Incoming Issues
The Asymmetric Polarization of Immigration Opinion in the United States
Trent Ollerenshaw & Ashley Jardina
Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter 2023, Pages 1038-1053
Abstract:
In this paper, we analyze trends in Americans' immigration attitudes and policy preferences nationally and across partisan and racial/ethnic groups. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Democrats and Republicans shared similarly negative attitudes toward immigrants and high levels of support for restrictionist immigration policies. Beginning in the 2010s and continuing through the early 2020s, however, Democrats' aggregate immigration opinions liberalized considerably. We observed increasingly liberal immigration preferences among Democrats of all racial and ethnic backgrounds after 2016, but this trend was especially pronounced among white Democrats. Among Republicans, opinion on immigration remained mostly stable over this period, although in some cases it became more conservative (e.g., border security) and more liberal on others (e.g., amnesty). The marked liberalization in immigration opinion among Democrats has left partisans more divided on immigration than at any point since national surveys began consistently measuring immigration opinion in the late twentieth century.
Immigration, Female Labour Supply and Local Cultural Norms
Jonas Jessen, Sophia Schmitz & Felix Weinhardt
Economic Journal, forthcoming
Abstract:
We study the local evolution of female labour supply and cultural norms in West Germany in reaction to the sudden presence of East Germans who migrated to the West after reunification. These migrants grew up with high rates of maternal employment, whereas West German families mostly followed the traditional breadwinner-housewife model. We find that West German women increase their labour supply and that this holds within households. We provide additional evidence on stated gender norms, West-East friendships, intermarriage, and child care infrastructure. The dynamic evolution of the effects on labour supply is best explained by local cultural learning.
Third-Country Effects of U.S. Immigration Policy
Agostina Brinatti & Xing Guo
University of Michigan Working Paper, December 2023
Abstract:
We study the effects of U.S. skilled immigration restrictions on the Canadian economy and on American workers' welfare. In 2017, a new policy tightened the eligibility criteria for U.S. visas and was followed by a sharp increase in the number of skilled immigrant admissions to Canada. We use time and cross-sectional quasi-experimental variation introduced by this policy, along with U.S. and Canadian visa application data, to show that the policy led to a 30% higher level of Canadian applications in 2018. We then use the universe of Canadian employer-employee-linked records, immigration records, and data on international trade in goods and services to show that Canadian firms that were relatively more exposed to the inflow of immigrants increased production, exports, and the wage bill paid to native workers. Finally, we study the policy's impact on the welfare of American and Canadian workers by incorporating immigration policy into a multi-sector model of international trade. Our analytical results show that U.S. restrictions affect immigration to other countries, in turn affecting American wages through changes in consumption and U.S. export prices. We calibrate the model using our data and reduced-form estimates. We find that the welfare gains for American workers targeted for protection are up to 25% larger in a closed economy compared to an economy with the observed trade levels.
Did Immigrant Arrest Rates Change During the Trump Administration? Evidence From California and Texas
Michael Light, Laura Boisten & Jungmyung Kim
Crime & Delinquency, forthcoming
Abstract:
Despite substantial legal and policy debates, whether immigrant arrest rates changed during the Trump presidency remains surprisingly understudied. This is partially because immigration status is rarely available in crime data. We address this gap by applying difference-in-differences (DD) and difference-in-difference-in-differences (DDD) estimations to detailed arrest data from Texas and California from 2015 to 2018. We find little evidence, descriptive or otherwise, to suggest that the transition from the Obama to the Trump administration had a meaningful impact on immigrant arrests, whether measured as violence, property, drug, or traffic offenses. These results suggest that the immigration enforcement initiatives under President Trump did not deliver on their crime reduction pledges, but they also provide little evidence of over-policing of immigrants in discretionary actions such as traffic arrests.
Where there's a will, there's a way: Border walls and refugees
Nazli Avdan, Andrew Rosenberg & Christopher Gelpi
Journal of Peace Research, forthcoming
Abstract:
Over the last decade, there has been a notable surge in the movement of refugees across international borders, posing significant challenges for the international community. In response, various policy measures have been implemented, including the construction of border walls, with the aim of impeding refugee influx. However, scholars have expressed doubts regarding the effectiveness of these fortifications, suggesting that walls merely redirect migrants to alternative routes, discourage return migration, or alter migrants' cost-benefit calculations. Despite these concerns, there has been a lack of rigorous testing to support or refute these claims beyond case-specific evidence. This article addresses this research gap by thoroughly examining the arguments surrounding the impact of border fencing on refugee flows. We conduct a systematic, cross-national test of these arguments with a two-way fixed-effects estimator, an equivalence test, and a recently developed matching estimator designed for use on time-series cross-sectional data. Our results strongly support those who are skeptical of the impact of walls. We consistently demonstrate either that border fencing has not had any causal impact on refugee flows between 1970 and 2017 or that the statistical state-of-the-art is incapable of discerning that true effect. In either scenario, the evidence suggests that border fences fail to deliver the anticipated outcomes. These findings hold significant implications as violence-driven refugee flows persist, underscoring that while walls may serve as politically attractive tools for populist leaders, their actual deterrent effects are highly questionable at best.
The Local Reaction to Unauthorized Mexican Migration to the US
Ernesto Tiburcio & Kara Ross Camarena
Tufts University Working Paper, October 2023
Abstract:
We study the political impacts of unauthorized Mexican migration to the United States. Our identification strategy relies on two shift-share instruments that combine variation in migration inflows and migrant networks using data on more than 7 million likely unauthorized migrants who obtained consular IDs. We identify evidence of conservative electoral and policy responses at the level of a US county. Unauthorized migration significantly increases the vote share of the Republican Party in federal elections and decreases total public expenditure. We also find that the allocation of public expenditure shifts away from education towards policing and the administration of justice. We find evidence in favor of three interrelated mechanisms: economic grievance, reflected in formal job loss in "migrant-intensive" sectors and an associated increase in the number of poor people; out-migration, White flight, and population decline; and an increase in out-group bias, as manifested in reduced moral universalism. Unauthorized migration inflows have no discernible impact on total employment, average wages, unemployment, or crime rates. We find some evidence to suggest that the political and socioeconomic impacts of unauthorized migration are smaller in counties that have more progressive taxation or a more generous social safety net, suggesting that these policies can facilitate job switching and prevent a change in values.
Going Local: Public Attitudes toward Municipal Offices of Immigration Affairs
Tomás Jiménez & César Vargas Nuñez
American Political Science Review, forthcoming
Abstract:
Local governments have been increasingly active in immigration policy by cooperating with federal immigration enforcement or creating local offices of immigrant affairs (OIA) charged with integrating immigrants. How do these policies shape perceptions of locales following these policy routes? Using a set of pre-registered survey experiments, we find that compared to local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, creating an OIA produces more favorable public attitudes, with minimal differences when undocumented immigrants also receive access to services. Democrats, especially white Democrats, have the most favorable views of cities with an OIA. While Republicans prefer cooperation with ICE, their attitudes toward cities with OIAs remain positive. Our findings suggest that despite partisan polarizing immigration policy debates, establishing OIAs does not attract the negative political attention common in an era of hyperpolarization. OIAs could be a rare immigration policy that may be effective and supported.