Causes and Consequences of

Migration

ECN/SOC 35

What is Migration?

Definition: Any “permanent” change in residence.

What about…Students?

Temporary residents for education or employment purposes?

Short moves; e.g., moving to a larger house?

Internal v. International

Internal: Migration within the same countryMay cross other political boundaries (state to state, county to county).Rural to urban; Urban to suburban

International: Cross country boundariesLegal v. illegalRefugees: wants to migrate to avoid persecution.Asylees: people who have been forced out and are seeking residence in a new country. Already out of their country.

In v. Out

People migrating into an area are called “immigrants”

People migrating out of an area are called “emigrants.”

Measuring Migration

Gross emigration rate:• (Total out-migrants/midyear population)x1000

Gross immigration rate:• (Total in-migrants/midyear population)x1000

Crude net migration rate:

((in-migrants – out-migrants)/ midyear pop.)x1000

Or

Gross immigration rate – Gross emigration rate

Measuring Migration

Crude Net Migration Rate captures the effect of migration on a given population

Total Migration Rate = • (In-migrants + out-migrants)/pop. X 1000

• What does this tell us?

Migration Turnover Rate• (Total Migration Rate/Crude Net Migration

Rate)x1000

73.354.354.148.937.837.636.331.128.324.324.223.823.823.422.4

2118.117.9

1716.313.212.811.310.19.9

Atlanta GA MSARiverside-San Bernardino CA PMSAPhoenix-Mesa AZ MSALas Vegas NV-AZ MSADallas TX PMSAWashington DC-MD-VA-WV PMSAHouston TX PMSASan Diego CA MSAAustin-San Marcos TX MSATampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater FL MSACharlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill NC-SC MSAFort Lauderdale FL PMSADenver CO PMSAOrlando FL MSAFort Worth-Arlington TX PMSASacramento CA PMSAOakland CA PMSAMinneapolis-St. Paul MN-WI MSARaleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill NC MSAWest Palm Beach-Boca Raton FL MSA

Boston MA-NH NECMA

Monmouth-Ocean NJ PMSAPortland - Vancouver OR-WA PMSAMiami FL PMSASan Antonio TX MSA

Crude NetMigrationRates in Metropolitan areas.

Immigration “Offer”Voluntary v. forced migration

African Americans, Native Americans

International v. internal migrationVoluntary migration

Outcome of a relative comparison of current circumstances and those offered by new location

• “Circumstances” defined by laws, institutions, resource base, and climate in country of origin and destination.

• The “student migration” experience

U.S. Laws: Early Years

Alien and Sedition Acts - 1798French revolution causes expectation of politically-motivated migration into U.S.

Authorized President to expel aliens suspected of treasonable acts (Muller, p. 21). Repealed after election of Jefferson in 1800 (believed laws to be unconstitutional, possible political motivations)

Early 19th Century

Laws restricting emigration from other countries affected flow of immigrants near turn of century (1800).

War in Europe• Travel difficult

• Deterrent to evasion of military service

Irish Potato Famine and acceleration of 1840s German migration

Reaction to 1840s Immigration

Associated with congestion, crime, and corruption (Muller, p. 22)

Reaction often violent

Irish immigration particularly scorned and nature of immigrants associated with the misery in Ireland

Anti-Catholic sentiment rose, too

If the social character (of the U.S.) is liable to be infected the vices and miseries of other countries, from too rapid absorption of their redundant population, or our political institutions exposed to overthrow and corruption by the undue accession of unassimilating elements, how can it be other than wise to guard against a state of things which must prove ultimately so unfriendly to the best and perhaps last hope of the human family?

Henry Duhring, North American Review (Muller, p. 23)

The AsiansWhile general anti-immigration sentiment subsided after the Civil War, Chinese and Japanese became new target. Irish had shored up political support.

Chinese workers were perceived to be in infinite supply, content with subsistence conditions, and in competition with American workers.

Assimilation possibilities were doubted.

Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 shut off Chinese immigration.

During their entire settlement in California, they have never adopted themselves to our habits, mode of dress, or our educational system, have never learned the sanctity of an oath, never desired to become citizens, or to perform the duties of citizenship, never discovered the difference between right and wrong, never ceased the worship of their idol gods, or advanced a step beyond the traditions of their native hive. Impregnable to all the influences of our Anglo-Saxon life, they remain the same stolid Asiatics that have floated on the rivers and slaved in the fields of China for thirty centuries of time.

California Legislature, 1876 (Borjas, p. 27)

Late 19th Century

Northern European economies strengthened, as did the U.S. economy.

Southern and Eastern European immigration hastened (that from North declined)

Anti-Catholic, Anti-Semitic attitudes flourished

Race was becoming a more important determinant of public policy

National-Origins Quota System, 1924

Sought to “maintain” ethnic/racial composition of U.S.Entry into U.S. limited to 2% of the population each nationality comprised in 1890.Limits on Eastern and Southern Europe were stringent.Western hemisphere exempted from law

The fact that this country comprises a large area and that our industry, including agriculture, must expand to meet a growing population makes imperative a similar increase in common labor. There is a dire and imperative need to permit Mexican labor to enter this country on easy terms.

Albert Johnson, Chair, House Immigration Committee

Southwestern congressional support needed to pass legislation. (Muller, p. 45)

“America must be kept American.”

Calvin Coolidge (Borjas, p. 29)

“Nordic victory is seen in drastic restrictions.”

LA Times

McCarran-Walter ActImmigration and Nationality Act of 1952

Anti-immigration sentiment intensified in wake of depression and WWII

Reaffirmed National Origins Quota System

opposition (e.g., Truman) based on labor shortage

Preference system for Eastern Hemisphere countries

urgently needed skills

relatives of U.S. citizens

Growing reasons for exclusion (thirty-one)

mental disorders, moral turpitude, disease, prostitution, etc. (Borjas, p. 29)

Immigration Act of 1965Repealed National Origins Quota System

unemployment low, growth high, optimismracial equality sentiment (civil rights era)opposition largely in the South

All nations given equal opportunity to immigrate

20,000 limit from any countryWestern Hemisphere included in limits (Muller, p. 48)Family ties and skills still used

European immigration fell, Asian rose

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

Addressed illegal immigrationImmigration Reform and Control Act of November 6, 1986 (IRCA) (100 Statutes-at-Large 3359) Authorized legalization (i.e., temporary and then permanent resident status) for aliens who had resided in the United States in an unlawful status since January 1, 1982

Created sanctions prohibiting employers from knowingly hiring, recruiting, or referring for a fee aliens not authorized to work in the United States.

INS Homepage: http://www.usdoj.gov/ins/public/stats/561.html

Immigration Act of 1990 A major overhaul of immigration law

Increased total immigration under an overall flexible cap of 675,000 immigrants beginning in fiscal year 1995.

480,000 family-sponsored

140,000 employment-based

55,000 “diversity immigrants” (people hurt by ‘65 Act)

Revised all grounds for exclusion and deportation, significantly rewriting the political and ideological grounds.

Repealed the bar against the admission of communists as non-immigrants and limited the exclusion of aliens on foreign policy grounds. http://www.usdoj.gov/ins/public/stats/568.html

Percent Foreign-Born in U.S.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Year

Perc

ent F

orei

gn B

orn

Immigration, Emigration, Net Migration

-1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

1901-

10

1911-

20

1921-

30

1931-

40

1941-

50

1951-

60

1961-

70

1971-

80

1981-90

Year

Imm

igra

nts

, Em

igra

nts

, N

et

Mig

rati

on

Immigrants

Emigrants

Net Migration

Origin of Immigration: 2001

Africa 4%

Asia 28%

Caribbean 8%

Central America 6%Europe

14%

North America 34%

Oceania 0%

South America 6%

Immigration by Gender

Male46%

Female54%

Immigration by Age

Immigration to the U.S. 2001

020,00040,00060,00080,000

100,000120,000140,000160,000180,000

States.shp-12.956 - -8.239-8.239 - -0.973-0.973 - 5.095.09 - 14.99714.997 - 28.15

CNMR

Why do People Migrate (or not)?

Push Pull TheoryPush factors

• Local economic opportunity, services and infrastructure, environment

Pull factors• Destination economic opportunity, services and infrastructure,

social support, environment

Broadly constructed framework that is useful for understanding migration but perhaps not in understanding the non-migrants.

Other Theories

Neoclassical EconomicsPeople follow economic opportunities

New Household EconomicsJoint decisions are made for all family members

• Job opportunities for both spouses (if applicable)

• Schooling quality for children, etc.

• Tied movers and tied stayers

Other Theories of Migration

Dual Labor MarketExpensive and difficult to convince natives to work in secondary sector, so immigrants fill a role that does not “compete” with natives.

World Systems TheoryCore v. periphery nations

• Peripheral nations send migrants to core nations with whom they have the greatest contact.

Other Theories of MigrationNetwork Theory

Immigrants contact friends and family and communicate their experiences, which may draw additional migrants from the same place.

Institutional TheoryInstitutions, legal and illegal, for profit and nonprofit, evolve to perpetuate migration.

Cumulative CausationFocus on migration impact on sending and receiving environments…occupational structural change, remittances, likelihood of moving again, etc.

Todaro’s Migration Model

Migration depends on the expected wage differential between rural and urban sectors.

Expected wage in city is Wu* = p x Wu, where p is the probability of finding a job and Wu is the actual urban wage rate.

The probability of finding a job is given by the employment rate in the urban sector

In other words, p = (Eu/(Eu+Uu)).• p = probability of finding a job• Eu = Urban employment rate• Uu = Urban unemployment rate

Immigration by Gender and Age: 2001

010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,00090,000

100,000

Age

Imm

igra

nts

Male

Female

Todaro’s Migration Model

Mt = a x (p x Wu - Wr)Mt = a x (p x Wu - Wr)

Migrantsin time t

Rural wageknown withcertainty

Expectedurbanwage

Prob.of findinga job in urban area

Responsivenessparameter (varies by culture, costsof moving

Model PredictionsAs the expected wage differential rises, migration rates will increase

As the employment rate rises in the city, the probability of finding a job increases, thereby increasing the differential and increasing migration

• Job creation programs can have unintended consequences

As “responsiveness” changes, migration will change

Human Capital ModelTodaro Generalized

Stream of earnings (or expected earnings) in new location is compared to that of old location

After subtracting costs of migrating, the streams are compared

If net (after costs) present value (after time value of money is considered) of earnings is greater in new location, people move.

Age implications

Human Capital Model

time

PV ofearnings NY earnings

CA earnings

gains from moving

costs of moving(including op. cost)

Earnings of Natives and Immigrants(Cross-Sectional Evidence: CAUTION!)

Immigrants initially have lower earningslack culture- and system-specific skills

Immigrants experience greater increases in earnings over time

they accumulate culture- and system-specific skills which enable them to reap greater gains

Immigrants surpass nativesthe pool of immigrants is atypical of the population from which they came: they are “special” (productivity, initiative)

Earnings of ImmigrantsCross Sectional Evidence

age

annualearnings(1972 dollars)

35

natives

immigrants

7200

Cohort Effects: How Immigrants are Changing

1960: immigrants had on average one-half year more schooling than natives

1980: immigrants had on average one year less schooling than natives

1990: immigrants had on average one and one third years fewer schooling than natives

Earnings of ImmigrantsCohort Evidence

age

wagerates

1950-59immigrants

1975-79immigrants

natives

Public Assistance, Wages, and Immigration

1970: 5.9% of immigrants received public assistance. 6% of native households received public assistance.1990: 9.1% of immigrants received public assistance, compared to 7.4% of native householdsImmigrants pay more in taxes than entitlements; we do not know whether they compensate for all public services consumed (Borjas, p. 288)The influence of immigration on natives’ wages appears to be negligible.

References

Borjas, George. Friends or Strangers, New York: Basic Books, 1990.

Borjas, George, Labor Economics, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996.

Borjas, George, “The Economics of Immigration,” Journal of Economic Literature, December, 1994.

Muller, Thomas, Immigrants and the American City, New York: NY University Press, 1993.

Simon, Julian, The Economic Consequences of Immigration, New York: Blackwell Press, 1989.