Advertisement

The Effects of Legalization on Migrant Remittances

  • Catalina Amuedo-Dorantes
  • Francesca Mazzolari
Chapter
Part of the Immigrants and Minorities, Politics and Policy book series (IMPP)

Abstract

Remittances to Latin America have been increasing at rather dramatic rates in recent years. As some countries have grown accustomed to remittances, policy-makers have become increasingly worried about the stability of these transfers. US immigration policy, via its impact on immigration inflows and the immigrant stock, can significantly affect future remittances. This study investigates how a generalized amnesty, a provision in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), affected remitting patterns of immigrants from Latin America. Using the Legalized Population Survey––a nationally representative sample of undocumented immigrants who benefited from IRCA’s main amnesty program––we find that legalization had a statistically and economically significant negative impact on remittances sent home, particularly among Mexicans. Indeed, back-of-the-envelope calculations show that a current amnesty would significantly lower remittances sent to Mexico, and this would, in turn, result in sizeable foregone investment and education funds.

Keywords

Family Composition Undocumented Immigrant Dollar Amount Undocumented Migrant Mexican Migrant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Terry, Donald F. 2005. “Remittances as a Development Tool.” In Beyond Small Change, ed. Donald F. Terry and Steve R. Wilson, 3–19. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ratha, Dilip. 2004. “Understanding the Importance of Remittances.” Migration Information Source. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=256 (accessed on October 5, 2010).
  3. 3.
    Taylor, Edward J. 1999. “The New Economics of Labour Migration and the Role of Remittances in the Migration Process.” International Migration, 37(1): 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Preston, Julia. 2007.“Fewer Mexican Immigrants Are Sending Money Back Home, Bank Says.” The New York Times, August 9.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kossoudji, Sherrie A., and Deborah Cobb-Clark. 2002. “Coming Out of the Shadows: Learning about Legal Status and Wages from the Legalized Population.” Journal of Labor Economics, 20(3): 598–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kossoudji, Sherrie A., and Deborah Cobb-Clark. 2004. “IRCA’s Impact on the Occupational Concentration and Mobility of Newly-Legalized Mexican Men.” In How Labor Migrants Fare, ed. Klaus F. Zimmermann and Amelie Constant, 333–350. Heidelberg and New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaushal, Neeraj. 2006. “Amnesty Programs and the Labor Market Outcomes of Undocumented Workers.” Journal of Human Resources, 61(3): 631–647.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grieco, Elizabeth. 2003. The Remittance Behavior of Immigrant Households: Micronesians in Hawaii and Guam. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grieco, Elizabeth. 2004. “Will Migrant Remittances Continue Through Time? A New Answer to an Old Question.” International Journal on Multicultural Societies (IJMS), 6(2): 243–252.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Passel, Jeffrey S. 2006. Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population.” March Report. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Becker, Gary S. 1974. “A Theory of Social Interactions.” Journal of Political Economy, 82(6): 1063–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stark, Oded. 1991. The Migration of Labor. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ahlburg, Dennis A., and Richard P. C. Brown. 1998. “Migrants’ Intentions to Return Home and Capital Transfers: A Study of Tongans and Samoans in Australia.” The Journal of Development Studies, 35(2):125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Glytsos, Nicholas P. 1997. “Remitting Behaviour of ‘Temporary’ and ‘Permanent’ Migrants: the Case of Greeks in Germany and Australia.” Labour, 11(3): 409–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Amuedo-Dorantes, Catalina, and Susan Pozo. 2006. “Remittances and Insurance: Evidence from Mexican Migrants.” Journal of Population Economics, 19(2): 227–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lucas, Robert E.B., and Oded Stark.1985. “Motivations to Remit: Evidence from Botswana.” Journal of Political Economy, 93(5): 901–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cooper, Betsy, and Kevin O’Neil.2005. Lessons from the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.” Migration Policy Institute Policy Brief No. 3. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hoefer, Michael D. 1991. “Background of U.S. Immigration Policy Reform.” In U.S. Immigration Policy Reform in the 1980s: A Preliminary Assessment, ed. Francisco L. Rivera-Batiz, Selig L. Sechzer, and Ira N. Gang, 17–44. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Warren, Robert. 2000. Annual Estimates of the Unauthorized Population Residing in the United States and Components of Changes: 1987 to 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rytina, Nancy. 2002. “IRCA Legalization Effects: Lawful Permanent Residence and Naturalization through 2001.” Working Paper, Office of Policy and Planning, Statistics Division, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pew Hispanic Center Factsheet. 2006. http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/17.pdf (accessed on October 6, 2010).
  22. 22.
    Durand, Jorge, William Kandel, Emilio A. Parrado, and Douglas S. Massey. 1996. “International Migration and Development in Mexican Communities.” Demography, 33(2): 249–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Suro, Roberto. 2003. Remittance Senders and Receivers: Tracking the Transnational Channels. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Skoufias, Emmanuel. 2001. PROGRESA and its Impacts on the Human Capital and Welfare of Households in Rural Mexico: A Synthesis of the Results of an Evaluation by IFPRI.” Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Easterly, William. 2006. “Multilateral Development Banks: Promoting Effectiveness and Fighting Corruption.” Hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One Hundred Ninth Congress, Second Session, Tuesday, March 28.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Passel, Jeffrey S. 2002. New Estimates of the Undocumented Population in the United States.” Migration Information Source.Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catalina Amuedo-Dorantes
    • 1
    • 2
  • Francesca Mazzolari
    • 3
  1. 1.San Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.IZA – Institute for the Study of LaborBonnGermany
  3. 3.Centro Studi ConfindustriaRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations