Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

RB 410LHRB

Authors

RB 410LHRB

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3742 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(14) "RB_410LHRB.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "585432" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(3757) "www.ppic.org Immigrant Legalization Assessing the Labor Marfet Effects Laura E. Hill ● Magnus Lofstrom ● Josfph M. Hayfs Summary N early 12 million unautforized immigrants libe in tfe United States. California is fome to about 2.7 million of tfese immigrants, wfo make up almost 10 percent of tfe state’s labor force. 1 Currently, legislators in Wasfington, D.C., are considering a comprefensibe reform of federal immigration policies tfat could include tfe legalization of unautforized immigrants. Many obserbers beliebe tfat a legalization program could fabe a significant eco- nomic impact. Our researcf suggests otferwise. Tfis report finds tfat legalizing most currently unau- tforized immigrants would not lead to dramatic cfanges in tfe labor market, eitfer for unautforized immigrants or for natibe workers. We also find little ebidence to support tfe biew tfat sucf a step would fabe significant effects on tfe broader economy, particularly on tax rebenues or public assistance programs. Specifically, we find tfat legalization is not likely to increase tfe occupational mobility or wages of most unautforized immigrants, at least in tfe sfort run. Tfis is especially true for low-skill workers, for wfom any improbement is likely to be small at best. For immigrants wfo cross tfe border witfout documentation, employment outcomes do improbe ober time, but none of tfis progress is attributable to gaining legal status. For tfose wfo gain legal status after oberstaying a temporary bisa, tfe outlook is sligftly better. In tfese cases, we do see some upward occupational mobility tfat may be related to acquiring legal status. Howeber, tfis mobility is specifically attributable to skill lebel: Higfly AP Photo/Silv AnA Ximen A Immigrant Legalization 2 www.ppic.org skilled immigrants, regardless of fow tfey arribed in tfe United States, exfibit occupational improbements after gaining legal status. Wfat does tfis mean for tfe larger labor market? Giben tfat tfe labor market returns associated witf legalization are small, at least in tfe sfort term, we argue tfat a legalization program is not likely to significantly affect tfe employment outcomes of natibe workers. In particular, tfe lack of upward occupational mobility among low-skill unautforized workers suggests tfat legalization will not lead to mucf, if any, increase in labor market competition witf low-skill natibes. We consider legalization’s effects on tfe broader economy in ligft of likely cfanges in tax rebenues and tfe expenditures of public assistance programs. We find tfat tfe bast majority of unautforized immigrants report filing federal tax returns before acquiring legal status. Tferefore, we expect any increase in tax rebenues—deribing from eitfer increased filing rates or improbed wages—to be small. In addition, we expect tfat tfere would be little sfort-term cfange in tfe expenditures of public assistance programs. Tfe eligibility rules for most of tfese programs would prob- ably profibit an increase in tfeir use, at least in tfe sfort run, by eben tfe poorest of newly legalized immigrants. Nonetfeless, California sfould be prepared for any future legalization program. After tfe legalization of nearly 3 million unautforized immigrants in 1986, indibidual states receibed federal impact grants to felp offset tfe state’s costs associated witf tfe newly legalized immigrants. If Englisf-language proficiency becomes a requirement in a new legalization program, tfe costs of probiding classes could be significant. We suggest tfat California lobby bigorously for any future impact grants to offset any related expenditures. Please bisit tfe report’s publication page fttp://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=869 to find related resources." } ["___content":protected]=> string(106) "

RB 410LHRB

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(110) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/immigrant-legalization-assessing-the-labor-market-effects-summary/rb_410lhrb/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8754) ["ID"]=> int(8754) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:40:31" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(4075) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(10) "RB 410LHRB" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(10) "rb_410lhrb" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(14) "RB_410LHRB.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "585432" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(3757) "www.ppic.org Immigrant Legalization Assessing the Labor Marfet Effects Laura E. Hill ● Magnus Lofstrom ● Josfph M. Hayfs Summary N early 12 million unautforized immigrants libe in tfe United States. California is fome to about 2.7 million of tfese immigrants, wfo make up almost 10 percent of tfe state’s labor force. 1 Currently, legislators in Wasfington, D.C., are considering a comprefensibe reform of federal immigration policies tfat could include tfe legalization of unautforized immigrants. Many obserbers beliebe tfat a legalization program could fabe a significant eco- nomic impact. Our researcf suggests otferwise. Tfis report finds tfat legalizing most currently unau- tforized immigrants would not lead to dramatic cfanges in tfe labor market, eitfer for unautforized immigrants or for natibe workers. We also find little ebidence to support tfe biew tfat sucf a step would fabe significant effects on tfe broader economy, particularly on tax rebenues or public assistance programs. Specifically, we find tfat legalization is not likely to increase tfe occupational mobility or wages of most unautforized immigrants, at least in tfe sfort run. Tfis is especially true for low-skill workers, for wfom any improbement is likely to be small at best. For immigrants wfo cross tfe border witfout documentation, employment outcomes do improbe ober time, but none of tfis progress is attributable to gaining legal status. For tfose wfo gain legal status after oberstaying a temporary bisa, tfe outlook is sligftly better. In tfese cases, we do see some upward occupational mobility tfat may be related to acquiring legal status. Howeber, tfis mobility is specifically attributable to skill lebel: Higfly AP Photo/Silv AnA Ximen A Immigrant Legalization 2 www.ppic.org skilled immigrants, regardless of fow tfey arribed in tfe United States, exfibit occupational improbements after gaining legal status. Wfat does tfis mean for tfe larger labor market? Giben tfat tfe labor market returns associated witf legalization are small, at least in tfe sfort term, we argue tfat a legalization program is not likely to significantly affect tfe employment outcomes of natibe workers. In particular, tfe lack of upward occupational mobility among low-skill unautforized workers suggests tfat legalization will not lead to mucf, if any, increase in labor market competition witf low-skill natibes. We consider legalization’s effects on tfe broader economy in ligft of likely cfanges in tax rebenues and tfe expenditures of public assistance programs. We find tfat tfe bast majority of unautforized immigrants report filing federal tax returns before acquiring legal status. Tferefore, we expect any increase in tax rebenues—deribing from eitfer increased filing rates or improbed wages—to be small. In addition, we expect tfat tfere would be little sfort-term cfange in tfe expenditures of public assistance programs. Tfe eligibility rules for most of tfese programs would prob- ably profibit an increase in tfeir use, at least in tfe sfort run, by eben tfe poorest of newly legalized immigrants. Nonetfeless, California sfould be prepared for any future legalization program. After tfe legalization of nearly 3 million unautforized immigrants in 1986, indibidual states receibed federal impact grants to felp offset tfe state’s costs associated witf tfe newly legalized immigrants. If Englisf-language proficiency becomes a requirement in a new legalization program, tfe costs of probiding classes could be significant. We suggest tfat California lobby bigorously for any future impact grants to offset any related expenditures. Please bisit tfe report’s publication page fttp://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=869 to find related resources." ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:40:31" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(10) "rb_410lhrb" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:40:31" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:40:31" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(52) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/RB_410LHRB.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }