Wednesday, January 14, 2009
New Report: Legal, Illegal Immigration Flows React Differently to Recession; Return Migration, Though Probably Up, Is Not Yet a Definitive Trend
With the United States in an economic crisis that may already be the worst since the Great Depression, a report (Download lmi_recessionjan091.pdf ) issued today by the Migration Policy Institute finds that the recession may produce differing results for legal and illegal immigration flows. The report, Immigrants and the Current Economic Crisis, cites a growing body of evidence suggesting there has been a measurable slowdown in the historic growth of immigration in the United States, largely because there has been no significant growth in the unauthorized immigrant population since 2006.
“Legal and illegal immigration flows respond differently in an economic crisis,” said Migration Policy Institute President Demetrios Papademetriou, an author of the report. “Legal permanent immigration flows are the least responsive to economic pressures, while illegal immigration flows are the most responsive." “Still, substantial return migration of unauthorized immigrants is unlikely unless there’s a protracted and severe worsening of the U.S. economy,” Papademetriou added. The report examines the effects of the economic crisis and factors such as immigration enforcement on the immigrant population already in the United States; predicts how future immigration flows may be affected; discusses how immigrants fare in the U.S. labor market during recessions; and offers possible policy prescriptions.
Among the report’s findings:
• While there is anecdotal evidence that return migration to some countries, including Mexico, appears to have increased there is no definitive trend so far that can be tied in a significant way to U.S. economic conditions.
• Suggestions that increasingly strict enforcement of immigration laws by federal, state and local officials is responsible for increased return migration appear to be premature. With enforcement differing from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, selective enforcement strategies are likely to first divert unauthorized immigrants to other destinations within the United States where economic opportunities still exist rather than induce them to leave the country.
• Return migration appears to correlate more closely with economic, political and social developments in countries of origin than with economic conditions in the United States.
• While immigrants on average share the demographic characteristics of the workers who are most vulnerable during recessions (including relative youth; lower levels of education and recent entry into the labor force), they also may be able to adjust more quickly than native-born workers to fluctuating labor market conditions because they are more amenable to moving and changing job sectors.
• The lack of access to public benefits and family obligations (such as sending remittances to relatives in the country of origin) may force immigrant workers to go to extraordinary lengths to remain employed or find new employment quickly, possibly pushing some into dangerous working conditions or informal work.
• Legal immigration appears least tied to US economic conditions because most legal immigrants in recent years have been status adjusters who already live in the United States and tend to have strong labor market ties; there is pent-up demand for employer-sponsored visas; about two-thirds of legal immigrants are coming to reunite with family on visas that, in many cases, took years to secure; and refugee and asylee flows are largely independent of the economic climate.
"Illegal immigration is more responsive to economic downturns than legal immigration because it is comprised overwhelmingly of economic migrants whose decisions to migrate are based on their ability to find work," said report co-author Aaron Terrazas, an MPI Research Assistant. The report offers a number of policy suggestions that could make the U.S. immigration system more responsive to U.S. labor market and economic needs, among them the creation of a Standing Commission on Immigration and Labor Markets that would provide recommendations to Congress and the administration on adjustments to admissions levels based on labor market needs, employment patterns, and changing economic and demographic trends. “While the current economic crisis might not seem the most opportune moment to fix the chronic disconnect between the U.S. labor market and immigration system, visionary policymakers will recognize that a more nimble and thoughtful immigration system will better serve U.S. economic interests in an ever-more competitive global marketplace,” Papademetriou said.
KJ
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2009/01/new-report-lega.html
Comments
Horace brings up an interesting and murky issue. While I disagree with his first two paragraphs, (especially in light of this report in question), his questions about the fate of guest workers is admittedly something that needs to be addressed.
These are difficult moral and ethical questions, that have to be considered in legal and economic terms, and the resulting conclusions may not feel just. I have always been troubled by nagging doubts about this very topic. Are guest workers a first preference, or a last resort? I tend to conclude that ultimately legal immigrants that are waiting in line to come here should be given preference, and that even if they are in line for family visa's, they should be given the right of first refusal to enter on a work visa if they are experienced or capable of working in an area that would normally be filled by a guest worker. While the advantage of guest workers are that they are temporary, and should theoretically leave if they are no longer needed due to economic cycles, in the real world, that is difficult to enforce. On the other hand, even though permanent immigrants are here for the long haul, regardless of economic cycles, I believe that since cycles are by their nature of course cyclical, permanent legal residents are economically preferable, and ethically a more responsible choice.
If CIR were implemented, the argument for CIR would certainly be that post-CIR, we would enforce immigration laws. Therefore, post-CIR, any new or unqualified post-CIR undocumented immigrants should be unable to find employment, and would be subject to some type of deportation order. Logically, any future guest worker whose visa had expired would be undocumented, and subject to deportation should they violate the terms of their temporary visa. Again, these are the harsh realities that we will face in a post-CIR environment. This points to the urgent need for proper forecasting as described above. However, since CIR will improve the lives of millions of people here and around the world, as well as our own economy, we have to address the fact that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Posted by: Robert Gittelson | Jan 14, 2009 11:42:25 AM
My employer (Morgan Fabrics, Los Angeles) has a support program for its undocumented employees who have been laid off (right now about 75 people) due to the economic slowdown. The border crossed us and we're not going nowhere!
Posted by: Jaime Perez | Jan 14, 2009 2:54:51 PM
heres my theory illegal aliens will go from state to state, trying to hold on and override the recession/depression. some of these families have 4 kids sometimes 5 and they are all receiving medicaid, food stamps, wic and many other benefits. and when they leave they'll just go and reapply and like the idiots that we are we give them all the benefits all over again. do you think that mexico has food stamps and wic and medicaid no they dont that's the reason that most illegals will hold on. the only way an illegal leaves is by deportation! that's the reason we have to continue with e-verify, punish the empoyers and stop automatic citizenship. the government has to stop aiding and abetting illegal aliens!
Posted by: jvilla | Jan 20, 2009 9:42:26 PM
While I admit that I haven't read this report yet, (the above link to "report" was not working for some reason), I would like to comment on Prof. Johnson's notes. I see two areas that I would like to comment on.
First, the bullet point, "• Return migration appears to correlate more closely with economic, political and social developments in countries of origin than with economic conditions in the United States," is interesting. It speaks to the fact that while we are a recession, the rest of the world, and particularly economies that are in large part dependent on our economy, are in worse shape than we are. We are now experiencing a significant global recession. While jobs are trending down here, the job markets in third world economies are in a particularly dangerous tailspin. There is, in most instances, nothing for economic refugees to return to, other than perhaps cheaper accommodations, or family, but no possibility of any income. It should also be pointed out that it it would be economically devastating to both our economy and the third world economies to deport or force "attrition" on millions of their ex-patriots. It would not only add to their huge unemployment problems, but it would also force us to lend them billions of dollars to help them to make up for the shortfall in remittances that they need to survive as functioning democracies. Should we neglect to help them, they could experience civil unrest, and it is not out of the question that some of the democracies could fall to forms of governments that would be less amenable to us. For instance, seven Latin American countries have switched to socialist or communist governments within the Bush administration years. The trend is not on our side as it is.
Also, I would like to comment on the topic raised above, "The report offers a number of policy suggestions that could make the U.S. immigration system more responsive to U.S. labor market and economic needs, among them the creation of a Standing Commission on Immigration and Labor Markets that would provide recommendations to Congress and the administration on adjustments to admissions levels based on labor market needs, employment patterns, and changing economic and demographic trends." I have been advocating similarly that we need a cabinet level assessment on an annual basis that would determine our forecasted needs for the upcoming year. I applaud the idea of a Standing Commission, as long as it has teeth, and will be bi-partisan and non-biased by outside lobbying interests. We need smart solutions, not arbitrary numbers.
Posted by: Robert Gittelson | Jan 14, 2009 9:24:54 AM