. citizens cannot "lose" their citizenship. Only naturalized citizens are at risk for denaturalization and flag burning isn't one of the very limited circumstances that might trigger such extreme consequences.
Michael A. Olivas, Interim President, University of Houston-Downtown
It is doubtful that sanctuary proposals for immigrant students will provide actual sanctuary or create any genuine change, argues Michael A. Olivas, who calls on campuses to take much more meaningful actions.
The Los Angeles Times reports that leaders of California’s three systems of public higher education sent a joint letter to President-elect Donald Trump today urging him to allow undocumented students to continue their educations without fear of deportation.
“These sons and daughters of undocumented immigrants are as American as any other child across the nation” in all but the letter of the law, do not pose a safety threat and have contributed to their communities, wrote University of California President Janet Napolitano, Cal State Chancellor Timothy P. White and Eloy Ortiz Oakley, chancellor-designate of California Community Colleges.
The California entreaty comes after more than 300 college presidents signed an open letter to the country’s leaders pushing for DACA to be continued and expanded as a “moral imperative and a national necessity.”
Seung Min Kim on Politico lists some of the steps that Attorney General Jeff Sessions might take with respect to implementing a hard line immigration policy. She begins: "If confirmed as Trump’s attorney general, the Alabama senator would instantly become one of the most powerful people overseeing the nation’s immigration policy, with wide latitude over the kinds of immigration violations to prosecute and who would be deported." Democratic leaders in the Senate have promised a thorough confirmation process in considering Sessions' nomination.
Senator Sessions has this "immigration plan" on his Senate website. The website explains that in "Defending American workers":
"Senator Sessions is committed to immigration reform that serves the national interest – not the special interests – and that curbs the unprecedented flow of immigration that is sapping the wages and job prospects of those living and working here today.
Sessions was a leading opponent of the 2007 amnesty bill and 2013 “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill. The Gang of Eight bill eviscerated immigration enforcement, opened up welfare and citizenship to millions of illegals aliens, issued an astonishing 33 million green cards in a single decade, and doubled the annual flow of temporary workers to fill jobs at lower wages.
Sessions has also been a leading opponent of President Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesties, which gives jobs and benefits to illegal workers at the expense of struggling families.
A former Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions now serves as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, where he promotes an immigration policy that prioritizes the jobs, wages, and security of the American people."
Sessions could be an Attorney General like John Ashcroft, the Attorney General in President George W. Bush's first term. Among other things, Ashcroft oversaw the "streamlining" of the Board of Immigration Appeals (and removal of more liberal Board members along with an increase in the number of summary dispositions), announced the "special registration" program applying to certain Muslim noncitizens in the "war on terror," and has been accused of civil rights abuses in various measures taken in the name of national security. Ashcroft "is one of those people who are busy deflecting claims of racism and bigotry that have been hurled at Sessions."
NBC News reports that an Ohio State University student posted a rant shortly before he plowed a car into a campus crowd and stabbed people with a butcher knife in an ambush that ended when a police officer shot him dead.
Abdul Razak Ali Artan, 18, wrote on what appears to be his Facebook page that he had reached a "boiling point," made a reference to "lone wolf attacks" and cited a radical cleric.
Ali was a student at the Ohio State University and was a legal resident of the United States, reports NBC News. The network adds that Artan was a refugee from Somalia. According to NBC, Artan was admitted to the United States in 2014 having previously lived in Pakistan since 2007. Artan had been a logistics student at the OSU business school.
In May 2016, Artan was listed as a graduate of the Columbus State Community College. During his Humans of Ohio State piece, Artan complimented the prayer facilities at Columbus State Community College. The school said, in a statement to ABC News:
Abdul Razak Ali Artan was enrolled at Columbus State Community College from autumn semester 2014 through summer semester 2016. He graduated with an associate of arts degree in spring of 2016 and then continued taking additional noncredit classes through summer semester 2016.
Speaking to NBC News, the president of the Somali Community Association of Ohio said:
Every Somali person has been calling me, and everybody is crying. This is a shock. As a Somali community here, we are in a state of shock. In Columbus, we live in a very peaceful community. This is gonna affect the life of everybody. We are American and we don’t want somebody to create this problem.
OVER 120 ORGANIZATIONS URGE ALL CALIFORNIA K-12 SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES TO BE DESIGNATED AS SANCTUARY SCHOOLS AND CAMPUSES: College for All Coalition Calls for Safe, Inclusive, and Equitable Learning Environments for All Students In Response to Fears of Dep
Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Los Angeles (Advancing Justice-LA), together with more than 120 community, education, health, faith, labor, student, and parent organizations in California, has released an open letter calling on California’s educational leaders to address the growing fear around deportation and the troubling spike in hate crimes, incidents, and bullying in K-12 schools and on college campuses since the election of Donald Trump. Coordinated by the College for All Coalition, the open letter calls for safe, inclusive, and equitable learning environments for California students, especially those who are most vulnerable.
While some K-12 districts and higher education institutions have already indicated they plan to take steps to protect undocumented immigrant students, the open letter offers specific recommendations for sanctuary schools and campuses, including prohibiting access to federal immigration officials unless there is a judicial warrant and guaranteeing privacy and refusing to release information regarding the immigration status of students, staff, and community members.
Pema Levy of Mother Jones reveals a sobering possibility of an appointment as Department of Homeland Security Secretary:
"Donald Trump was scheduled to meet Monday with Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr., a Trump supporter and surrogate during the campaign who is now reportedly being considered to head the Department of Homeland Security. Clarke is known for his extreme views on policing—including his conviction that there is a war on cops but no police brutality—and for his attacks on Black Lives Matter. One of his most out-there positions: suspend the constitutional rights of up to a million people, and hold them indefinitely at the US prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Clarke's extremist approach to homeland security is no secret. In his upcoming memoir, Cop Under Fire: Moving Beyond Hashtags of Race, Crime and Politics for a Better America, he advocates treating American citizens suspected of terrorism as "enemy combatants," questioning them without an attorney, and holding them indefinitely, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. Their cases would be handled by a military tribunal rather than a traditional court."
Donald Trump did meet with Clarke yesterday.
Immigration Article of the Day: Framing for a New Transnational Legal Order: The Case of Human Trafficking by Paulette Lloyd and Beth A. Simmons
Framing for a New Transnational Legal Order: The Case of Human Trafficking by Paulette Lloyd (Government of the United States of America - Department of State) and Beth A. Simmons University of Pennsylvania Law School 2015 In TRANSNATIONAL LEGAL ORDERS, ed. Terence C. Halliday and Gregory Shaffer, Cambridge 2015
Abstract: How does transnational legal order emerge, develop and solidify? This chapter focuses on how and why actors come to define an issue as one requiring transnational legal intervention of a specific kind. Specifically, we focus on how and why states have increasingly constructed and acceded to international legal norms relating to human trafficking. Empirically, human trafficking has been on the international and transnational agenda for nearly a century. However, relatively recently – and fairly swiftly in the 2000s – governments have committed themselves to criminalize human trafficking in international as well as regional and domestic law. Our paper tries to explain this process of norm convergence. We hypothesize that swift convergence on norms against human trafficking and on a particular legal solution – criminalization – is the result of a specific set of conditions related to globalization and the collapse of the former Soviet Union in the 1990s. We argue that a broad coalition of states had much to gain by choosing a prosecutorial model over one that makes human rights or victim protection its top priority. We explore the framing of human trafficking through computerized textual analysis of United Nations resolutions – the central forum for debates over the nature of human trafficking and what to do about it. We look for evidence of how the framing of human trafficking has shifted over time, and how the normative pressure as reflected in these documents has waxed and waned. We will argue that a binding legal instrument became possible because of the normative convergence solidified by linking human trafficking to transnational crime more generally.
Monday, November 28, 2016
TRAC reports that immigration remains the major focus of all federal criminal enforcement efforts. The latest available data show that criminal prosecutions for illegal entry, illegal re-entry, and similar immigration violations made up 52 percent of all federal prosecutions in FY 2016. During the 12 months ending September 30, immigration prosecutions totaled 69,636.
This number compares with just 63,405 prosecutions for all other federal crimes -- including drugs, weapons, fraud, and violations of the thousands of other criminal provisions that the federal government is responsible for enforcing.
The Southern District of Texas was the most active during FY 2016 with 24,549 immigration prosecutions, followed by the Western District of Texas with 18,989. The Western District of Texas showed the greatest growth in numbers as compared with FY 2015, while Arizona recorded the largest drop in immigration prosecutions.
Reverse Migration is a NYT video about migration between Cajolá, a Mayan town in the western highlands of Guatemala, and the United States. The story follows one man - Eduardo Jimenez - who came to the US from Cajolá, lived here for 10 years, got shot, and returned to Guatemala. He is now trying to develop the Cajolá economy in order to halt or reduce emigration. He's doing this by focusing on creating a female workforce, with projects like Mayamam Weavers.
The video addresses some of the push and pull factors of immigration, the importance of remittances, and even medical repatriation. There's a lot packed into 16 minutes of film. Consider flagging it for your next semester.
This Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear a case, Jennings v Rodriguez, challenging the lawfulness of immigrant detention. Here is a preview of the case. President-Elect Donald Trump has promised to "End catch-and-release. Under a Trump administration, anyone who illegally crosses the border will be detained until they are removed out of our country." Detention thus is likely to be on the rise in a Trump administration.
Thanks to a case Alex Lora and his legal team at Brooklyn Defender Services (BDS) and New York University School of Law (NYU) brought to challenge his immigration detention, since 2015, all immigrants detained for six months in the Second Circuit now have the right to a day in court where a judge can determine if their continued detention is justified.
Next Wednesday, on November 30, 2016 the Supreme Court will hear Jennings v. Rodriguez, a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that could provide nationwide access to bond hearings to immigrants like Mr. Lora who are held in long-term detention.
Across the country, thousands of people languish in immigration jails as they await their court hearings. For Mr. Lora, mandatory detention cost him his job, his ability to provide for his family, and his two-year-old son, who was placed in foster care after Mr. Lora was taken from his home. Since his release, he has been able to rebuild his life and regain custody of his son. For Mr. Lora and others in the Second Circuit, bond hearings have provided a critical procedural protection to prevent harmful and needless long-term detention.
In the video above, hear from Mr. Lora himself about his life and his experience in detention, which illustrates what is at stake in Jennings.