By Gary J. Hale and Jie Ma

U.S. immigration policy remains murky in substance as well as legislatively incomplete. Polarization of the issue by American politicians and legislators has resulted in both punitive and permissive policy pronouncements over the last four U.S. presidential administrations, most of which have done little to deter migrants from crossing through Mexico into the U.S. in search of a better life.

From a policy perspective, the flow of migrants through Mexico to the United States is seemingly unstoppable — with many believing that U.S. government efforts to curtail this activity have failed. If the intent of previous and existing federal immigration laws and reforms was to conduct immigration processing in an orderly manner, the U.S. government has not succeeded. The current situation on the U.S.-Mexico border demonstrates that walls, fences, barricades, bridges, patrols, technology, and laws do not deter illegal entries. Media coverage of the “border crisis” — including reports of individual crossings and the so-called “caravans” moving through Mexico — has added to the perception that there is no end in sight to the swell of migrants at the southern border.

This research paper reviews some of the implications of at least 30 migrant caravan iterations that were detected traversing Mexico en route to the U.S. from 2017 to 2022. The migrant caravan phenomenon is viewed from a broad perspective and distilled down to the individual iterations to assess commonalities between caravan waves and to determine which “push” and “pull” factors were in place when the caravans were formed and mobilized. The individual caravan iterations are also compared against permissive and punitive U.S. and Mexican immigration policies at the time to assess any discernable cause and effect. Our analysis provides evidence that punitive policies may negatively affect the creation and movement of caravans, while permissive immigration policies may create an impetus for migrant movements. Recommendations for future action are included.

Houston, TX: Baker Institute for Public Policy, 2023. 24p.

By  Wendy Edelberg and Tara Watson 

This policy proposal is a proposal from the author(s). As emphasized in The Hamilton Project’s original strategy paper, the Project was designed in part to provide a forum for leading thinkers across the nation to put forward innovative and potentially important economic policy ideas that share the Project’s broad goals of promoting economic growth, broad-based participation in growth, and economic security. The author(s) are invited to express their own ideas in policy proposals , whether or not the Project’s staff or advisory council agrees with the specific proposals. This policy proposal is offered in that spirit.  

  Immigration is good for the US economy and for the fiscal picture at the federal level, but some local areas experience adverse fiscal impacts when new immigrants arrive. Edelberg and Watson propose a transparent system for redistributing resources from the federal government to these localities. Local areas would receive $2,500 annually for each adult immigrant who arrived to the US within the past five years without a college degree—those more likely to generate negative fiscal flows at the subnational level. The funds would take the form of unrestricted transfers to local educational agencies through the existing Impact Aid program and to Federally Qualified Health Centers. This support would help to offset educational, health, and other costs to local areas associated with immigrant inflows, and more equitably share the overall fiscal and economic benefits of immigration.   

Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution and The Hamilton Project , 2022.   26p.

By Lilana Keith

Across Europe, people live and work while having irregular migration status, economically, socially and culturally enriching their communities and countries of residence. Undocumented migrants contribute directly and indirectly to social protection systems, as taxpayers, workers and informal carers. Undocumented workers are a key part of the domestic work and care workforce, caring for children, elderly and people with long-term social support and care needs, and enabling labour market participation and work-life balance.1 Nonetheless, states severely restrict access to social protection for people with temporary, precarious or irregular residence status. Although undocumented migrants face various economic and social risks and vulnerabilities, they are excluded from many of the basic mechanisms of social protection put in place to address vulnerabilities and provide a minimum social safety net, including access to subsidised housing and income security. Such exclusion compounds the risks of in-work poverty, destitution, homelessness, violence and exploitation – all of which undocumented migrants face due to discrimination linked to their residence status. Restrictions on access to social protection associated with a person’s residence permit can also be a major reason for people not being able to renew their permit, if the conditions of their permit require them to be financially independent without recourse to public social assistance. The European Commission notes that housing “has a major influence on immigrants’ employment options, educational opportunities, social interactions, residence situation, family reunification and citizenship rights”.2 Income security is scarce among undocumented migrants due to their precarious employment situations, which can include unsafe working conditions, low pay, long hours, job insecurity, and lack of sick leave.3

Brussels: PICUM, 2022. 38p.  

By Christian Ambrosius and David Leblang

What causes the demand for entry into the United States? We demonstrate the existence of a vicious cycle of deportation policies and migration between the United States and countries from Latin America and the Caribbean. Our argument is simple: deportation of convicts from the United States leads to violence in the deportee’s home country which, in turn, increases the demand for that country’s natives to seek entry in the United States. We test this argument utilizing a nested research design based on both cross-country data as well as subnational data from the case of El Salvador. For both samples of data, we first estimate the effect of deportations on home country violence. In the second step, we show that the predicted level of home country violence helps explain the demand for entry into the United States.

Unpublished report, 2019. 40p.