Do <scp>E</scp>‐verify mandates improve labor market outcomes of low‐skilled native and legal immigrant workers?

During the 2000s, several states adopted laws requiring employers to verify new employees' eligibility to work legally in the USA. This study uses data from the 2005-2014 American Community Survey to examine how such laws affect unauthorized immigrants' locational choices. The results indicate that having an E-Verify law reduces the number of less-educated prime-age immigrants from Mexico and Central America-immigrants who are likely to be unauthorized-living in a state. We find evidence that some new migrants are diverted to other states, but also suggestive evidence that some alreadypresent migrants leave the country entirely.JEL codes: J15, J61, J68

show abstract

“…Arizona (Bohn et al 2015). 9 For cells with zero population in them in the ACS data, we replace them with a value of 1 before taking the log.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do state work eligibility verification laws reduce unauthorized immigration?

Orrenius

Zavodny

2016

IZA J Migration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent studies tend to use the state‐local approach to take advantage of the recent changes in state and local immigration laws. In addition to undocumented immigrants’ labor market outcomes, various other outcomes have been examined, such as the interstate migration patterns of undocumented immigrants and natives, the labor market outcomes of natives, and the educational outcomes and living arrangements of the children of undocumented immigrants (Amuedo‐Dorantes & Arenas‐Arroyo, ; Amuedo‐Dorantes & Bansak, , ; Amuedo‐Dorantes & Pozo, ; Amuedo‐Dorantes, Pozo, & Puttitanun, ; Bohn, Lofstrom, & Raphael, , ; Good, ; Hoekstra & Orozco‐Aleman, ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tightened Immigration Policies and the Self‐Employment Dynamics of Mexican Immigrants

Wang¹

2019

J Policy Anal Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the U.S. government has intensified its crackdown on illegal immigration in recent years, an important question to ask is how undocumented immigrants react to the stricter enforcement of immigration laws. This paper seeks to answer whether they increasingly choose self‐employment in an effort to avoid apprehension and subsequent deportation. To guard against endogeneity bias that might stem from increased enforcement in reaction to illegal immigration, the empirical analysis makes use of the September 11 terror attacks (9/11), which inadvertently triggered stricter immigration enforcement nationwide, as a natural experiment. Using a difference‐in‐differences approach and data from the Current Population Survey between 1996 and 2006, this paper examines the changes in the self‐employment choices of male and non‐citizen Mexican immigrants (a proxy for undocumented immigrants) compared to less‐educated Whites (the control group). The findings indicate that male and non‐citizen Mexican immigrants are substantially more likely (40 percent) to enter into self‐employment than less‐educated Whites after 9/11. The analysis further suggests that this finding is not driven by the 2001 recession that coincided with the terror attacks. The increased entries are mainly observed in the group that is most likely to be in the United States illegally and in those who face strong economic incentives. In addition, increased entries are not driven by increased unemployment among Mexican immigrants after the 9/11 event, but, rather, they reflect a change in the behavior of the unemployed Mexican immigrants, perhaps due to changes in perceived risks of detection and deportation.

show abstract

“…Studies report evidence of positive, negative, and null wage effects among immigrants who are likely to be unauthorized (Amuedo‐Dorantes and Bansak ; Orrenius and Zavodny ). Findings on wage and employment effects among less‐educated U.S. natives and naturalized immigrants, who are legally eligible to work but may compete with unauthorized immigrants for jobs, are mixed as well (Amuedo‐Dorantes and Bansak ; Bohn, Lofstrom, and Raphael ; Orrenius and Zavodny ). State E‐Verify laws appear to increase the probability that less‐educated legal workers switch employers, perhaps to take advantage of new work opportunities, without affecting this propensity among likely unauthorized immigrant men (Orrenius and Zavodny ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do State Employment Eligibility Verification Laws Affect Job Turnover?

Orrenius

Zavodny

Gutierrez

2017

Contemporary Economic Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

State laws requiring employers to verify workers' employment eligibility may reduce employment and earnings among unauthorized workers and make it difficult for them to switch jobs. Using data from the 2005–2014 Quarterly Workforce Indicators, we find evidence of a reduction in employment and job turnover among Hispanics as a whole in states that require all employers to verify employment eligibility. These adverse effects become larger as the share of likely unauthorized Hispanic workers falls. The drop in job turnover may be due to the laws trapping some Hispanic workers in their jobs. There is little effect on employment or job turnover among non‐Hispanic whites or blacks. There is no effect on average pay for all groups of workers. (JEL J15, J61, J68)

show abstract

Do E‐verify mandates improve labor market outcomes of low‐skilled native and legal immigrant workers?

Cited by 44 publications

References 11 publications

Do state work eligibility verification laws reduce unauthorized immigration?

Do state work eligibility verification laws reduce unauthorized immigration?

Tightened Immigration Policies and the Self‐Employment Dynamics of Mexican Immigrants

Do State Employment Eligibility Verification Laws Affect Job Turnover?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About