Do undocumented migrants earn lower wages than legal immigrants? New evidence from Mexico

"This article examines the extent to which undocumented status lowers wage rates among immigrants to the United States from four Mexican communities. Regression equations were estimated to determine the effect of legal status on wages independent of other demographic, social and economic variables, and special efforts were made to control for possible sample selection biases. Findings suggest that the data are relatively free from selectivity problems that have characterized earlier studies, and that legal status had no direct effect on wage rates earned by male migrants from the four communities. Legal status also had little effect on the kind of job that migrants take in the United States, but it does play an important indirect role in determining the length of time that migrants stay in that country. By reducing the duration of stay, illegal status lowers the amount of employer-specific capital accruing to undocumented migrants, and thereby lowers wage rates relative to legal migrants." Data are for 1982-1983.     

Transnationalism and American Exports in an English‐Speaking World1

Investigating the relationship between immigration, middleman minority status, transnationalism, and U.S. foreign trade, the authors assembled a census‐based data file that contains aggregate‐level variables for 88 foreign‐born groups by national origin between 1980 and 1990. They regressed immigrant characteristics and immigration volume upon time‐lagged import/export statistics from the same 88 nations between 1985 and 1995. Results show the independent influence on exports of immigrant entrepreneurship, transnationalism, and middleman minority status. But these variables, exhaustively derived from the existing literature, had no effect on U.S. imports; they only affected exports. The authors propose that the discrepancy between imports and exports arises because of the dominance of English as a world business language. In this situation, foreigners need no help from immigrants when they export to the United States; but native‐born, monolingual Americans need the help of bicultural immigrants when they export. The empirical results suggest that immigrant entrepreneurs enhance the United States' exports and thus reduce the United States' balance of payments deficit.     

Traces in the shadow: Occupational outcomes of previously undocumented migrants in Italy

Using a representative sample of currently legal third-country immigrants in Italy, obtained from the Social Condition and Integration of Foreign Citizens survey, this article examines the long-term labour market consequences of previous undocumented spells. First, formerly undocumented immigrants are identified using retrospective information on respondents' legal status. Second, immigrants are classified according to the duration of irregular spells before the achievement of the first residence permit. Third, current labour market outcomes are investigated to account for the endogeneity underlying the previous undocumented history. Results show that even though formerly undocumented immigrants are more likely to participate in the labour market, they are more likely to be employed in underqualified occupations than continuously legal immigrants. The duration of the irregular experience affects occupational qualification negatively, among both men and women. The lack of legal entry channels and policies to plan and regulate migration to Italy may reinforce labour market segmentation, exposing migrants to long-term occupational downgrade.     

Chinese Immigrants in the U.S. Labor Market: Effects of Post‐Tiananmen Immigration Policy1

The Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 and ensuing government crackdown affected Chinese nationals not only at home but also around the world. The U.S. government responded to the events in China by enacting multiple measures to protect Chinese nationals present in the United States. It first suspended all forced departures among Chinese nationals present in the country as of June 1989 and later gave them authorization to work legally. The Chinese Student Protection Act, passed in October 1992, made those Chinese nationals eligible for lawful permanent resident status. These actions applied to about 80,000 Chinese nationals residing in the United States on student or other temporary visas or illegally. Receiving permission to work legally and then a green card is likely to have affected recipients’ labor market outcomes. This study uses 1990 and 2000 census data to examine employment and earnings among Chinese immigrants who were likely beneficiaries of the U.S. government’s actions. Relative to immigrants from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea – countries not covered by the post‐Tiananmen immigration policy measures – highly educated immigrants from mainland China experienced significant employment and earnings gains during the 1990s. Chinese immigrants who arrived in the U.S in time to benefit from the measures also had higher relative earnings in 2000 than Chinese immigrants who arrived too late to benefit. The results suggest that getting legal work status and then a green card has a significant positive effect on skilled migrants’ labor market outcomes.     

Multigenerational Punishment: Shared Experiences of Undocumented Immigration Status Within Mixed‐Status Families

Estimates suggest that approximately 16.6 million people in the United States are members of mixed‐status families composed of undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens or documented immigrants. Drawing on interviews with 32 undocumented 1.5‐generation parents, the author explores how immigration laws affect undocumented parents and their citizen children. She finds that U.S. citizen children and their undocumented parents often share in the risks and limitations associated with undocumented immigration status. She conceptualizes this phenomenon as multigenerational punishment, a distinct form of legal violence wherein the sanctions intended for a specific population spill over to negatively affect individuals who are not targeted by laws. Though not restricted to familial relationships, multigenerational punishment tends to occur within families because of the strong social ties, sustained day‐to‐day interactions, and dependent relationships found among family members. This sheds light on how laws can further the reproduction of inequality within families and over generations.     

Parenting Strain Among Mexican‐Origin Mothers: Differences by Parental Legal Status and Neighborhood

Despite increasing recognition of the critical importance of legal status for understanding the well‐being of immigrants and their families, there has been scant research on this topic. Using Wave 1 of the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (2000–2002) and the 2000 decennial census, the authors investigated how parenting strain among Mexican‐origin mothers varies by legal status and neighborhood context. They found significant differences in parenting strain by nativity and legal status, with undocumented mothers reporting the lowest level. Results from multilevel models with cross‐level interactions reveal that the influence of neighborhood immigrant concentration differs by legal status. Percent foreign born in the neighborhood is associated with reduced parenting strain for documented Mexican‐origin mothers, whereas it is associated with heightened parenting strain for undocumented Mexican‐origin mothers. The findings provide empirical support for the need to recognize legal status distinctions in studies of the well‐being of immigrants and their families.     

Undocumented Migration to the United States and the Wages of Mexican Immigrants

Prior work has documented the remarkable decline in the real wages of Mexican immigrant workers in the U.S. over the past several decades. Although some of this trend might be attributable to the changing characteristics of the migrants themselves, we argue that a more important change was the circumstances under within Mexican immigrants competed for jobs in the U.S. After 1986 a growing share of Mexican immigrants was undocumented, discrimination against them was mandated by federal law, and enforcement efforts rose in intensity. We combined data from the Mexican Migration Project (MMP) with independent estimates of the percentage undocumented among Mexicans living in the U.S. to estimate a series of regression models to test this hypothesis. Controlling for individual characteristics helps to explain the decline in the wages of immigrants, but does not eliminate the trend, which is only explained fully when the percentage undocumented is added to the model. A key date is 1986, confirmed by a Oaxaca–Blinder decomposition analysis, when undocumented hiring was criminalized and undocumented migration revived after IRCA's legalization programs ended. As the percentage undocumented rose to new heights in the face of employer sanctions, immigrant wages fell below what we would have observed under the former policy regime. Using newly available data from Warren and Warren (2013), we examined how variation in the percentage undocumented by state and year from 1990 through 2009 affected immigrant wages and confirmed a strong negative effect, but the addition of an interaction term to the model indicated that the negative effect was confined largely to undocumented migrants, whose wage penalty rose from 8 to 18 percent as the percentage undocumented rose from its observed minimum to maximum.     

Opposition to Pro‐Immigrant Public Policy: Symbolic Racism and Group Threat

This study examines the relationship between symbolic racism and native‐born citizens’ policy opinions toward legal and undocumented immigration. With data from the 1994 General Social Survey and the NPR/Kaiser Foundation/Kennedy School of Government 2004 Immigration Survey, the results from logit regression models indicate that symbolic racism significantly predicts opposition to legal immigration, immigrant access to federal aid, and standard costs for college, citizenship for U.S.‐born children, and work permits for undocumented immigrants. The effects are independent of group threat and other factors. Symbolic racism explained more variation in policy opinions toward government assistance, while group threat explained more variation toward immigration levels and citizenship status. Depending on the issue, native‐born citizens likely derive their immigration policy opinions from moral ideologies in addition to intergroup competition.     

From political opportunities to niche-openings: the dilemmas of mobilizing for immigrant rights in inhospitable environments

This article examines how undocumented immigrants mobilize for greater rights in inhospitable political and discursive environments. We would expect that such environments would dissuade this particularly vulnerable group of immigrants from mobilizing in high profile campaigns because such campaigns would carry high risks (deportation) and have little chance of success. However, we have witnessed many mobilizations by undocumented immigrants in both Europe and the United States over the past 20 years. This article uses the case of undocumented youths in the United States (DREAMers) to examine how a group of undocumented immigrants have overcome important barriers and become a powerful voice for immigrant rights in the country. The article suggests that while undocumented immigrants faced inhospitable contexts, cracks and “niche-openings” they continued to present themselves to groups with the right set of cultural, legal, and economic attributes. Immigrants in possession of these attributes (in this case, youth) could target a niche-opening and argue that they are particularly deserving of legalization. This article also highlights an important dilemma: In contexts characterized by general closure and hostility, narrow mobilizations targeting niche-openings provide the only path to legal status for some, but they can also differentiate (discursively and legally) between “deserving” and “undeserving” undocumented immigrants. Differentiation can contribute to stratifying the immigrant population, with those deemed more deserving facing greater rights and entitlements and those deemed less deserving facing greater restrictions and repression. This carries the risk of magnifying normative and legal inequalities between immigrant groups while introducing many points of conflict within the broader immigrant rights movement.     

The Occupational Cost of Being Illegal in the United States: Legal Status,Job Hazards,and Compensating Differentials

Considerable research and pervasive cultural narratives suggest that undocumented immigrant workers are concentrated in the most dangerous, hazardous, and otherwise unappealing jobs in U.S. labor markets. Yet, owing largely to data limitations, little empirical work has addressed this topic. Using data from the 2004 and 2008 panels of the Survey of Income and Program Participation, we impute legal status for Mexican and Central American immigrants and link their occupations to Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) data on occupational fatalities and occupational hazard data from the U.S. Department of Labor to explore racial and legal status differentials on several specific measures of occupational risk. Results indicate that undocumented workers face heightened exposure to numerous dimensions of occupational hazard – including higher levels of physical strain, exposure to heights, and repetitive motions – but are less exposed than native workers to some of the potentially most dangerous environments. We also show that undocumented workers are rewarded less for employment in hazardous settings, receiving low or no compensating differential for working in jobs with high fatality, toxic materials, or exposure to heights. Overall, this study suggests that legal status plays an important role in determining exposure to job hazard and in structuring the wage returns to risky work.     

Economic Outcomes among Latino Migrants to Spain and the United States: Differences by Source Region and Legal Status

Using representative national surveys, this paper compares economic outcomes among Latin American migrants to Spain and the United States in the first cross-national comparison using quantitative data. Considering the geographic location and social proximity of each country with respect to Latin America, we detect a critical selection effect whereby the majority of Latin American migrants to Spain originate in South America from middle class backgrounds, whereas most migrants to the United States are Central Americans of lower class origins. This selection effect accounts for cross-national differences in the probability of employment, occupational attainment, and wages earned. Despite differences in the origins and characteristics of Latino immigrants to each country, demographic and human and social capital factors appear to operate similarly in both places; and when models are estimated separately by legal status, we find that effects are more accentuated for undocumented compared with documented migrants, especially in the United States.     

The sociodemographic characteristics of Mexican immigrant status groups: implications for studying undocumented Mexicans

"Based on Warren and Passel's...estimate that nearly two-thirds of Mexican-born noncitizens entering the U.S. during 1975-80 and included in the 1980 Census are undocumented immigrants, this article uses the 1980 Public Use Microfiles to delineate four Mexican origin immigrant status groups--post 1975 Mexican-born noncitizens, pre-1975 Mexican-born noncitizens, self-reported naturalized citizens, and native-born Mexican-Americans." It is found that "the pattern of sociodemographic differences among these groups provides support for the idea that the first two categories contain a substantial fraction of undocumented immigrants. These two groups (especially the first) reveal characteristics that one would logically associate with undocumented immigrants--age concentration (in young adult years), high sex ratios, low education and income levels, and lack of English proficiency."     

Documented,Undocumented, and Liminally Legal: Legal Status During the Transition to Adulthood for 1.5‐Generation Brazilian Immigrants

This article deconstructs the “illegal–legal” binary that characterizes much immigration scholarship. Using in‐depth interviews with 42 1.5‐generation Brazilian immigrants in young adulthood, I find that respondents discuss a distinct hierarchy with four categories of legal membership—undocumented, liminal legality, lawful permanent resident (LPR), and citizen—that affect their daily lives and incorporation. Liminally legal and LPR statuses in particular challenge this illegal–legal dichotomy. Liminal legality is an “in‐between” status in which immigrants possess social security numbers and work permits but have no guarantee of eventual citizenship. Without opportunities to regularize their status, both undocumented and liminally legal young adults face increased vulnerabilities to poverty and social exclusion. Liminally legal youth, however, are in better positions than their undocumented peers during early adulthood because of state‐delimited rights associated with their legal status.     

A national probability study of problematic substance use and treatment receipt among Latino caregivers involved with child welfare: The influence of nativity and legal status

The goal of this study was to determine whether differences exist in problematic substance use and receipt of services by nativity (U.S. born, foreign born) and legal status (U.S. citizen, legal resident, undocumented) among Latino parents reported for child abuse and neglect. We used data from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being II and weighted bivariate chi-square tests to compare rates of problematic substance use and services receipt by nativity and legal status. Weighted logistic regression models estimated the effect of immigrant status on the odds of service receipt. Rates of problematic substance use were not significantly different by nativity or legal status. Service receipt was significantly lower for foreign-born (2.1%) versus U.S.-born (9.4%) parents. Compared to U.S. citizens (8.1%) and legal residents (4.3%), services receipt was least likely for undocumented parents (0.3%). Adjusting for covariates, nativity did not affect services receipt but undocumented legal status reduced the odds of receiving services by 95%. Data indicate that disparities do exist in receipt of substance use services among immigrant parents, especially undocumented parents, compared to U.S. born parents. Findings also suggest that the protective effect of immigrant status on problematic substance use, i.e., the immigrant paradox, may not apply to child-welfare-involved families.     

The Impact of Legal Status on Immigrants’ Earnings and Human Capital: Evidence from the IRCA 1986

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), the largest amnesty in U.S. history, took effect in 1986 and legalized all immigrants who arrived before 1982. The IRCA creates a discontinuity, according to the year of entry, in the probability of having legal status. Therefore, I use the regression discontinuity approach to study the impact of legality on immigrants’ labor market outcomes and human capital. Using Californian Latino immigrants from Census 1990, I find that the 1975–81 arrivals, on average, outperform the 1982–86 arrivals in male wages, female employment probability, and male English-speaking ability. These findings are not due to a general trend in U.S. labor market conditions because the same analysis, using refugees, Puerto Rican migrants and U.S.-born Latinos—three comparison groups without legality issues—indicates no difference in outcomes between the 1975–81 and 1982–86 cohorts. However, the advantage of Latino immigrants of the earlier cohort over the later cohort diminishes in Census 2000.     

Comparison of two methods for estimating the number of undocumented Mexican adults in Los Angeles County

