Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 25
3
Recent Patterns of
Unauthorized Immigration
B
udgeting is an effort to match resources to needs. A specific budget-
ing activity can only be understood in terms of the public policy
issue that it is attempting to address. This chapter provides a brief
analysis of the flows of unauthorized immigrants across the U.S. south -
western border,1 the main path in recent decades for unauthorized migra-
tion, and assesses what is known about the determinants of those flows.
Given the study’s focus, emphasis is given to the role of more intense
enforcement and its effects on both the flows unauthorized immigrants
and the stock (population) of such immigrants living in the United States.
STOCKS AND FLOWS OF UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRANTS
The stock of unauthorized immigrants changes over time principally
in response to shifts in the size of two flows: the number in-migrants and
the number of outmigrants (either voluntary or forced). The stock is also
affected by mortality, but that effect is trivial, largely because unauthor-
ized migrants are mostly young, healthy adults, and few deaths occur
(Oristian et al., 2009). Fertility is not a factor because births to undocu-
mented migrants are, by definition, native-born citizens and do not contrib-
ute to the stock of unauthorized immigrants. Hence, the size of the stock is
overwhelmingly determined by the volume of in- and outmigration flows.
1 We ignore the northern border because it has historically seen minimal flows of illegal
immigrants: see U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2011d).
25
OCR for page 26
26 BUDGETING FOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
When in-migration is greater than outmigration, the stock is increased;
when outmigration is greater than in-migration, the stock is reduced.
The number of unauthorized immigrants living in the country also
can be affected by changes in the legal status of foreign-born people in
the United States. For example, when a person admitted to the United
States with a valid temporary visa—such as a tourist, a foreign student,
or a temporary worker—violates the terms of admission by staying past
the expiration date of the visa or working when not legally allowed to do
so, the unauthorized immigrant population increases. Visa overstayers are
thought to represent 40-50 percent of the country’s stock of unauthorized
immigrants (Pew Hispanic Center, 2006).
Conversely, a person’s legal status can change in the other direction.
For example, an unauthorized immigrant can acquire a green card or
some valid temporary status that permits U.S. residency. This change
decreases the stock of unauthorized immigrants. Many of the avenues for
unauthorized immigrants to obtain legal status have been eliminated in
the past 10-15 years (see the discussion of the 1996 laws in Appendix A),
but a major reduction in the stock of unauthorized immigrants through
legalization did occur following the passage of the Immigration Reform
and Control Act of 1986, when 2.6 million formerly unauthorized immi-
grants obtained permanent resident status.2
The distinction between stocks and flows highlights the fact that
immigration enforcement involves two distinct but interrelated objec-
tives: limiting the number of unauthorized entries and reducing the size
of the resident undocumented population.3 The number of unauthorized
entries depends most on the demand for labor, but it also reflects access to
legal avenues for entry. When there are a relatively large number of visas
for permanent residence or temporary labor relative to the demand, the
number of undocumented entrants decreases. And, conversely, when the
supply of visas is constricted relative to the demand for labor, undocu -
mented migration becomes the only alternative for entry, and the volume
increases. Under the latter circumstances, the number of unauthorized
entries is determined, in theory, by how U.S. labor market conditions
and enforcement policies affect the costs and benefits of undocumented
migration. Since the mid-1980s, federal immigration enforcement policy
has generally sought to reduce the benefits by imposing sanctions on
2 Many other people, mostly from South and Central America and Haiti, were legalized by
statute in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
3 As discussed in Chapter 4, the number of undocumented entries is limited through
“prevention” and, potentially, “deterrence,” while the size of the resident undocumented
population is reduced through “removal.”
OCR for page 27
27
RECENT PATTERNS OF UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRATION
employers who hire unauthorized workers and to increase the costs by
dramatically increasing border enforcement.
Undocumented migrants who successfully evade the enforcement
system at the border next face the decision to stay or return home. Per-
haps paradoxically, increasing the costs of border crossing tends to lower
the likelihood of migrants’ returning (Massey et al., 2002). This happens
because as the costs of entry rise, a migrant must work longer to pay off
those up-front costs in order to make the trip economically justifiable. The
unintended consequences of border enforcement have been counterbal -
anced in some ways by increased interior enforcement, away from the
border.
Mexicans have been crossing the country’s southwestern border to
live and work in the United States for at least 150 years. Until recent
decades, most of the movement was for relatively short periods of sea-
sonal employment rather than for permanent settlement. By contrast, the
past 40 years have seen very large numbers of Mexicans migrate to live in
the United States, and a large component of that “settler” migration has
been unauthorized. Although census and survey data from the United
States provide measures of the Mexican-born population in the United
States and of flows of Mexicans who are living in the country on a more
or less permanent basis, it is more difficult to accurately assess the volume
of temporary, seasonal, or circular migration.4 These topics are explored
further below.
The migration of Central Americans to the United States in large
numbers has a shorter history. Moreover, because of the physical distances
involved, the movement of Central Americans is less circular or seasonal
and involves more longer-term settlement. The numbers of migrants are
also much smaller. According to the most recent estimates, about 3 mil-
lion Central American immigrants lived in the United States in 2010,
compared with more than 12 million immigrants from Mexico. However,
many Central Americans enter the United States illegally, and their move-
ment generates enforcement actions at the southwestern U.S. border with
Mexico and in the U.S. interior.
4 It is difficult to measure migration flows from Mexico (and Central America) into the
United States. Much of the flow is unauthorized, and migrants may be reluctant to partici -
pate in surveys and other data collection activities. Furthermore, because of the transitory
nature of some of the movement, it can be difficult to define the point in the migration
process at which a migrant is “residing” in the United States. Because of these definitional
issues and limited survey coverage, different sources in both the United States and Mexico
yield different estimates of migration flows. Although the patterns of change over time have
generally been consistent, the sizes of the flows have differed. The estimates presented in
this report are based principally on current U.S. surveys and are consistent with measured
changes in the numbers of immigrants residing in the United States over the past 20 years.
OCR for page 28
28 BUDGETING FOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
DEMOGRAPHIC HISTORY AND PROFILES
Immigration from Mexico accounts for the vast majority of unauthor-
ized entries across the southwestern U.S. border; a far smaller number
come from Central America.
Mexican Immigrants
Early Period: Prior to 1970
For more than a century until 1970, Mexicans moved relatively freely
back and forth across the southwestern U.S. border. The numbers living
in the United States increased through 1930, fell substantially during the
Great Depression (partly as the result of mass deportations), and then
grew again after 1940, reaching a total of 760,000 Mexicans living in the
United States at the time of the 1970 census (Massey, Durand, and Malone,
2002). They represented about 8 percent of the immigrants living in the
country, and they were only the fourth largest immigrant group—behind
Italians, Germans, and Canadians. Virtually all of the Mexican immi-
grants were in the United States legally. In 1970, Mexico’s census count
was 48 million, so the Mexicans in the United States represented about
1.4 percent of the combined Mexican population of the two countries (see
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, 2005).
Unauthorized Immigration: 1970s Through 2007
The migration situation changed dramatically in the 1970s as Mexican
immigrants began to settle in the United States in much larger numbers
than previously. This shift reflected, in large part, the changing role of
Mexican immigrants in the U.S. labor market, with an increasing pro -
portion being employed in year-round, full-time, nonagricultural jobs.
Moreover, most of the new settlers were undocumented. Undocumented
migration rose in part because shifts in U.S. policy cut off the avenues
for legal entry. In 1965, the United States unilaterally terminated the
Bracero Program, a temporary labor program that at its peak allowed
some 450,000 Mexican workers annually on temporary visas. In addition,
amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act in that year imposed
the first-ever numerical limits on immigration from the Western Hemi-
sphere. By the late 1970s, the temporary work visas had largely disap-
peared without any corresponding increase in the number of permanent
visas available to Mexicans (Massey, Durand, and Pren, 2009).
By 1980, the Mexican-born population of the United States had tripled
to 2.2 million, about half of whom were undocumented. The flow of Mexi-
can settlers into the United States continued to increase, and the numbers
OCR for page 29
29
RECENT PATTERNS OF UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRATION
in the country continued to grow. The overall pattern was one of acceler-
ated growth during economic booms and deceleration during periods of
stagnation (Massey, 2011).
By 2007, there were 12.5 million Mexican immigrants in the United
States, representing almost one-third of the country’s foreign-born popu -
lation and more than seven times as large as the immigrant popula-
tion from the second largest source country—India at 1.7 million (Pew
Hispanic Center, 2009). The absolute size of this immigrant group is
almost unprecedented. There were more Mexican immigrants living in the
United States than the total immigrant population in any other country. 5
With Mexico’s 2010 census counting 112.3 million people, the Mexicans in
the United States represented almost 10 percent of the combined Mexican
population of the two countries. Moreover, if one considers the U.S.-born
children of the Mexican immigrants as part of the worldwide Mexican
population, then about one-sixth of the combined Mexican population of
the two countries was in the United States.
About 7 million of the 12.5 million Mexicans in the United States
in 2007 were undocumented immigrants (Passel and Cohn, 2011). The
undocumented population had grown at a steady rate through the 1970s
and early 1980s, but growth accelerated during the late 1980s and 1990s for
a number of reasons, including faster economic growth, stronger migrant
networks, and the continued transition of migrants out of seasonal labor
and into year-round employment. Tougher border enforcement began
to drive up the costs and risks of unauthorized entry, inducing further
permanent settlement and driving down the rate of return migration
(Massey, Durand, and Malone, 2002). The number and rapid growth of
the unauthorized immigrant population is even more remarkable in light
of the fact that about 2.7 million undocumented Mexican immigrants
attained legal resident status around 1990 as a result of the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) (Baker, 2010).
The unauthorized Mexican immigrants represented a majority (56
percent) of the Mexicans living in the country in 2007. The legal Mexican
immigrant population of 5.6 million was by far the largest group of legal
immigrants. They represented almost 21 percent of all legal foreign-born
residents and were three-and-one-half times the size of the second largest
group.
5 Russia has about 12 million immigrants, making it the country with the second largest
immigrant population in the world (United Nations, 2009).
OCR for page 30
30 BUDGETING FOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
Stagnation: 2007 to 2011
The migration situation changed dramatically after 2007. After
increasing steadily for more than three decades, the Mexican-born popu -
lation stopped growing and remained essentially unchanged for the next
4 years, through early 2011 (the latest available data). The number of
legal Mexican-born residents increased slightly to 5.9 million and, for the
first time since at least the 1980s, the number of unauthorized Mexicans
decreased, dropping from 7 million to 6.5 million in 2010 (Passel and
Cohn, 2011). The stagnation appears to be due to a very large drop in
the number of new immigrants arriving in the United States and not to
increased departures from the country. In fact, the likelihood of return
migration by undocumented residents is at a record low (Aguilar et al.,
2010; Massey, 2010). Net immigration of Mexican settlers into the country
dropped to almost zero as inflows and outflows were in rough balance.
Central American Immigrants
There are many parallels between the growth of the Mexican and
the Central American immigrant populations, notwithstanding the much
longer history of movement between Mexico and the United States. In
1970, there were only about 120,000 Central American immigrants living
in the country. The number tripled in the 1970s and then tripled again in
the 1980s, so that in 1990 there were 1.1 million Central American immi-
grants in the country, almost 10 times as many as there had been in 1970.
The rapid population growth continued as the numbers doubled
by 2000 and reached almost 3 million in 2007. The share of immigrants
who were unauthorized hovered around 50 percent, slightly less than for
Mexican immigrants but far exceeding the share unauthorized from any
other part of the world (Passel and Cohn, 2009). Central Americans have
represented about 12.5 percent of total unauthorized immigrants, which
is about 30 percent of the total excluding Mexicans. No single country
dominates Central American migration to the United States: the largest
numbers are from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
The rapid growth of Central Americans in the United States has also
recently stagnated. After 2006, growth virtually ceased so that the total
number of Central American immigrants in the United States in 2010
(3 million) was the same as it had been in 2006. The drop in the flows of
immigrants from Central America was not as dramatic as in the case of
Mexico. Overall, Central American migration is significant to the home
countries. The population of Central America is slightly more than one-
third of Mexico’s population, so the 3 million Central American immi-
grants in the United States represent almost 7 percent of the combined
OCR for page 31
31
RECENT PATTERNS OF UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRATION
population of Central America and Central Americans in the United
States.
Annual Flows of Migrants
Because of the unauthorized component of inflows, there is no official
count of the annual number of new migrants to the United States. It is
possible, however, to derive measures of annual flows from census and
survey questions that ask immigrants when they arrived in the country
and by combining these data across time with repeated measures of the
stock of immigrants.6
From Mexico
The annual flow of Mexican settlers was about 400,000 in the early
1990s, and the vast majority of these new settlers were unauthorized
immigrants. The total flow increased to almost 600,000 in 1995 and then
dropped slightly for 2 years. After 1997, the flow grew dramatically, reach-
ing more than 700,000 annually in 1999 and 2000. The changing flows
were related to conditions in both Mexico and the United States (Pew
Hispanic Center, 2009): the rapid economic expansion in the United States
in those years and the very favorable employment situation.
After 2000, the annual flow of migrants from Mexico dropped by
about 20 percent, to slightly less than 600,000 for 2001-2003. The initial
drop is associated with the beginning of a U.S. recession in 2001 and
higher unemployment rates. By 2004, the employment situation in the
United States had begun to improve, and the flow from Mexico increased
to more than 600,000. It then plummeted with the beginning of severe eco-
nomic recession in the United States. Mexicans were affected by the con -
traction of the U.S. economy even earlier than the general U.S. population.
With the collapse of the housing boom that began in 2006, the construction
sector, which had employed large numbers of Mexican laborers, plunged
into recession in early 2007 (before the rest of the economy).
In 2007, the flow was only one-half of what it had been 2 years
earlier—320,000. The numbers continued to fall, to about 175,000 in 2009.
In that year, Border Patrol apprehensions reached a 36-year low (U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, 2011d). The flow remained virtually
unchanged in 2010 (according to preliminary data), while apprehensions
continued to fall. Overall, the flow of migrants from Mexico during the
6 Estimatesof annual immigrant inflows from Mexico and Central America were prepared
by the committee. A fuller description of the estimates, methods, and sources can be found
in two forthcoming publications (Passel, 2011, 2012).
OCR for page 32
32 BUDGETING FOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
past 3 full years (2008-2010) has been well below that for any other time
in the post-1990 period. It is worth noting that during the same 3 years,
unemployment rates in the United States were the highest they had been
in a long time.
From Central America
The flows of immigrants from Central America are much smaller
than those from Mexico, usually one-sixth to one-fourth as large, but the
general patterns of increases and decreases are quite similar to the Mexi -
can flows. The gross number of Central Americans coming to the United
States peaked in 2000 (at 136,000) and then dropped in 2001-2004 with
the post-2000 U.S. economic slowdown. The Central American flow hit a
larger peak in 2005, at almost 150,000. Since then, it has decreased steadily,
reaching 60,000 in 2010 (Passel, 2012).
CROSS-BORDER FLOWS OF MEXICAN MIGRANTS
Border Patrol apprehensions along the southwestern border are
believed to be an indicator of changes in flows of unauthorized Mexi-
can migrants to the United States. But apprehensions clearly are not an
adequate measure of flows, because the same individual may be caught
more than once or not at all. According to field research, more than 9 out
of 10 of those who are apprehended on their first attempt and are then
eventually released back to Mexico succeed in entering undetected on the
second or third attempt, and more than half of all unauthorized entrants
are not apprehended even once (Cornelius et al., 2010; Cornelius, 2011);
see Figure 3-1. Moreover, the volume of apprehensions can be affected
by a variety of factors other than the number of migrants attempting
to cross the border, such as interdiction strategies, staffing levels, and
migrant decisions. Nonetheless, the overall pattern of apprehensions in
the 1990s and 2000s is similar to that of U.S. data on immigrant flows:
both increased during the late 1990s and peaked around 2000, dropped
somewhat with the 2001-2002 recession, increased in the middle of the
decade, and then plummeted after 2006.
Mexico’s labor force survey,7 redesigned in 2005, measures quarterly
movement out of and into Mexico. The longitudinal design captures short-
term as well as long-term movement and, thus, would seem to be able to
show both permanent flows to live in the United States and circular labor
migration flows. The volume of flow from Mexico shown in this survey is
7 Encuesta Nacional de Ocupacion y Empleo (ENOE), which is carried out by Instituto
Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI).
OCR for page 33
33
RECENT PATTERNS OF UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRATION
100
90
80
70
Percentage
60
Apprehended on
50
most recent trip to
40 border
30 Able to enter
eventually on same
20
trip
10
0
Jalisco Yucatan Jalisco Oaxaca Yucatan Jalisco Oaxaca
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
FIGURE 3-1 Apprehension and eventual success rates among unauthorized U.S.-
Mexican border crossers from Jalisco, Oaxaca, and Yucatan: 2005-2011.
SOURCES: Data from Cornelius (2011), Hicken et al. (2011), Fitzgerald et al. (2012).
