The Economic Effects of Local Immigration Policy

Speakers

• Roderick Royal, President, Birmingham City Council, Alabama
• Ronnie Steine, Member-at-Large, Metropolitan City Council of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee
• Melissa Mark-Viverito, Council Member, Co-Vice Chair of the Black, Latino and Asian Caucus, The New York City Council
• Jeronimo Cortina, Assistant Professor & Co-Director of the Project on Migration, Development & Evaluation, University of Houston
• Jason Marczak, Director of Policy, Americas Society and Council of the Americas (Moderator)

• Watch a video of the program.
• Access the working paper The Economic Impact of Immigrant-Related Local Ordinances.

Summary

Without comprehensive immigration reform at the national level, local and regional policymakers have increasingly enacted their own laws in response to the settlement of undocumented immigrants in their communities. Many of these laws—like Arizona’s SB1070 or Georgia’s HB 87—aim to reduce the local population of immigrants (especially those unauthorized) while other policies, although fewer in number, seek to expand an economy’s competitiveness relative to other U.S. cities, as well as globally.

In difficult economic times, a growing body of evidence is casting doubt on the correlation between tougher immigration policies and an improved economy. The Economic Impact of Immigrant-Related Local Ordinances, an Americas Society white paper launched at the event, compares the economic impact of restrictive versus non-restrictive immigrant-related ordinances in 53 cities across the United States. It shows that restrictive legislation has a comparatively negative impact on the number of employees overall in a specific city. This research points to non-restrictive policies as being the better choice for a city’s jobs and overall business environment.

Still, the debate over what type of immigration legislation will spur economic growth continues. Americas Society’s public panel on “The Economic Effects of Local Immigration Policy” invited policymakers from two new gateway cities—Birmingham and Nashville—as well as New York, to share their experiences of being on the front lines of the U.S. immigration debate.

A New Tide of Restrictive Policies

Alabama recently passed the toughest of the new wave of restrictive immigration laws, HB 56, in June 2011. HB56 and other laws like it come from frustrations such as a struggling job markets and a lack of employment opportunities. But according to Birmingham City Council President Roderick Royal, after HB56 went into effect, many of the jobs vacated by immigrants (undocumented or otherwise) remain unfilled, especially in the construction and agriculture sectors.

University of Houston’s Jeronimo Cortina warned that the result can become a snowball effect: an insufficient labor force leads to a less stable businesses environment, a weaker housing market. It ultimately affects the quality of schools and hospitals, and even the prevalence of crime. For example, one provision of HB56 makes it a crime to rent to undocumented individuals, already leading to abandoned properties and lower property values in Alabama. The Economic Impact of Immigrant-Related Local Ordinances backs-up these anecdotal stories by showing that restrictive cities will, on average, have 0.18 fewer employees than their non-restrictive counterparts.

The economy is often brought up in the context of the current immigration debate, but Alabama’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants is not only about jobs. According to Councilmember Royal, restrictive laws popping up across the country are Americans’ reaction to a rapidly changing population. In the case of Alabama, it is the 5 million Latinos that have flocked to the state in recent years.

Policymakers Weigh in on the Debate

Few restrictive bills are passed and implemented without being challenged, either by local and state legislators or the federal government (and Cortina made the important point that the defense of these bills cost state and city governments a significant amount in legal fees). For example, HB 56 was challenged by the U.S. Department of Justice, a coalition of civil rights groups, and policymakers like Councilman Royal. Though key elements of the bill were ultimately upheld by an Alabama judge in September, Councilman Ronnie Steine of Nashville stressed the crucial role that elected officials can play in blocking restrictive legislation. Councilman Steine led the effort to defeat English-only legislation in Nashville, making it the largest U.S. city to successfully resist this type or ordinance. Still, Councilman Steine said other restrictive measures are constantly being introduced in the city’s legislature.

The Economic Benefits of Inclusive Policies

Councilmembers Royal and Steine made it clear that supporting non-restrictive legislation can be an extremely unpopular political move for public officials, especially those in more conservative states. But all the panelists stressed the potential positive effect that non-restrictive policies have on the economic competitiveness of a city or state. This has been the experience of New York City, a renowned sanctuary city that has largely embraced its immigrant population.

Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito described New York City as an “immigrant city” and one that thrives on immigrant communities and immigrant-owned small businesses. New York’s stance on immigration is championed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg who has passed several non-restrictive executive orders, including Executive Order 41 in 2003 that allows all New Yorks to access public services, regardless of his or her documented status. On the flip side of English-only, New York City makes a concerted effort for government services to be available in at least five major languages in order to increase accessibility for the city’s diverse immigrant communities. The mayor also chairs the Partnership for a New American Economy, about which is a bipartisan group of mayors and business leaders with the mission of raising awareness of the economic benefits of immigrants and the need for comprehensive reform.

Despite New York’s non-restrictive policies, more can still be done to maximize the opportunities for and contributions of immigrant communities. Councilmember Mark-Viverito explained that New York has some restrictive policies in effect. New York Corrections Department officials regularly share lists of foreign-born inmates with federal immigration authorities, who then take custody of, detain and deport those charged with misdemeanors and felonies (an arrangement called the criminal detainer program that is common across the country). Councilmember Mark-Viverito supported a bill sponsored by New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn that minimizes the transfer of inmates to federal custody if they have no convictions or outstanding warrants.

Coalition Building and the National Immigration Discourse

The panelists also discussed how coalitions, especially among racial and ethnic groups, can help to foster more inclusive policies. In Nashville, Councilman Steine’s effort to block English-only legislation was supported by the younger African-American population because they saw the ordinance as a threat to all minority groups, not just Latinos. On the other hand, older African-Americans were more resistant to collaboration with the Latino community. Similar challenges are faced in Birmingham where the political rhetoric has placed blacks and Hispanics in perceived competition for scarce jobs and access to government resources—what Councilman Royal calls a divide and conquer strategy. But the councilman remains optimistic about potential cooperation between Alabama’s African-American and Hispanic communities on immigration issues, saying that the experience of being a minority in the south makes for a “natural partnership, politically and socially.”

Panelists agreed that the national discourse on immigration must change. Councilman Steine stressed the importance of framing the debate differently. Instead of using the term “illegal,” the councilman said “undocumented” is a more human term that removes the stigma from those in this country who don’t have papers. Ultimately, though, the panelist explained that those who support a non-restrictive agenda will be constantly on the defensive against restrictive laws on the city and state level until comprehensive immigration form is passed.