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."     

The Changing Legal Status Distribution of Immigrants: A Caution

This article presents arguments and data to show that the decennial census and annual Current Population Surveys include immigrants falling into four broad legal status groups: naturalized citizens; legal immigrants; legal nonimmigrants; and undocumented migrants. Since 1986, the relative rewards and penalties imposed on these four categories have shifted dramatically in response to U.S. policies, as have the relative number of foreigners in each group. In general, the relative share of foreigners in the most vulnerable status groups has increased, with the proportion of undocumented migrants and legal nonimmigrant rising and that of legal immigrants falling. Researchers using census and CPS data need to be aware of the shifting distribution of foreigners by legal status over time and of the changing profile of opportunities experienced by each status group, and they need to exercise caution in their interpretation of trends with respect to immigrant assimilation and the effects of immigration on U.S. society.     

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.     

Wages Differences Between Temporary and Permanent Immigrants1

Temporary “guestworker” programs are often assumed to have less impact on native-born workers than permanent immigration. However, there are theoretical reasons to expect temporary immigrants to accept lower wages and thus for temporary migration to have a greater adverse impact on receiving country wages. This article develops these theoretical insights and tests for differences in wages paid to temporary and permanent undocumented Mexican immigrants. Survey data from Mexico shows that temporary immigrants earned wages about 12% lower than permanent immigrants. Controlling for human and social capital, a 7.4% difference in wages remains. Among married immigrants, temporary immigrants earn 9.6% lower wages with these same controls.     

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.     

“The Politics of the HealthCare Reform Debate: Public Support of Including Undocumented Immigrants and Their Children in Reform Efforts in the U.S.”

Although U.S. immigration and health care policies appear to be highly correlated, scholarship has yet to gauge the public's views toward providing undocumented immigrants with health coverage at the state level. We analyze support for including undocumented immigrants in health care reform in New Mexico. Utilizing an original public opinion survey of New Mexico adults, we find that individuals are more supportive of the state providing health care to the children of undocumented immigrant than to their parents. Multivariate logistic regression analyses suggest that factors such as liberal ideology and perceptions of commonalities with Latinos increase support levels. Despite a lack of support among a majority of respondents, the influence of perceived commonalities with immigrants suggests that reform advocates and political elites who mobilize along ethnic or human solidarity may be successful in creating conditions for the inclusion of undocumented immigrants in the public provision of health care at the state level.     

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.     

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."     

Gender differences in immigrant health: the case of Mexican and Middle Eastern immigrants

This article draws on theories of gender inequality and immigrant health to hypothesize differences among the largest immigrant population, Mexicans, and a lesser known population of Middle Easterners. Using data from the 2000-2007 National Health Interview Surveys, we compare health outcomes among immigrants to those among U.S.-born whites and assess gender differences within each group. We find an immigrant story and a gender story. Mexican and Middle Eastern immigrants are healthier than U.S.-born whites, and men report better health than women regardless of nativity or ethnicity. We identify utilization of health care as a primary mechanism that contributes to both patterns. Immigrants are less likely than U.S.-born whites to interact with the health care system, and women are more likely to do so than men. Thus, immigrant and gender health disparities may partly reflect knowledge of health status rather than actual health.     

The Past is Ever Present: Transnationalism Old and New – Italian and Mexican Immigrants in the US

The paper focuses on what is old and what is new in transnationalism by analyzing extraterritorial attempts of the Italian and Mexican governments. During the large southern/ eastern European immigration to the US from 1890 to the 1920s, Italian immigrants reached 24 percent of the immigrant wave. Mexican documented and undocumented immigrants from the 1980s until 2010s made up 30 percent of the immigrant wave almost a century later. Transnational immigrants live in a country in which they do not claim citizenship rights and claim citizenship rights in a country they do not live in. Therefore migration and immigrant policies challenge both sending and receiving states. Foreign governments are limited in the policies and practices that they can enforce. A comparison of state policies from Italy and Mexico challenges the fact that transnationalism is significantly different and new.     

Overlooking/Looking Over Neoliberal Immigration: Amnesty Policy in the ‘Nation of Immigrants’

In the self-proclaimed ‘nation of immigrants’, a struggle for power plays out in US immigration law. This article examines such a struggle in the context of rising neoliberalism. As president Ronald Reagan set out to revolutionize America with the deregulation of the economy, privatization, and the globalization of capitalist democracy, pundits claimed that the country was experiencing a Mexican illegal immigration crisis that pivoted on Mexican women's fecundity and abuse of social services. Yet along with punitive provisions, the first US law to directly address undocumented migration, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) included an amnesty programme widely praised as a democratic watershed for the undocumented. Consequently, ‘multicultural’ immigrant men and women seemed to be embraced, while in the same breath disciplined through discourses of respectability and criminality that secured both a pool of cheap immigrant labourers and minoritized citizens. More specifically, two strains of ‘nation of immigrants’ discourse that circulated around amnesty during the law-making process affectively (and effectively) framed America as the globally exceptional guarantor of democratic rights, inclusivity, and equal access to economic opportunity for citizens. On one hand, discourse that welcomed and celebrated an abstracted immigrant subject who was free to succeed on the basis of individual hard work was coded as the epitome of Americanism. On the other hand, discourse that welcomed explicitly racialized and gendered immigrants who were free to succeed on the basis of their hard work was coded as emblematically American. In this case respectable tokens of multiculturalism (i.e. immigrants of colour and especially immigrant women of colour who upheld traditional family values) evidenced American inclusivity. This article argues that both strains of ‘nation of immigrants’ discourse naturalized a relationship between citizenship, freedom, and free markets and thus powerfully masked the exploitative social relations key to neoliberal economic arrangements.     

