Suchergebnisse

The decision by the US administration to repeal the Executive Order of the Obama administration, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), has caused a great deal of commentary. This brief statement elaborates further on the findings reported in our original article

The surge in unaccompanied minor crossings between 2011 and 2014 led to an overwhelming increase in the number of juvenile deportation proceedings, which coincided with a peak in intensified immigration enforcement at the state and local levels. Using data on juvenile deportation proceedings, we examine how tougher immigration enforcement might have influenced judicial rulings on these cases and, ultimately, these youths' ability to stay in the country. We find that the average increase in immigration enforcement over that period is associated with a 15 percent reduction in the share of juvenile cases ending with permission to stay. The result underscores the importance of the immigration policy context in which courts operate on their rulings, even if immigration law is within the jurisdiction of the Federal government. Given the gravity of the circumstances these children are escaping, further attention to how the piecemeal approach to immigration enforcement might impact the protection of their humanitarian rights is warranted.

AbstractApprehensions of unaccompanied minors from Central American countries have been on the rise since 2008, but news reports particularly caught up with the increase after 2012. Some politicians posited that the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) contributed to the surge by creating the expectation that children would be allowed to stay in the country. Immigration advocates, however, believe that the two are not related. Using data on apprehensions of unaccompanied minors by border patrol sector, nationality and year, we find that DACA did not significantly impact those apprehensions. Rather, the 2008 Williams Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, along with violence in the originating countries and economic conditions in both the countries of origin and the United States, emerge as some of the key determinants of the recent surge in unaccompanied minors apprehended along the southwest US‐Mexico border.

Recent increases in U.S. immigration enforcement at the local and state level may be impacting remittance flows to developing countries by curtailing undocumented immigration, restricting the cyclicality of migration flows and limiting employment opportunities for the undocumented. We examine how the remitting patterns of Mexican migrants in the United States are being impacted by two types of immigration enforcement policies: police-based initiatives, such as 287(g) agreements and Secure Communities, and employment-based programs, as is the case with employment verification mandates. We find that increased enforcement reduces the share of migrants sending money home. However, legal migrants remitting money home increase their money outflows enough to offset any reductions in remittance payments from their undocumented counterparts. As a result, the average dollar amount remitted per Mexican migrant rises in the midst of increased uncertainty, safeguarding remittances as one of the least volatile sources of income in the developing world.

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers—the requests from ICE to a state or local law enforcement agency to hold someone until the person can be taken into immigration custody—have been instrumental in supporting the growing number of deportations from the United States. However, as migrant detentions expanded after 9/11, law enforcement agencies have been increasingly reluctant to comply with ICE's detainers, due to the cost incurred by detention centers when holding immigrants for an extended period and the possible violation of migrants' civil rights. Such reluctance has earned these law enforcement agencies the label of "sanctuary cities." ICE has denounced this behavior, arguing that it interferes with the agency's ability to obtain custody of convicted criminals and makes communities less safe. Using data on detainers at the local law enforcement-agency level, we assess ICE's claims. We find that sanctuary policies do not hinder ICE's ability to obtain custody of convicted criminals and question the argument that such policies might make communities less safe. These findings are relevant for migration scholars and policymakers interested in gaining a better understanding of the public-safety implications of sanctuary policies aimed at immigrants in various receiving nations, including Canada, the UK, and the United States.

The recent impetus of tougher immigration-related measures passed at the state-level raises concerns about the impact of such measures on the migration experience, trajectory and future plans of unauthorized immigrants. In a recent and unique survey of Mexican unauthorized immigrants interviewed upon their voluntary return or deportation to Mexico, almost a third reports experiencing difficulties in obtaining social or government services, finding legal assistance or obtaining health care services. Additionally, half of them report fearing deportation despite all of them being unauthorized. When we assess how the enactment of punitive measures against unauthorized immigrants, such as E-Verify mandates, has impacted their migration experience, we find no evidence of a statistically significant association between these measures and the difficulties reported by unauthorized immigrants in accessing a variety of services. However, the enactment of these mandates infuses deportation fear and reduces inter-state mobility among voluntary returnees during their last migration spell, and helps curb deportees' intent to return to the United States in the near future.

US President Trump's administration has vowed to boost immigration enforcement to get rid of "bad hombres," or undocumented immigrants with criminal records. Using past data on the alleged detention motives for a representative sample of Mexican deportees, we evaluate how prior widespread and prioritized enforcement has fared in that regard. We find that while the early sweeping approach to enforcement raised deportees' propensity of being detained for minor offenses, the trend reversed with prioritized enforcement. These findings inform policy tactics that, aside from proving effective in prioritizing serious criminal offenses, can also lead to significant savings to taxpayers.

The recent impetus of tougher immigration-related measures passed at the state level raises concerns about the impact of such measures on the migration experience, trajectory, and future plans of unauthorized immigrants. In a recent and unique survey of Mexican unauthorized immigrants interviewed upon their voluntary return or deportation to Mexico, almost a third reported experiencing difficulties in obtaining social or government services, finding legal assistance, or obtaining health care services. Additionally, half of these unauthorized immigrants reported fearing deportation. When we assess how the enactment of punitive measures against unauthorized immigrants, such as E-Verify mandates, has affected their migration experience, we find no evidence of a statistically significant association between these measures and the difficulties reported by unauthorized immigrants in accessing a variety of services. However, the enactment of these mandates infuses deportation fear, reduces interstate mobility among voluntary returnees during their last migration spell, and helps curb deportees' intent to return to the United States in the near future.