This article compares 2 different methods for estimating the number of undocumented Mexican adults in Los Angeles County. The 1st method, the survey-based method, uses a combination of 1980 census data and the results of a survey conducted in Los Angeles County in 1980 and 1981. A sample was selected from babies born in Los Angeles County who had a mother or father of Mexican origin. The survey included questions about the legal status of the baby's parents and certain other relatives. The resulting estimates of undocumented Mexican immigrants are for males aged 18-44 and females aged 18-39. The 2nd method, the residual method, involves comparison of census figures for aliens counted with estimates of legally-resident aliens developed principally with data from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). For this study, estimates by age, sex, and period of entry were produced for persons born in Mexico and living in Los Angeles County. The results of this research indicate that it is possible to measure undocumented immigration with different techniques, yet obtain results that are similar. Both techniques presented here are limited in that they represent estimates of undocumented aliens based on the 1980 census. The number of additional undocumented aliens not counted remains a subject of conjecture. The fact that the proportions undocumented shown in the survey (228,700) are quite similar to the residual estimates (317,800) suggests that the number of undocumented aliens not counted in the census may not be an extremely large fraction of the undocumented population. The survey-based estimates have some significant advantages over the residual estimates. The survey provides tabulations of the undocumented population by characteristics other than the limited demographic information provided by the residual technique. On the other hand, the survey-based estimates require that a survey be conducted and, if national or regional estimates are called for, they may require a number of surveys. The residual technique, however, also requires a data source other than the census. However, the INS discontinued the annual registration of aliens after 1981. Thus, estimates of undocumented aliens based on the residual technique will probably not be possible for subnational areas using the 1990 census unless the registration program is reinstituted. Perhaps the best information on the undocumented population in the 1990 census will come from an improved version of the survey-based technique described here applied in selected local areas.     

Artificial Intelligence and Predicting Illegal Immigration to the USA

The number of Mexican immigrants in the USA tripled between 1990 and 2015. In 2015, about 12 million undocumented immigrants lived in the USA, including 6.6 million undocumented Mexican immigrants. More than half of the undocumented immigrants in the USA enter the USA legally and overstay their visas. Therefore, it is essential to predict whether visa applicants overstay their visas or not. We use a set of pre-immigration variables for more than 6,281 individuals from Mexico to predict their legal status in the USA. By using eight machine learning techniques, we conclude that we can predict correctly the legal status of 80 per cent of Mexicans who migrate to the USA.     

Gender differences in the occupational status of undocumented immigrants in the United States: experience before and after legalization

"This article examines the incorporation of a national sample of undocumented immigrants both before and after they applied to legalize their status under the provisions of the [U.S.] Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). Data from the 1989 and 1992 Legalized Population Surveys (LPS-1 and LPS-2) are used. These surveys provide labor force and occupational data for three critical reference periods: as newly arrived undocumented immigrants, as experienced undocumented immigrants, and as documented immigrants.... The overall upward mobility of both men and women between first job and the occupation held at time of application for legalization continued after legalization. On average, men also continued to report higher status jobs than women, although women did somewhat better after their status was legalized." This is a revised version of a paper originally presented at the 1997 Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America.     

A Confluence of Interests in Immigration Enforcement: How Politicians,the Media,and Corporations Profit from Immigration Policies Destined to Fail

The concept of an immigration industrial complex draws from previous work on the prison industrial complex and the military industrial complex. All three of these complexes point to the ways that the interests of government bureaucracies, corporate elites, and politicians shape laws and policies. This article explains how the undocumented status of migrants provides advantages to at least three groups: (a) media pundits who make their careers railing against ‘illegal aliens’; (b) politicians who use undocumented migrants as scapegoats; and (c) contractors who profit from massive immigration enforcement expenditures. The disenfranchised status of undocumented migrants enhances the ability of each of these groups to benefit from their presence. This confluence of interests explains why Congress has not enacted viable immigration policies that effectively deal with the ‘problem’ of illegal immigration. This is the second in a two‐part series on the immigration industrial complex.     

Undocumented Latina immigrants in Orange County,California: a comparative analysis

"This article examines a unique data set randomly collected from Latinas (including 160 undocumented immigrants) and non-Hispanic white women in Orange County, California, including undocumented and documented Latina immigrants, Latina citizens, and non-Hispanic white women. Our survey suggests that undocumented Latinas are younger than documented Latinas, and immigrant Latinas are generally younger than U.S.-citizen Latinas and Anglo women. Undocumented and documented Latinas work in menial service sector jobs, often in domestic services. Most do not have job-related benefits such as medical insurance.... Despite their immigration status, undocumented Latina immigrants often viewed themselves as part of a community in the United States, which significantly influenced their intentions to stay in the United States. Contrary to much of the recent public policy debate over immigration, we did not find that social services influenced Latina immigrants' intentions to stay in the United States."