Could “Acculturation” Effects Be Explained by Latent Health Disadvantages Among Mexican Immigrants?

This paper tests portions of a new theory of immigrant health by focusing exclusively on latent biomarkers of future health risks. Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III, 1988–1994 – we uncover the typically observed immigrant health advantage among recent immigrants that diminishes among long‐term immigrants. In addition, we observe worse health among U.S.‐born Mexican Americans relative to non‐Hispanic Whites. Finally, although our theory suggests that recent immigrants may have latent health risks due to disadvantaged childhood experiences, we do not find evidence in support of this theory.     

Aging and undocumented: The sociology of aging meets immigration status

Being undocumented is strongly correlated with low wages, employment in high risk occupations, and poor healthcare access. We know surprisingly little about the social lives of older undocumented adults despite the vast literature about youth and young undocumented migrants. Literature about the immigrant health paradox casts doubts on the argument that unequal social conditions translate to poorer self-reported health and mortality, but few of these studies consider immigration status as the dynamic variable that it is. Reviewing research about older migrants and minorities, I point to the emergence of undocumented older persons as a demographic group that merits attention from researchers and policymakers. This nexus offers important lessons for understanding stratification and inequality. This review offers new research directions that take into account multilevel consequences of growing old undocumented. Rather than arguing that older-aged undocumented migrants are aging into exclusion, I argue that we need careful empirical research to examine how the continuity of exclusion via policies can magnify inequalities on the basis of immigration status and racialization in older age.     

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.     

Pathways to El Norte: origins, destinations, and characteristics of Mexican migrants to the United States

The geography Mexican migration to the U.S. has experienced deep transformations in both its origin composition and the destinations chosen by migrants. To date, however, we know little about how shifting migrant origins and destinations may be linked to each another geographically and, ultimately, structurally as relatively similar brands of economic restructuring have been posited to drive the shifts in origins and destinations. In this paper, we describe how old and new migrant networks have combined to fuel the well-documented geographic expansion of Mexican migration. We use data from the 2006 Mexican National Survey of Population Dynamics, a nationally representative survey that for the first time collected information on U.S. state of destination for all household members who had been to the U.S. during the 5 years prior to the survey. We find that the growth in immigration to southern and eastern states is disproportionately fueled by undocumented migration from non-traditional origin regions located in Central and Southeastern Mexico and from rural areas in particular. We argue that economic restructuring in the U.S. and Mexico had profound consequences not only for the magnitude but also for the geography of Mexican migration, opening up new region-to-region flows.     

The social process of undocumented border crossing among Mexican migrants

"In this article a theoretical model is developed that views undocumented border crossing as a well-defined social process influenced by the quantity and quality of human and social capital that migrants bring with them to the border, and constrained by the intensity and nature of U.S. enforcement efforts. Detailed histories of border crossing from undocumented migrants originating in 34 Mexican communities are employed to estimate equations corresponding to this model.... As people gain experience in border crossing, they rely less on the assistance of others and more on abilities honed on earlier trips, thus substituting migration-specific human capital for general social capital.... On all trips, the intensity of the U.S. enforcement effort has little effect on the likelihood of arrest, but INS involvement in drug enforcement sharply lowers the odds of apprehension."     

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.     

Non‐Citizen Mexican Youth in US Higher Education: A Closer Look at the Relationship between State Tuition Policies and College Enrollment

This paper examines state policies that extend or deny in‐state tuition to children of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Using the Current Population Survey (1997–2010), we assess changes in college enrollment among Mexican‐born non‐citizens — a proxy for the undocumented population. In contrast to previous analyses, we find that policies extending in‐state tuition to undocumented youth do not directly affect rates of college enrollment. However, we find that Mexican‐born non‐citizen youth residing in states that deny in‐state tuition have a 12.1 percentage point lower probability of being enrolled in college than their peers living in states with no such policies.     

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.     

Economic integration and labor flows: stage migration in farm labor markets in Mexico and the United States

"This article examines the probable effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on migration from Mexico to the United States, disputing the view that expansion of jobs in Mexico could rapidly reduce undocumented migration. To the extent that NAFTA causes Mexican export agriculture to expand, migration to the United States will increase rather than decrease in the short run. Data collected in both California and the Mexican State of Baja California show that indigenous migrants from southern Mexico typically first undertake internal migration, which lowers the costs and risks of U.S. migration. Two features of employment in export agriculture were found to be specially significant in lowering the costs of U.S. migration: first, working in export agriculture exposes migrants to more diverse social networks and information about U.S. migration; second, agro-export employment in northern Mexico provides stable employment, albeit low-wage employment, for some members of the family close to the border (especially women and children) while allowing other members of the family to assume the risks of U.S. migration."