For those of us tracking immigration policy, the shift is undeniable. With President Obama recently pointing out just how gridlocked a once-promising bipartisan Senate immigration proposal has become, cities and states have become the new immigration-policy innovators. They are filling the void.
U.S. immigration policy has been the purview of the federal government for more than a century. But it was not always that way. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, individual states had their own immigration laws. States typically sought to regulate immigrant influxes with policies that reflected particular concern about the arrival of poor European newcomers. Now, immigration policy is, in some ways, returning to its roots.
Increasingly, places that want to put out the welcome mat and encourage entrepreneurial activity are sharing ideas. And as a quick federal fix to immigration policy looks like a long shot, local and state proposals are gaining traction.
In perhaps the most well-known current example of state-level immigration strategy, Michigan’s Republican governor, Rick Snyder, proposed in January bringing 50,000 immigrants to Detroit over five years through a visa program aimed at immigrants with advanced degrees or exceptional abilities in science, business, or the arts. These immigrants would have to live and work in the struggling city.
Detroit, a city that lost about 237,500 residents — a full quarter of its population — between 2000 and 2010 alone, needs people. The hope is that immigrant newcomers will occupy empty residential blocks, launch small businesses, and fill both high- and low-skill job niches.
Perhaps that’s why Snyder’s proposal has been endorsed by conservative think tanks and newspapers. But given congressional control over immigration policy, it looks unlikely to become law in the near future.
Nevertheless, Snyder’s proposal ranks among a growing list of ideas emanating from states and cities seeking ways to manage immigration. In 2013, there was a 64 percent increase in proposed or enacted state laws dealing with immigration, compared with 2012. And that increase follows a doubling of state immigration legislation between 2006 and 2010. Moreover, these initiatives reflect a shift from those focused on immigration enforcement and deflecting immigrants to those that expand state benefits such as extending driver’s license eligibility and in-state tuition to unauthorized residents.
In the latest state attempt to work around the federal stalemate, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick unveiled the Global Entrepreneur Program that recruits foreign students to stay and work on new start-ups in the state. It exploits an existing loophole in the federal H-1B visa program.
State laws can make a difference in the lives of immigrants and their families. In late 2013, California approved the “Trust Act,” which directs state law enforcement to expedite the release of detained unauthorized immigrants after they are determined not to have serious criminal records rather than quickly turn them over to federal officials, who can deport them. Implemented in January, the law has already slowed the rate of deportations in California by 44 percent, according to an Associated Press analysis.
To craft effective policies, communities must understand the drivers that direct immigrants to certain towns or regions. This is easier said than done.
About a decade ago, the Abell Foundation studied the issue for Baltimore and found, “The few comparable cities that reversed their population decline through immigration did not plan their success.” Today’s immigration is driven by a variety of factors. Recent research released by Bread for the World Institute on “blue-collar” immigrants in Baltimore and Detroit provides some clues about what attracts working-class immigrants to cities.
While a reputation as an immigrant-friendly city can’t hurt, lower-skilled immigrants who are helping revitalize these cities tend to select a new city to call home based on three primary factors: low housing costs, a plentiful manual-labor job market, and family connections.
As one Baltimore-area construction company owner who observed the increase in Latino immigration noted, “Rent was cheap, and the work was there; that’s really the bottom line.”
Family and community connections are also important. Once an immigrant has settled in a U.S. city, it’s a safe bet that if others from that person’s region, village, or family decide to migrate, they will begin that journey in cities where they know people who can help them find housing or offer them a place to stay, connect them with jobs, and explain the way things work in their new home.
Municipalities with large and diverse immigrant populations such as New York are leading the way when it comes to taking economic drivers into account. Its blueprint for immigrant integration includes assistance for immigrant entrepreneurs and employment services for underemployed immigrants with in-demand skills. These practical programs align with most immigrants’ primary goal — economic advancement — which can also potentially contribute to a city’s economic development.
But whatever the configuration of state and municipal immigrant-attraction strategies, they are not a substitute for federal legislative action. It is federal, not state or local, policy that controls the laws that allow immigrants to enter the country to live and work. As long as immigration reform remains stuck in Congress, states and cities will continue to generate new policies, for better or for worse.
Andrew Wainer is a senior immigration-policy analyst at Bread for the World Institute. You can follow him on Twitter @AndrewWainer. Audrey Singer is a senior fellow in the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, where she focuses on the new geography of immigration and federal-, state-, and local-policy responses.
HAVE AN OPINION ON POLICY AND CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS?
The Next America welcomes op-ed pieces that explore the political, economic and social impacts of the profound racial and cultural changes facing our nation, particularly relevant to education, economy, the workforce and health. Email Janell Ross at email@example.com. Please follow us on Twitter and Facebook.
What We're Following See More »
"House Republicans are circulating the text of an amendment to their ObamaCare replacement bill that they believe could bring many conservatives on board. According to legislative text of the amendment," drafted by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ), "the measure would allow states to apply for waivers to repeal one of ObamaCare’s core protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Conservatives argue the provision drives up premiums for healthy people, but Democrats—and many more moderate Republicans—warn it would spark a return to the days when insurance companies could charge sick people exorbitantly high premiums."
President Trump on Wednesday "will order a review of national monuments created over the past 20 years with an aim toward rescinding or resizing some of them—part of a broader push to reopen areas to drilling, mining, and other development." Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told reporters on Tuesday said he'd be reviewing about 30 monuments.
"An emerging government funding deal would see Democrats agree to $15 billion in additional military funding in exchange for the GOP agreeing to fund healthcare subsidies, according to two congressional officials briefed on the talks. Facing a Friday deadline to pass a spending bill and avert a shutdown, Democrats are willing to go halfway to President Trump’s initial request of $30 billion in supplemental military funding."
The Michael Flynn story is not going away for the White House as it tries to refocus its attention. The White House has denied requests from the House Oversight Committee for information and documents regarding payments that the former national security adviser received from Russian state television station RT and Russian firms. House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz and ranking member Elijah Cummings also said that Flynn failed to report these payments on his security clearance application. White House legislative director Marc Short argued that the documents requested are either not in the possession of the White House or contain sensitive information he believes is not applicable to the committee's stated investigation.