New Immigration Articles

Here are some new immigration articles from the Social Science Research Network (www.ssrn.com):

“A Proposed North American Regional Development Fund: The Next Phase of North American Integration Under NAFTA” Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, Vol. 40, 2008 STEPHEN T. ZAMORA, University of Houston Law Center 

The North American Free Trade Agreement has been misconceived, from its inception, as an economic agreement, but NAFTA’s geopolitical and social importance go far beyond the economic sphere. This article contends that the NAFTA parties should address the social repercussions of economic integration in North America, and should consider adopting joint policies to assist disadvantaged persons and poorer regions within North America. The article contrasts the experience of NAFTA with that of the European Union, with its broad policies of social cohesion that are directed at leveling the differences in economic development between regions. The central thesis of the article is that the public infrastructure for a competitive, prosperous economy is lacking in Mexico, and that such an infrastructure is not likely to be established in the near future without assistance from Mexico’s NAFTA partners, which are the most logical source of assistance. The unauthorized migration of Mexican workers to the United States, a prime safety valve for the Mexican poor, is one result of NAFTA’s shortcoming in this regard. After a brief survey of development assistance to Mexico, the article suggests an alternative to the present approach: the creation of a North American Regional Development Fund to counteract weaknesses in physical and institutional infrastructure in Mexico.

“Fact or Fiction: The Legal Construction of Deportation for Crimes” MAUREEN SWEENEY, University of Maryland – School of Law

Thousands of long-term legal permanent residents are deported from the United States each year because they have been convicted of criminal offenses, many quite minor. These deportations occur without any of the constitutional safeguards that generally protect criminal defendants. Immigration authorities rely on cases asserting that such deportations are not punishment for the crime, but merely collateral consequences of the conviction. This article challenges that reasoning. It argues that its factual and doctrinal foundation has completely disintegrated over the last 20 years. Far-reaching changes in immigration law and enforcement have rendered deportation for aggravated felonies a “definite, immediate and largely automatic effect on the range of the defendant’s punishment,” that is, the direct consequence of a conviction. As such, the state should impose it only subject to the same constitutional protections that apply to criminal prosecutions. One key implication is that non-citizen criminal defendants should be fully and accurately advised of the immigration consequences of any plea agreement. Finally, this article argues that, while deportation has essentially become an additional criminal sanction for non-citizens, it is not a particularly effective or appropriate one. The article thus advocates a deep revision of immigration laws to restore deportation as a sanction imposed in the exercise of discretion on those whose criminal offenses outweigh their ties to the United States community and the hardship they and their community would suffer if they were deported.

 “Not Very Collegial: Exploring Bans on Undocumented Immigrant Admissions to State Colleges and Universities” Charleston Law Review, Vol. 3, 2009 MARCIA ANNE YABLON-ZUG, University of South Carolina School of Law DANIELLE HOLLEY-WALKER, University of South Carolina – School of Law, Hofstra University – School of Law

Anti-immigrant policies are gaining strength throughout the country, but the South is fighting to lead the charge. In particular, southern states are at the forefront of the movement to bar undocumented immigrants from attaining higher education. This past spring, North Carolina instituted a policy banning such students from community college. One month later, Alabama instituted a similar policy. During this same period, South Carolina enacted a total ban on undocumented immigrants attending any state institution of higher education. Also, Virginia, which already had a policy of not admitting undocumented students, extended this policy to deny in state tuition to the American citizen children of illegal immigrants. This essay will argue that although such bans may be constitutional, the reasons southern states give for enacting these bans are disingenuous and do not withstand scrutiny. Consequently, it appears more likely that unstated reasons of racism and discrimination are motivating such policies. If correct, then not only are these policies socially and economically questionable, they are also morally reprehensible.

“Does Immigration Substitute for Offshoring?” WILLIAM W. OLNEY, University of Colorado at Boulder Research generally focuses on how immigration affects native workers, while the impact of immigration on domestic firms is often overlooked. This paper addresses this important omission by examining whether firms respond to immigration by adjusting the location of their production activities. Consistent with the predictions of the model, the results suggest that low skilled immigration decreases offshoring while high skilled immigration increases offshoring. This suggests that a policy that restricts immigration will have important implications for the organizational structure of domestic firms. Furthermore, these results explain why the impact of immigration on the wages of native workers is often found to be quite small.

“Offshoring, Immigration, and the Native Wage Distribution” WILLIAM W. OLNEY, University of Colorado at Boulder

While workers in developed countries have become increasingly concerned about the impact of offshoring and immigration on their wages, the available evidence on the link between offshoring, immigration, and wages remains mixed. This paper presents a simple model that examines the impact of offshoring and immigration on wages and tests these predictions using U.S. state-industry level data. According to the model, the productivity effect causes offshoring to have a more positive impact on low skilled wages than immigration but this gap is decreasing with the workers’ skill level. The results confirm these predictions and thus provide the first empirical evidence of the productivity effect. Furthermore, decomposing offshoring and immigration according to the income level of the foreign country proves to be an important distinction with results indicating that offshoring to (less) developed countries decreases (increases) the wages of most types of native workers while immigration from (less) developed countries increases (decreases) the wages of most types of native workers.

KJ