The Variegated Landscape of Local Immigration Policies in the United States

Abstract

Hundreds of municipalities and counties across the United States have proposed or implemented immigration policies at the local level, ranging from "sanctuary" policies to those designed to exclude undocumented immigrants. Data collected on these policies are presented, and statistically analyzed at the municipal level to interrogate existing hypotheses about factors driving these policy decisions. Municipalities experiencing rapid growth of their foreign-born population and with a high percentage of owner-occupied housing are more likely to introduce exclusionary policies, whereas municipalities with better educated populations are more likely to adopt inclusionary policies. The location of municipalities in the U.S. South and outside central cities is also associated with exclusionary policies. Textual analysis of policy documents for selected municipalities provides insight into why similarly located places adopt contrasting policies. Local ordinances reflect contrasting local imaginaries of race, nation, and place. 157

Urban Immigrant Diversity and Inclusive Institutions

“…The second measure of inclusive institutions makes use of data describing local government policies that either restrict or enable the behavior of immigrants. Since the early 2000s, municipal governments in the United States have increasingly considered and enacted laws that target immigrants, a shift that may be best understood as an outgrowth of grassroots responses to residents' perceptions of immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants (Varsanyi 2008;Walker and Leitner 2011). Immigrant-penalizing laws include those seeking to punish employers who hire undocumented immigrants, ones that amend housing codes to restrict crowding, some that restrict the use of languages other than English, and still others that require immigration checks in response to events ranging from arrests to new firm births (Rodriguez 2008).…”

“…Immigrant-penalizing laws include those seeking to punish employers who hire undocumented immigrants, ones that amend housing codes to restrict crowding, some that restrict the use of languages other than English, and still others that require immigration checks in response to events ranging from arrests to new firm births (Rodriguez 2008). Meanwhile, other locations have used legislation to more actively welcome immigrants, enacting sanctuary laws that prohibit immigration checks or regulations that extend voting rights for immigrants in local elections (Walker and Leitner 2011). Although these ordinances are formally aimed at regulating undocumented immigrants, evidence suggests that they affect the wider foreign-born population, regardless of the status of their documentation, in that those who look and sound different will live in a context marked by real risks from police and other residents engaged in profiling (see, e.g., Nguyen and Gill 2015).…”

Forced migration and the city

“…For example, Walker and Leitner (2011) highlight how cities across the USA have instituted ordinances focused on restricting and removing non-citizens. Similarly, Varsanyi (2008b: 892) notes a trend of immigration policing 'through the back door' in the shape of 'land use and public nuisance ordinances that constrain behaviors and living conditions of undocumented migrants'.…”

Migration Flows: Measurement, Analysis and Modeling

“…These new controls are often associated with an increased intolerance for newcomers, but not all statutes are unwelcoming. In the "variegated landscape" (Walker and Leitner 2011) of local immigration policies in the United States, hundreds of towns, cities, and counties have implemented local policies in the absence of what many see as an abdication of national-level initiative on the part of federal authorities. These policies can be either welcoming or unwelcoming.…”

“…These policies can be either welcoming or unwelcoming. Walker and Leitner (2011) identified a clear geography to these policies. Places with limited histories of immigration (especially those in the U.S. South and outside central cities) and with high foreign-born population growth rates were more likely to enact exclusionary policies.…”