Figure 3-1
R02094
substantially larger than that measured in U.S. sources. For example, for
vector editable
the November 2005-November 2006 period, the Mexican survey shows
about 1.1 million Mexicans leaving the country; the U.S.-based estimate
of the flow, in contrast, is slightly more than 450,000 for the 2006 calendar
year. The two numbers are not necessarily incompatible, however, as
the former is an estimate of the gross flow from Mexico, including both
permanent movers to the United States as well as temporary migrants,
while the latter is an estimate of the flow of new permanent movers only.
The Mexican data show a net movement of about 575,000, which is closer
to the U.S. figure but still higher. For 2006, the United States recorded
226,000 legal entries by temporary workers, and they would be captured
in the Mexican data. The overall picture presented from the Mexican side
is very consistent with the U.S. data. Over the 2005-2010 period, migration
to the United States dropped dramatically. Gross flows of new settlers to
the United States at the middle of the decade were about 500,000 (or more)
per year but had dropped by as much as 80 percent by the end of the
decade. These patterns are consistent with an economic explanation for
migration to the United States. Specifically, the availability of employment
(as indicated by low unemployment rates) draws Mexicans to the U.S.
labor market. With much higher unemployment by the end of the decade
than earlier, fewer Mexicans are coming to the United States.
Field research conducted among potential migrants in Mexico from
OCR for page 34
34 BUDGETING FOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
2007 to 2009 reveals that the probability of migrating to the United States
during the next 12 months dropped in tandem with the intensification of
the economic recession (Massey, Durand, and Pren, 2009; Cornelius et al.,
2010; Fitzgerald et al., 2011; Massey, 2011). The research over many years
suggests that high wages and persistent labor demand in the United States
are the principal drivers of undocumented migration (Jenkins, 1977; Blejer
et al., 1978; Bean et al., 1990; Espenshade, 1990; Hanson and Spilembergo,
1999; Davila et al., 2002), with the precise number of migrants being
conditioned strongly by the size of the worker cohorts who are entering
the Mexican labor market (Hanson and McIntosh, 2009, 2010). Economic
conditions in Mexico are significant but secondary in their effects on out -
migration (Frisbie, 1975; Jenkins, 1977; Taylor, 1987; Massey and Espinosa,
1997; Davila et al., 2002).
As U.S. economic conditions have deteriorated in the past 5 years,
enforcement activities have increased; but rising enforcement does
not seem to have played a significant role in lowering the likelihood
of undocumented migration. Although Amuedo-Dorantes and Bansak
(2012) found that increased time spent patrolling the border (“linewatch”
hours) decreased the willingness of experienced migrants to cross again
and increased the waiting time before the next attempted crossing, their
study focused on intentions rather than behavior.
Studies of behavior generally show that rising enforcement has little
deterrent effect on undocumented migration. Davila et al. (2002) found
that although increased linewatch hours reduced apprehensions initially,
the effect was short-lived as migrants adapted their behavior to avoid
capture. In her analysis of Mexican migration, Gathman (2008) found that
linewatch hours had no effect on the probability of taking an undocu-
mented trip once other factors were held constant. Massey and Riosmena
(2010) similarly found no significant effect of linewatch hours on the like -
lihood of undocumented migration from several Latin American nations,
including Mexico. When they measured the enforcement effort using the
probability of apprehension at the border, Massey and Espinosa (1997)
found a positive effect on the likelihood of initiating undocumented migra-
tion. Massey and Riosmena (2010) found that rising deportations from the
United States likewise increased the odds of undocumented migration.
Rather than acting as a deterrent, increased enforcement appears to
have other effects on migrant behavior: it increases the duration of trips
and reduces the likelihood of return migration (Kossoudji, 1992; Massey,
Durand, and Malone, 2002; Reyes, 2004; Riosmena, 2004); it shifts border
crossing away from areas of concentrated enforcement (Massey, Durand,
and Malone, 2002; Orrenius, 2004; Carrion-Flores and Sorenson, 2006;
Massey, 2007; Massey, Durand, and Pren, 2009); and it increases the like-
OCR for page 35
35
RECENT PATTERNS OF UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRATION
lihood of crossing with a border smuggler (Singer and Massey, 1998;
Massey, Durand, and Malone, 2002; Massey, Durand, and Pren, 2010).
