The Impact of Immigration Enforcement on the U.S. Farming Sector

Kostandini, Genti; Mykerezi, Elton; Escalante, Cesar L.

doi:10.1093/ajae/aat081

Cited by 81 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Martin (2013) reviews the history of immigration legislation and domestic enforcement and concludes that the e-verify program (which allows a firm to check a worker's legal status) had little impact during the period immediately after IRCA went into effect. In contrast, Kostandini, Mykerezi and Escalante (2014) show that after 2002, counties participating in the Department of Homeland Security's 287(g) enforcement program had fewer foreign-born workers, reduced labor usage, and experienced changes in cropping patterns among producers. In our empirical analysis, we investigate whether the willingness of a worker to migrate within the United States depends crucially on legal status.…”

Section: Institutional Governmental and Economic Shocksmentioning

confidence: 87%

Why Do Fewer Agricultural Workers Migrate Now?

Fan

Gabbard

Pena

et al. 2015

American J Agri Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The share of agricultural workers who migrate within the United States has fallen by approximately 60% since the late 1990s. To explain this decline in the migration rate, we estimate annual migration-choice models using data from the National Agricultural Workers Survey for 1989-2009. On average over the last decade of the sample, one-third of the fall in the migration rate was due to changes in the demographic composition of the workforce, while twothirds was due to changes in coefficients ("structural" change). In some years, demographic changes were responsible for half of the overall change.JEL: J43, J61, J82, Q19

show abstract

Section: Institutional Governmental and Economic Shocksmentioning

confidence: 87%

Why Do Fewer Agricultural Workers Migrate Now?

Fan

Gabbard

Pena

et al. 2015

American J Agri Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In some cases, the table notes when a policy shift occurred to or from a more or less expansive version of the restrictive or unrestrictive policy, or a reversal from an unrestrictive or restrictive policy. Kostandini, Mykerezi, and Escalante (2013), Newman and Todd (2013), Teigen and Morse (2013), Morse (2014), Mathema (2015), Mendoza (2015), Mendoza and Ostrander (2015), Mendoza and Shaikh (2015), NCSL (2015aNCSL ( , 2015b, and National Immigration Law Center (NILC) (2015b). NOTES: Year indicates the passage date for legislation or adoption date for other policies.…”

Section: State-level Specific Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Arizona Department of Public Safety soon followed in 2003 (and the Department of Corrections was added in 2005). By 2010, ten states had agreements for one or both program models, and another 13 states had one or more county-level agreements (Kostandini, Mykerezi, and Escalante, 2013). 3 Because of concerns about racial profiling, community safety, and other issues, the 287(g) program was controversial from the outset (Waslin, 2010).…”

Section: Law Enforcement: Involvement In Interior Enforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The brown shading is used for those states that have a mixture of restrictive and unrestrictive policies. SOURCES: Johnston and Morse (2012), Kostandini, Mykerezi, and Escalante (2013), Newman and Todd (2013), Teigen and Morse (2013), Morse (2014), Mathema (2015), Mendoza (2015), Mendoza and Ostrander (2015), Mendoza and Shaikh (2015), NCSL (2015aNCSL ( , 2015b, and NILC (2015b).…”

Section: Summary Of State Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This null result also holds when the empirical models are based on a measure of the degree of participation in the 287(g) program (as captured by per capita 287(g) detentions). Kostandini, Mykerezi, and Escalante (2013) examine the effect of state and county 287(g) programs for an even longer time period-from 2002 to 2010-on two groups of likely unauthorized immigrants: noncitizens and the foreign-born who have resided in the United States for fewer than 20 years. For both groups, using difference-in-differences estimation with countylevel data, adopting a 287(g) program is associated with a decline in the share of the group in the county's population.…”

Section: Effects On Population Of Unauthorized Immigrantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Cost-Benefit Framework for Analyzing the Economic and Fiscal Impacts of State-Level Immigration Policies

Karoly¹,

Pérez‐Arce²

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/rr1397Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2016 RAND CorporationR® is a registered trademark.iii Preface Traditionally, immigration policy has been a federal responsibility, but, in the past decade, states have begun to adopt policies through legislation and other actions to respond to trends in unauthorized immigration. In some states, policies have taken the form of omnibus legislation designed to place restrictions on immigrants who are in the United States without authorization, through actions of law enforcement and employers, as well as limits in other aspects of public life. In other states, policies have been adopted one by one, such as requiring employers in the public and private sectors to verify employment eligibility through E-Verify, to preclude access to driver's licenses for individuals who are not authorized to be in the country, and to exclude unauthorized students from eligibility for in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. At the same time, some states have also adopted policies toward unauthorized immigrants that are unrestrictive-for example, by making driver's licenses available to all regardless of immigration status or basing access to in-state tuition solely on residency requirements, regardless of immigration status.The expanding role of states in these areas of policy raises questions about the consequences of state-level action for various stakeholders in the public and private sectors. Within this context, the goals of this study are to• develop a cost-benefit framework for classifying the potential impacts of specific statelevel policies, identifying the potential domains of impact and how different stakeholders in the public and private sectors would be affected • review the research literature to identify empirical evidence, where it exists, regarding the likely magnitudes of the impacts of specific state-level immigration-related policies • use the cost-benefit fr...

show abstract

Earnings, Wages, and Poverty Outcomes of US Farm and Low‐Skill Workers

Barham¹,

Melo²,

Hertz³

2020

Applied Eco Perspectives Pol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The American Community Survey supports rich comparisons of welfare outcomes across low-skill workers, including the native-born and immigrants, in farm and nonfarm occupations. Evidence from 2016-17 suggests that farm and nonfarm labor markets are integrated, especially for immigrants. Although US-born workers typically earn higher wages than immigrants, in some occupations, immigrants have higher wages and/or earnings. Immigrant farmworkers receive somewhat lower wages than citizens do but work more hours and generate similar earnings. Household poverty rates are above the national average for an array of low-skill workers, especially among immigrants. The most substantial welfare difference is in health insurance access, where coverage is much higher for US-born workers. Labor market and social policy implications of these findings are explored.

show abstract

The Impact of Immigration Enforcement on the U.S. Farming Sector

Cited by 81 publications

References 9 publications

Why Do Fewer Agricultural Workers Migrate Now?

Why Do Fewer Agricultural Workers Migrate Now?

A Cost-Benefit Framework for Analyzing the Economic and Fiscal Impacts of State-Level Immigration Policies

Earnings, Wages, and Poverty Outcomes of US Farm and Low‐Skill Workers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About