Explore the vast range of titles available.

Many low-income countries and development organizations are calling for greater liberalization of labor immigration policies in high-income countries. At the same time, human rights organizations and migrant rights advocates demand more equal rights for migrant workers. The Price of Rights shows why you cannot always have both. Examining labor immigration policies in over forty countries, as well as policy drivers in major migrant-receiving and migrant-sending states, Martin Ruhs finds that there are trade-offs in the policies of high-income countries between openness to admitting migrant workers and some of the rights granted to migrants after admission. Insisting on greater equality of rights for migrant workers can come at the price of more restrictive admission policies, especially for lower-skilled workers. Ruhs advocates the liberalization of international labor migration through temporary migration programs that protect a universal set of core rights and account for the interests of nation-states by restricting a few specific rights that create net costs for receiving countries. The Price of Rights analyzes how high-income countries restrict the rights of migrant workers as part of their labor immigration policies and discusses the implications for global debates about regulating labor migration and protecting migrants. It comprehensively looks at the tensions between human rights and citizenship rights, the agency and interests of migrants and states, and the determinants and ethics of labor immigration policy.

Using the New Immigrant Survey Pilot, we compare answers to the census question on year of arrival in the United States with answers to questions about the dates and durations of earlier U.S. trips. We show that the year identified by the census does not correspond to the year of either the first or the last U.S. trip. Because many immigrants enter and leave the United States several times before becoming legal immigrants, the census question produces estimates of U.S. experience that are quite different from those produced by direct questions about trip durations.

The need for and role of highly skilled immigrant workers in the U.S. economy is fiercely debated. Proponents and opponents agree that temporary foreign workers are paid a lower wage than are natives. This lower wage partly originates from the restricted mobility of workers while on a temporary visa. In this article, we estimate the wage gain to employment-based immigrants from acquiring permanent U.S. residency. We use data from the New Immigrant Survey (2003) and implement a difference-in-difference propensity score matching estimator. We find that for employer-sponsored immigrants, the acquisition of a green card leads to an annual wage gain of about $ 11,860.

This article compares the transition into legal permanent residence (LPR) of Mexicans, Dominicans, and Nicaraguans. Dominicans had the highest likelihood of obtaining such residence, mostly sponsored by parents and spouses. Mexicans had the lowest LPR transition rates and presented sharp gender differentials in modes: women were found to be mostly legalized through husbands, while men were sponsored by their parents or through provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). Nicaraguans stood in between, presenting few gender differences in rates and modes of transition and a heavy dependence on asylum and special provisions in immigration legislation. These patterns are found to stem from the interplay of conditions favoring the emigration of, and the specific immigration policy context faced by, migrant pioneers; the influence of social networks in reproducting the legal character of flows; and differences in the actual use of kinship ties as sponsors. The implications of these trends on the observed gendered patterns of migration from Latin America are discussed.

While the United States welcomes foreign-born students and trainees and, less warmly, temporary workers such as H-1B visa holders, it places an array of requirements, obstacles, and delays upon persons who would like to make the U.S. their permanent home. The number of people in the queue for legal permanent residence (LPR) is, however, difficult to ascertain. This paper estimates the number of highly skilled foreign-born persons waiting for LPR via the three main employment-based categories, separately by whether they are living in the United States or abroad, as well as the number of family members. We find that as of the end of FY 2006 there were about half a million employment-based principals awaiting LPR in the United States, together with over half a million family members, plus over 125 thousand principals and family members waiting abroad. These numbers dwarf the visas available annually — 120,120 plus any not used in the family preferences — suggesting that the long delays in gaining legal permanent residence are a visa number problem, not an administrative processing problem, as many believe. The backlog thus cannot be eliminated without a large change in public policy. The delay in gaining legal permanent residence could contribute to the decision of many highly skilled foreign-born to leave the United States.

Immigrants represent an increasingly vital component of the U.S. housing market, though there is a substantial and growing gap in homeownership rates between natives and the foreign born. We employ the New Immigrant Survey-2003 to examine the housing tenure of immigrants recently adjusted to new legal permanent resident status. The results reveal important cross-national differences in the linkages between transfers to the origin country, relationships with U.S. mainstream financial institutions, previous unauthorized experience, and housing tenure. Analyses also document that immigrants occupy three distinct housing outcomes in America; renting, owning, and living for free.

Why have European states introduced mandatory integration requirements for citizenship and permanent residence? There are many studies comparing integration policy and examining the significance of what has been interpreted as a convergent and restrictive “civic turn,” a “retreat from multiculturalism,” and an “inevitable lightening of citizenship.” None of these studies, however, has puzzled over the empirical diversity of integration policy design or presented systematic, comparative explanations for policy variation. This article is the first to develop an argument for what, in fact, amounts to a wealth of variation in civic integration policy (including scope, sequencing, and difficulty). Using a historical institutionalist approach, the author argues that states use mandatory integration to address different membership problems, which are shaped by both existing citizenship policy (whether it is inclusive or exclusive) and political pressure to change it (in other words, the politics of citizenship). She illustrates this argument by focusing on three case studies, applying the argument to a case of unchallenged restrictive retrenchment and continuity (Denmark), to a case of negotiated and thus moderated restriction (Germany), and to a case that recently exhibited both liberal continuity (the United Kingdom, 2001–6) and failed attempts at new restriction (the United Kingdom, 2006–10). These cases show that although states may converge around similar mandatory integration instruments, they may apply them for distinctly different reasons. As a result, new requirements augment rather than alter the major contours of national citizenship policy and the membership association it maintains.

This paper compares characteristics of recent immigrant arrivals in the United States using two measures from the decennial U.S. census: the came-to-stay question and the migration question. We show that a little under 30 percent of immigrants who reported they came to stay between 1985-1990 on the 1990 U.S. Census Public Use Micro Sample were resident in the United States on April 1, 1985. A similar analysis of the 1980 census reveals that 22 percent of immigrants who reported they came to stay between 1975-1980 lived in the United States on April 1, 1975. Thus among recent arrivals, defined as those who reported they came to stay in the quinquennium preceding the census, a large number were resident in the United States five years before the census date. Furthermore, the proportion of recent arrivals present in the United States five years before the census increased between 1975-1980 and 1985-1990. We show that the profile of recent arrivals is sensitive to their migration status. Generally, in both the 1975-1980 and 1985-1990 cohorts, those resident in the United States five years before the census have significantly less schooling and lower incomes than those who were abroad. Accordingly, we argue that estimates of the skill levels and hourly wages of recent arrivals to the United States vary with the way arrival is measured. Researchers who rely on Public Use samples of the U.S. census for their data should be aware that the year of entry question implies a broader definition of arrival than the migration question. We caution that immigration researchers should consider the idea of arrival more carefully to help distinguish newcomers from the resident foreign born.

High levels of immigration to the United States have caused the size of the foreign-born population to increase dramatically in recent years. Recent immigrants are concentrated in several states, particularly California. This article examines the determinants of the intended state of residence of new recipients of legal permanent resident status and new refugees from 1989 to 1994. The presence of other foreign-born people is the primary determinant of the locational choices of new legal permanent residents, but there are some differences among immigrant groups by admission category and by country of origin. Only refugees' locations appear to be sensitive to welfare generosity.

\"On September 30, 1996, President Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (1996 Act), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009. After an intense lobbying effort by the business community, most provisions relating to legal immigration were omitted from the final bill. Instead, the 1996 Act focuses on illegal immigration reform and includes some of the toughest measures ever taken against illegal immigration.\" Aspects considered include border enforcement, penalities against alien smuggling and document fraud, deportation and exclusion proceedings, employer sanctions, welfare provisions, and changes to existing refugee and asylum procedures.