| dc.description |
States within the US have increasingly taken initiative regarding immigration matters by enacting laws that escalate state-level immigration enforcement, limit immigrants’ access to work and social benefits, or conversely, extend benefits to immigrants. These developments in immigration federalism have forced immigrants to navigate a greater range of contexts and raise the question of how variation in state policy portfolios impact the economic outcomes of first and second-generation immigrants. This dissertation identifies four types of state-level immigration policy configurations: exclusionist states treat immigrants as criminals by ramping up state-level enforcement and denying them rights and benefits; rights restrictionist states limit immigrant access to rights, benefits, and jobs, but remain uninvolved in immigration enforcement; inclusionist states view immigrants as contributors and allocate additional rights and benefits to them; and noninterventionist states do not enact immigration laws. In my first empirical chapter, I use 2000-2015 American Community Survey data together with inferred legal status derived from cross-survey multiple imputation (CSMI) to show that exclusionist states depress unauthorized women’s participation in the labor force. This finding challenges assimilation theories’ presumption that all anti-immigrant policies limit immigrant integration. Exclusionist states’ legal violence, or the ever-present fear resulting from immigration enforcement, may be key in blocking immigrant economic success. However, using 1998-2015 Current Population Survey Merged Outgoing Rotation Groups (CPS-MORG) and CSMI, my second empirical chapter finds that state policy does little to alter the authorized-unauthorized wage gap; this wage gap closed during the economic recession, across all state policy contexts. Using 1998-2015 CPS-MORG data, my third empirical chapter demonstrates that state laws do not affect the labor force participation and wages of the second generation or their wage gap with non-Hispanic, native-born whites. Therefore, despite highlighting the distinctive policy configurations that immigrants meet, this dissertation shows substantial homogeneity in immigrants’ economic outcomes across the fifty states. State policy effects may not be felt due to vertical differentiation in the context of reception. National economic trends may limit variation in wage offerings and local business practices may attenuate the impact of state policy on the employment of immigrant and second-generation workers. |
|