Field data show that the vast majority of would-be unauthorized
Mexican migrants—roughly 9 of 10—hire such smugglers to reduce the
physical risk of clandestine entry and improve their prospects for evad -
ing the Border Patrol. The percentage of migrants using paid guides has
steadily risen from the early 1990s, from around 80 percent to nearly
100 percent today (Mexican Migration Project, 2010). Not surprisingly,
increased border enforcement also increases the cost of hiring a border
smuggler, commonly known as a coyote (Massey, Durand, and Malone,
2002; Gathman, 2008; Massey, Durand, and Pren, 2010).
There are several reasons that the deterrent effects of enforcement are
small, as shown in most studies. The most obvious is that rising enforce -
ment at particular locations on the border simply induces migrants to
cross elsewhere (Orrenius, 2004). Another reason is that as crossing costs
have increased, migrants’ ability to finance crossings using their U.S.-
based networks has also risen, resulting in little net effect of rising costs on
the proclivity to migrate (McKenzie and Rapoport, 2007). A third reason
is that, in the long term, the earnings gains from migration far outweigh
border crossing costs, which also leads to little deterrent effect.
Finally, personal knowledge of border crossing and experience with
worksite enforcement in the United States are positively correlated with
intent to migrate, perhaps explaining the counterintuitive finding in some
studies of a positive effect of enforcement on undocumented migration.
Information about U.S. enforcement activities (both at the border and in
the interior) continually flows from U.S.-based migrants to relatives and
friends in migrant-sending communities. Having good information does
not deter migration, and it may in fact increase the propensity to migrate
by raising potential migrants’ confidence about their ability to circumvent
barriers to illegal entry, find a better coyote, and so on (Fuentes et al., 2007;
Parks et al., 2009; Hicken et al., 2010).
Other research has also noted that migration and enforcement are
endogenous,8 making causal effects difficult to discern (Hanson and
Spilimbergo, 1999). Field data gathered in 2007-2011 suggest that enforce-
ment is a bigger deterrent of potential migrants when they also face a lack
of jobs in the United States. This interactive effect reflects the changed
calculus of expected economic returns to migration during a recessionary
period. According to survey data, migrants’ perceptions of the intensity
of border enforcement were essentially stable during this period. During
each year of the recession, 9 of 10 potential migrants believed that it was
8 Since the Border Patrol responds to increases in illegal crossings by ramping up enforce -
ment, crossings and enforcement often appear to rise together.
OCR for page 36
36 BUDGETING FOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
not very difficult to evade the Border Patrol if one crossed clandestinely.
The perceived difficulty of finding work in the United States, however,
jumped sharply. Potential migrants are reluctant to borrow $3,000-$5,000
(depending on mode of entry), mostly from their U.S.-based relatives, to
pay a coyote if the probability of employment is not high.
Among unauthorized Mexicans who have made it into the United
States, increased border and interior enforcement have a strong nega-
tive effect on the likelihood of their returning to Mexico. Unauthorized
migrants who are working are reluctant to return to Mexico, even for a
short visit, because they risk losing their foothold in the U.S. economy—
a fear exacerbated by the recession. Moreover, they would have to pay
heavily to be smuggled back into the United States. This “caging effect” of
tougher enforcement on return migration is one of the most notable con-
sequences of the immigration enforcement build-up since 1993, account -
ing for a significant portion of the growth in the stock of undocumented
Mexicans during this period.
Among migrants from Central America, the data show that enforce-
ment also interacts with the state of the U.S. economy. When employment
demand and wages are low, rising enforcement has a deterrent effect on
the likelihood of making a first illegal trip to the United States. But when
employment and wages are high, the effect is mitigated and works as it
does for potential Mexican migrants, with rising enforcement correlated
with more trips. The effect of enforcement on return migration is the same
as among Mexicans: rising levels of both border and interior enforcement
reduce the probability of return migration.
In sum, the recent drop in undocumented migration can be attributed
more to the state of the U.S. economy than to stronger enforcement. Key
contributing factors include a drop in employment demand and wages
in the United States and expanded access to legal immigration (through
temporary “H” visas and as a result of sponsorship by naturalized U.S.
citizens of their relatives). Although existing studies suggest that rising
enforcement has historically only played a small role in deterring migra -
tion, it has proven more potent during the economic downturn, perhaps
due to migrants’ reduced ability to finance higher border crossing costs
by borrowing against future earnings.
DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS IN MEXICO
Migration dynamics are also affected by changing demographic con-
ditions in Mexico, particularly the fertility rate, which has declined by
OCR for page 37
37
RECENT PATTERNS OF UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRATION
more than 70 percent over the past 50 years.9 These dramatic shifts in
childbearing have sharply reduced the sizes of birth cohorts and lowered
the numbers of new entrants into the Mexican labor force some 15 to 20
years later. For example, the average annual increases in the number of
10- to 14-year-old males in the population shrank from about 150,000 per
year in the 1970s and 1980s to approximately 20,000 per year over the
past 10 years.10
Such changes have encouraged some analysts to conclude cautiously
that demographic pressures to migrate from Mexico to the United States
may have begun to abate as a result of declining Mexican fertility (see,
e.g., Binational Study on Migration (Project) [1997]). According to Han -
son (2010), the changing size of cohorts entering the Mexican labor force
explained about 40 percent of the temporal variation in total migration
from Mexico over the past two decades of the 20th century, which sug-
gests that the declining growth cohort size since 2000 has played some
role in recent declines. Projections suggest the decline in cohort growth
will continue into the future (Hanson and McIntosh, 2009) to help reduce
the shortfall long noted between the number of new jobs becoming avail -
able each year in Mexico and the number of new potential labor force
entrants (and thus the number of potential migrants). Of course, the
likelihood of Mexicans’ migrating to the United is affected by numerous
factors besides population growth. For example, there was a rise in the
volume of Mexican migration to the United States during the late 1990s
and mid-2000s (Bean and Lowell, 2007; Passel and Cohn, 2011), which
were periods when the cohorts of entrants into the Mexican labor force
were smaller than in previous decades.
One important factor affecting migration from Mexico is the avail-
ability of jobs in Mexico. If young Mexicans think that their job prospects
at home are grim and that their employment possibilities in the United
States are much better, they are relatively likely to leave. This perspective
may be prevalent even if the overall numbers of young Mexicans have
become appreciably smaller and even if economic conditions in Mexico
have changed sufficiently so that there are enough jobs becoming avail-
able for those who seek them.
Unfortunately, from the U.S. perspective, the available evidence about
recent employment possibilities in Mexico is not encouraging. From the
mid-1950s until 1982, economic growth in Mexico (measured as the
annual percentage change in the real gross domestic product [GDP])
averaged about 6.8 percent per year (Weintraub, 2010). From 1983 until
9 Forexample, the Mexican total fertility rate (roughly the average number of children per
woman) fell from more than 7.0 in 1965 to 2.4 in 2010 (González, 2008; Cave, 2011).
10 Calculations carried out by the committee from Mexican census data.
OCR for page 38
38 BUDGETING FOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
1993, growth tapered off sharply, averaging barely more than 1.0 percent
per year, which set the stage for the North American Free Trade Agree -
ment (NAFTA) in 1994. Despite ensuing increases in U.S.-Mexico trade
(Martin, 2009), growth in the Mexican economy did not notably increase,
averaging only about 2.5 percent annually from 1995 through 2007—not
enough to keep pace with population growth (Alba, 2008). In 2008-2009,
labor market conditions worsened because of the U.S. recession and spill-
over effects of the global financial crisis in Mexico, although economic
expansion appears to have resumed in 2010 (Federal Reserve Bank of
Dallas, 2011). On balance, despite fertility declines that would seem to
have dampened the likelihood of migration, employment prospects in
Mexico have stagnated over the past 15 years, and indeed probably have
worsened in many of Mexico’s high-emigration areas.
CONCLUSION: IMPLICATIONS FOR BUDGETING
Insights into patterns of migration and the factors that drive them
have potential implications for budgeting. For example, the importance
of U.S. economic conditions for efforts by potential migrants from Mexico
and Central America to enter the United States means that decisions about
budgets must consider the possibility of increased migration attempts
when the U.S. economy improves. With the resources of many compo-
nents of the immigration enforcement system already stretched thin (see
Chapter 4), it is unclear how the relevant agencies and the federal court
system could handle higher migration volumes in the current system of
“enforcement with consequences.” The evidence that enforcement has
been only minimally effective in reducing unauthorized immigration
is another challenge to the immigration system and suggests that agen -
cies need to pay attention not only to the level of resources required to
maintain current enforcement efforts at the same or higher levels but also
to consider whether alternative ways of using enforcement resources—
affecting either risk of apprehension or severity of sanctions, or both—
would be more effective in achieving the goals of U.S. immigration
enforcement policy.
