AT ISSUE
PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
HANS P. JOHNSON
Today, there are over 10 million illegal immigrants living in the
United States—an all-time high. Nationwide, the number of
illegal immigrants is growing rapidly, with increases averaging
500,000 per year.1 Moreover, for the first time in the last 10
years—if not the first time ever—the flow of illegal immigrants
into the country is larger than the flow of legal immigrants.
As the numbers have grown, illegal immigration has become
one of the most hotly debated and divisive issues in the
nation. As the state with the most illegal immigrants, California
has a critical stake in how well this issue is understood and
how it could be addressed through public policy. The purpose
of this AT ISSUE is to provide basic information on illegal
immigration and the debate surrounding it.
AT ISSUE [ I L L E G A L I M M I G R AT I O N ] 0 2
WHERE DO THEY COME FROM; WHERE DO THEY SETTLE?
The vast majority of illegal immigrants in the United States are Latino.
Over half are from Mexico. Another 24 percent are from other Latin
American countries,2 most notably El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,
Colombia, Ecuador, and the Dominican Republic. Although their share
of the total is low, hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants also come
from Asia and Europe. In Asia, the leading countries of origin are China,
the Philippines, and India. In Europe, they are Poland and the former
Soviet states.3
California has more illegal immigrants than any other state—an estimated
2.4 million. The California Department of Finance estimates that illegal
immigration adds 73,000 people to the state’s population each year,
thereby accounting for 12 percent of the state’s population growth this
decade. Even so, California is not the destination state it once was: In the
1980s, almost half the nation’s illegal immigrants lived in California;
today only 23 percent do. The number of illegal immigrants has been
increasing dramatically in some Southeastern and Midwestern states.
Still, traditional destinations such as Texas (1.4 million illegal immigrants),
Florida (850,000), and New York (650,000) continue to rank after
California with the largest illegal immigrant populations.
Because of increased enforcement along the U.S.-Mexico border, many
illegal immigrants have shifted crossing locations.4 With increased
border effort focusing on California, especially the San Diego-Tijuana
area, Arizona has become the primary crossing location into the United
States. This shift may have affected final destinations as well. In fact,
Arizona now has a higher percentage than California of illegal immigrants
per capita: One of every 11 Arizona residents is an illegal immigrant; in
California it is one of every 15.
PPIC [ 03 ]
FIGURE 1. MOST ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE FROM LATIN AMERICA
Region of Origin of Illegal Immigrants in the United States, 2004 Estimates
Rest of world 4%
Europe and Canada 6%
Asia 10%
Other Latin
24%
American countries
Mexico 56%
Source: Passel, 2005
AT ISSUE [ I L L E G A L I M M I G R AT I O N ] 0 4
FIGURE 2. CALIFORNIA HAS MORE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS THAN ANY OTHER STATE
Number of Illegal Immigrants, 2002–2004 Estimates
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
California
Texas
Florida
New York
Arizona
Illinois
New
Jersey
North
Carolina
Source: Passel, 2005
Illegal immigrants
come to this country
primarily for economic
and family reasons
PPIC [ 05 ]
WHO ARE THEY?
There are no nationally (or state) representative surveys that include
questions about legal status (and even if there were, responses to such
a question could be suspect). Thus, determining the characteristics
of illegal immigrants is very difficult. Some researchers have attempted
to assign legal status to foreign born non-citizens responding to
population surveys by using a probability method based on nationality,
year of entry, occupation, education, and some family characteristics.5
Their research suggests that most illegal immigrants are young adults
and live in families. Although the vast majority (86% nationwide) of
illegal immigrants are adults, many live in families with their U.S.-born
children. Fewer than half of illegal immigrant men and only one of five
illegal immigrant women are single and living apart from family.
Illegal immigrants tend to be poorly educated. Among 25 to 64 year
olds, almost half are not high school graduates.6 As a result—and despite
very high labor force participation for men—wages and incomes are
low. Nationwide, in 2003, 27 percent of adult illegal immigrants and 39
percent of illegal immigrant children lived in poverty. One estimate for
California suggests that, in 2004, 23 percent of illegal immigrants lived
in poverty (compared to 24% nationwide).
WHY DO THEY COME?
Claims abound. Some argue that welfare draws them. Others claim that the
purpose is to have babies who will be U.S. citizens. But illegal immigrants
come to this country primarily for economic and personal reasons—jobs and
family reunification.7
The Economic Pull
Regardless of the political controversies raging, when illegal immigrants
come, many U.S. employers are ready to hire them. The vast majority
work. One estimate is that 75 percent of adult illegal immigrants are in
the workforce.8 For most of them, wage and employment levels here are
much higher than in their home countries. For example, average U.S.
wages for production workers in manufacturing are about nine times
higher than in Mexico. Minimum wages in the United States are about
10 times higher than in Mexico.9
AT ISSUE [ I L L E G A L I M M I G R AT I O N ] 0 6
Another economic incentive for migrating here is the lack of welldeveloped financial markets in home countries. Reportedly, in Mexico
most households do not have adequate access to insurance, capital,
and credit markets. Migration of some household members to the
United States is part of many families’ strategies to finance expensive
purchases—even home ownership.10
The economic pull is underscored by how illegal immigration tracks
with U.S. economic conditions. When our economy is strong, illegal
immigration increases. During the late 1990s, for example, the U.S.
economy grew rapidly—unemployment rates were low, job creation was
high—and net increases in the number of illegal immigrants reached
record levels. Inflows declined with the downturn of the U.S. economy
in the early 2000s. They have since increased but are still below the
peaks of the late 1990s.
The Family Pull
Illegal immigrants also come to the United States to join family
members already here. These family members can provide housing and
information about jobs. They can also help pay for the costs of a coyote
(a smuggler who charges to bring in illegal immigrants). Research in
sending countries finds that people who have U.S. family ties are much
more likely to come than people who do not have these ties.
Previous PPIC research shows that California experienced a substantial
increase in family-based illegal immigration in the late 1980s.11 As a
result of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, over one
million illegal immigrant workers in the state were allowed to apply
for legal permanent residence. When they became legal residents,
many sent for family members to join them, and many of those family
members were initially illegal immigrants.
Because many illegal immigrants have babies in the United States
or join family members who are here legally, a large percentage of
illegal immigrants live in households with U.S. citizens. Many of those
illegal immigrants will eventually adjust to legal status through the
family reunification provisions of U.S. immigration law. An analysis
of immigrants granted legal permanent residency in 1996 shows that
almost one-third had previously lived in the United States as illegal
immigrants. About one-third of these previously illegal residents had
overstayed their visas and two-thirds had crossed the border illegally.12
PPIC [ 07 ]
FIGURE 3. ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION INFLOWS RESPOND TO U.S. ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
800
8.0
700
7.0
600
6.0
500
5.0
400
4.0
300
U.S. unemployment rate (%)
Immigration (thousands)
Inflows of Illegal Immigrants and U.S. Unemployment Rate, 1990–2004
3.0
1990
1992
1994
1996
U.S. unemployment rate
1998
2000
2002
2004
Annual Illegal Immigration
Source: Passel, 2005 and Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2005
AT ISSUE [ I L L E G A L I M M I G R AT I O N ] 0 8
A large percentage of illegal
immigrants live in households
with U.S. citizens
PPIC [ 09 ]
HOW DO THEY FIT IN THE ECONOMY?
Overall, about one in 25 workers in this country is an illegal immigrant.13
They work in all sectors of the economy but mostly in low-skill
occupations. Although about half of farm workers nationwide are illegal
immigrants, most illegal immigrants are not farm workers.14 They are
also concentrated in construction, manufacturing (especially textiles
and animal processing), retail trade (especially restaurants), and
services (especially private household services). In California, where
the concentration of illegal immigrants is almost twice as high as in the
rest of the nation, about 8 percent of workers are illegal immigrants.
One estimate for Los Angeles County is that 14 percent of workers there
are in the informal economy and that over half (61%) of such workers
are illegal immigrants.15
Whether illegal immigrants take jobs that U.S. natives will not take or
whether they displace U.S. workers has been a bone of contention among
advocates and a topic of study for researchers. Most studies indicate
that immigrants (including illegal immigrants) have little effect on the
wages and employment of U.S.-born workers. Such effects are felt most
by low-skilled U.S. workers.16 One study estimates that competition with
immigrants decreased the earnings of men without a high school diploma
by 4 percent in the long run.17
ARE THEY A BENEFIT OR BURDEN FOR GOVERNMENT FINANCES?
There are no reliable studies of illegal immigrants’ fiscal effects in
California. In 2004, the Government Accountability Office concluded
that information was insufficient to estimate state costs even of educating
illegal immigrant children. Further, most studies of the fiscal effects of
immigrants do not separate illegal from legal immigrants.18
Some parties to the debate claim that illegal immigrants are a drain on
public coffers. Others claim that they pay more in taxes than they receive
in services. Sorting out the fiscal effects is a serious challenge, and the
outcomes depend on the accounting methods used.
On the one hand, if educating the children of illegal immigrants is
included in the equation, they and their children almost certainly
constitute a substantial drain on public funds. Nevertheless, most
children of illegal immigrants were born in the United States, are U.S.
citizens, and are thus entitled to be educated in the public schools. To put
AT ISSUE [ I L L E G A L I M M I G R AT I O N ] 1 0
the issue of schooling in clearer perspective, most U.S. native families
with children probably receive more in services (primarily education)
than they pay in taxes.19
On the other hand, many illegal immigrants pay social security taxes
but never collect benefits. Further, illegal immigrants are not eligible
for many government services. However, they do use emergency health
care, and their U.S.-born children may be eligible for social programs,
including welfare (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families).20 Moreover,
because most illegal immigrants work in low-wage occupations, they do
not generate large tax revenues. According to one study—by an organization
advocating reduced immigration—illegal immigrants are a net federal
fiscal drain because of their low incomes and low tax payments, not
because they are big consumers of public services.21
WHAT DOES THE PUBLIC THINK ABOUT
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND IMMIGRATION?
Californians’ concern about illegal immigration has risen in recent
months as congressional debate has intensified, as large protests have
been staged, and as media coverage has increased. In PPIC’s Statewide
Survey of January 2006, only 11 percent of respondents pointed to
immigration or illegal immigration as the most important issue for state
leaders to address this year. By April 2006, that figure had more than
doubled to 27 percent and placed immigration as the most frequently
cited issue.
The perceptions do vary by region. In a March 2004 survey, almost half
(47%) of Los Angeles County residents described illegal immigration to
their county as a “major problem.” In contrast, in an April 2004 survey,
only 25 percent of Central Valley residents believed that the size of illegal
immigration to the valley was a “big problem.”
For whatever reasons, Californians’ attitudes toward illegal immigrants
seem to have moderated since 1994, when voters passed Proposition
187 (it denied public services to illegal immigrants but was largely
overturned by the courts). In 1999, 75 percent said that illegal immigrant
children should not be barred from attending public schools. In 2002,
PPIC [ 11 ]
Because most illegal
immigrants work in
low-wage occupations,
they do not generate
large tax revenues
AT ISSUE [ I L L E G A L I M M I G R AT I O N ] 1 2
FIGURE 4. CALIFORNIANS FAVOR WORK PERMITS FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
Should immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally be allowed to apply for
work permits which would allow them to stay and work in the United
States, or shouldn’t they be allowed to do that?
Don’t know 2%
Should not
38%
be allowed
Should be allowed 60%
Source: PPIC Statewide Survey, September 2005
Californians’ concern about
illegal immigration has risen
in recent months
PPIC [ 13 ]
a majority (53%) of Californians said that illegal immigrants and their
children should have access to public services. In September 2005, a
large majority (60%) of Californians said that illegal immigrants should
be allowed to apply for work permits. In contrast, 63 percent of people in
a CBS nationwide poll stated that illegal immigrants should not be allowed
to apply for work permits.
HOW CAN PUBLIC POLICY ADDRESS ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?
Most policies geared toward illegal immigration are federal rather than
state policies. In California, recent debates have focused on drivers
licenses (the state does not allow illegal immigrants to get licenses) and
federal reimbursement for state costs incurred by illegal immigrants. A
2002 Little Hoover Commission report argued that California should
establish a “Golden State Residency Program” to encourage integration
among all immigrants, regardless of legal status, and offer public
services to them (unless prohibited by federal law).22
Federal efforts over the past 10 years have focused on border
enforcement. The vigilante groups that unofficially patrol the border
with Mexico reflect the sentiment of some that illegal immigration could
be stemmed—if not stopped—if the United States beefed up border
enforcement sufficiently. But border enforcement alone is not adequate
to solve the problems of illegal immigration.
PPIC research has found that increased border enforcement, including
tripling the number of agents along the Mexican border and building fences
along some portions of it, has deterred some potential migrants. However,
the amount of deterrence is quite small and is swamped by the economic
pull of jobs and wages and the family ties that draw illegal immigrants to the
United States.
Ironically, increased border enforcement has had the unintended
consequence of increasing the number of illegal immigrants living here:
Because enforcement has increased the danger and cost of crossing
the border, many of those who come in now stay longer than they did
before the buildup.23 Many cyclical crossers have now become long-term
settlers. Further, border enforcement has no effect on the many illegal
immigrants who enter this country legally, with a tourist visa, for
example, and then overstay or otherwise violate the terms of their visa,
thus becoming illegal immigrants.
AT ISSUE [ I L L E G A L I M M I G R AT I O N ] 1 4
Almost all observers and policymakers agree that the large and rapidly
growing number of illegal immigrants in the United States shows that our
current policies are not working.
A number of proposals have been submitted in Congress to address
this failure. These proposals vary widely, from measures concentrating
primarily on enforcement—including one bill that would build a fence
along much of the U.S.-Mexico border and deny citizenship to U.S.born children of illegal immigrants—to bills that focus on guest worker
programs. One key issue for the guest worker programs is whether the
workers would be required to leave the United States after some period of
time or could eventually qualify for legal permanent residency.
To be successful, policy reforms must address the root causes of
illegal immigration. They must also consider the logistical, economic, and
humanitarian difficulties of attempting to identify and deport over 10
million illegal immigrants residing in the United States, many of whom
are the parents of U.S.-born children and the spouses of U.S. citizens.
Policies developed without an understanding of these causes and
difficulties will fail. For example, a guest worker program that does not
include the option of adjusting to permanent legal status after some years
of working here will likely lead many guest workers to become illegal
residents when their tenure as a guest worker ends.
Successful policies will also need to reduce the pull of jobs. One way
is by developing meaningful employer sanctions, including accurate
and verifiable documents that show an individual’s right to live and work
in the United States. Ultimately, economic development in sending
countries will reduce the pressure to migrate. Policies that encourage
investment (foreign aid or foreign direct investment) in their economies,
including encouragement to create financial markets accessible to
families, could foster such development.
Clearly, a complicated set of priorities and agendas continues to shape
the debate around illegal immigration. As of this writing, the question of
whether the debate can produce meaningful and effective reform has not
yet been answered.
PPIC [ 15 ]
NOTES
1
E s t i m ates of the illegal immigrant population are derived using a re s i d u a l t e c h n i q u e i n w h i c h
i n d e p endently derived estimates of legal immigrants are subtract e d f ro m s u r v e y - b a s e d
e s t i m ates of the entire noncitizen population in the United States t o g i v e e s t i m a t e s o f t h e
n u m b er of illegal immigrants. See Passel, Jeffrey S., and Roberto S u ro . R i s e , P e a k a n d
D e c l i ne Tr ends in U.S. Im migration 1992–2004. The Pew Hispanic C e n t e r, Wa s h i n g t o n , D . C . ,
S e p t ember 2005.
2
P a s s el, Jeffrey S. Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Character i s t i c s . T h e P e w H i s p a n i c
C e n t er, Washington, D.C., June 2005.
3
Wa r re n, Robert. Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Populat i o n R e s i d i n g i n t h e U n i t e d
S t a t e s: 1990 to 2000. Office of Policy and Planning, U.S. Immigra t i o n a n d N a t u r a l i z a t i o n
S e r v i ce, Washingto n, D.C., 2003.
4
R e y e s, Belinda I., Hans P. Johnson, and Richard Van Swearingen. H o l d i n g t h e L i n e ? T h e
E f f e c t of the Recent Border Build-up on Unauthorized Immigratio n . P u b l i c P o l i c y I n s t i t u t e
o f C a lifor nia, San Francisco, CA, 2002.
5
B e c a use illegal immigrants make up a large share of noncitizens i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ,
a n d b ecause the residual population estimates provide informatio n a b o u t y e a r o f e n t r y
a n d c ountry of origin, estimates of the characteristics of undocum e n t e d i m m i g r a n t s a re
re a s o nably reliable. The discussion of characteristics of illegal im m i g r a n t s re l i e s o n P a s s e l
( 2 0 0 5 , cited in note 2) and Camarota, Steven A. Immigrants at Mi d - D e c a d e : A S n a p s h o t o f
A m e r i ca’s For eign-Bor n Population in 2005. Center for Immigratio n S t u d i e s B a c k g ro u n d e r,
Wa s h ington, D.C., December 2005.
6
O n e estimate is that the average years of education among illega l i m m i g r a n t s i n 1 9 9 6 w a s
1 0 . 8 years, almost two ye ars lower than among legal immigrants a n d 2 . 2 y e a r s l o w e r t h a n
a m o n g U.S. natives. See Smith, James P. “Immigrants and the La b o r M a r k e t . ” Wo r k i n g p a p e r,
E c o n WPA, August 2005.
7
F o r e xample, see Durand, Jorge, and Douglas Massey. Crossing t h e B o r d e r : R e s e a r c h f r o m
t h e M exican Migration Project. Russell Sage Foundation, New Yor k , N . Y. , 2 0 0 4 .
8
Lowell, B. Lindsay, and Richard Fry. Estimating the Distribution of Undocumented Workers in the
Urban Labor Force: Technical Memorandum. The Pew Hispanic Center, Washington, D.C., 2002.
9
T h i s i nformation is based on Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Inter nat i o n a l C o m p a r i s o n s o f
H o u r l y Compensation Costs for Production Workers in Manufactu r i n g , S u p p l e m e n t a r y Ta b l e s . ”
Av a i l able at http://www.bls.gov/fls/hcompsupptabtoc.htm, and M e x i c a n m i n i m u m w a g e d a t a
a v a i l able at http://www.banderasnews.com/0501/nr-minwages.htm .
10
M a s s ey, Douglas S. “Five Myths About Immigration: Common Mis c o n c e p t i o n s U n d e r l y i n g U . S .
B o rd er-Enforcement Policy.” Immigration Policy In Focus, Vol. 4, I s s u e 6 , A u g u s t 2 0 0 5 .
11
J o h n s on, Hans P. Undocu mented Immigration to Califor nia: 1980- 1 9 9 3 . P u b l i c P o l i c y I n s t i t u t e
o f C a lifor nia, San Francisco, CA, 1996.
12
M a s s ey, Douglas S., and Nolan Malone. “Pathways to Legal Immi g r a t i o n , ” P o p u l a t i o n
R e s e arch and Policy Review, Vol. 21, No. 6, December 2002.
13
P a s s e l, see note 2.
14
U . S . Department of Labor. Findings from the National Agricultura l Wo r k e r s S u r v e y ( N A W S )
2 0 0 1 –2002. A Demographic and Employment Profile of United Sta t e s F a r m Wo r k e r s . O ff i c e
o f t h e Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office of Programmatic Poli c y, R e s e a rc h R e p o r t N o . 9 . ,
Wa s h ington, D.C., March 2005.
AT ISSUE [ I L L E G A L I M M I G R AT I O N ] 1 6
15
Flaming, Daniel, Brent Hayda m a c k , a n d P a s c a l e J o a s s a r t . “ H o p e f u l Wo r k e r s , M a rg i n a l J o b s ;
LA’s Off-The-Books Labor Fo rc e . ” E c o n o m i c R o u n d t a b l e , L o s A n g e l e s , C A , 2 0 0 5 .
16
An excellent short summary o f t h e re s e a rc h l i t e r a t u re o n t h i s t o p i c i s a v a i l a b l e t h ro u g h t h e
Congressional Budget Office. “ T h e R o l e o f I m m i g r a n t s i n t h e U . S . L a b o r M a r k e t , ” Av a i l a b l e a t
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/ 6 8 x x / d o c 6 8 5 3 / 1 1 - 1 0 - I m m i g r a t i o n . p d f , N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 5 .
17
Borjas, George J. “The Labor D e m a n d C u r v e I s D o w n w a rd S l o p i n g : R e e x a m i n i n g t h e I m p a c t
of Immigration on the Labor M a r k e t . ” Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l o f E c o n o m i c s , Vo l . 1 8 , N o . 4 , 2 0 0 3 .
18
A lengthy discussion of immig r a n t s ( b o t h l e g a l a n d i l l e g a l ) a n d t h e s t a t e ’s e c o n o m y c a n b e
found at www.ccsce.com. Ce n t e r f o r t h e C o n t i n u i n g S t u d y o f t h e C a l i f o r n i a E c o n o m y. “ T h e
Impact of Immigration on the C a l i f o r n i a E c o n o m y. ”
19
This determination is made b y c o m b i n i n g e s t i m a t e s f ro m a N a t i o n a l R e s e a rc h C o u n c i l
(NRC) study of the net fiscal e ff e c t s o f U . S . - b o r n h o u s e h o l d s i n C a l i f o r n i a w i t h a v e r a g e
expenditures for K–12 studen t s i n C a l i f o r n i a . T h e N R C e s t i m a t e d t h a t i n 1 9 9 6 t h e a v e r a g e
U.S.-bor n household in Califo r n i a c o n t r i b u t e d $ 1 , 9 4 6 m o re i n s t a t e a n d l o c a l t a x e s t h a n i t
received in state and local ex p e n d i t u re s o n s e r v i c e s , e x c l u d i n g e d u c a t i o n e x p e n d i t u re s . I n
1996, state and local expend i t u re s p e r K – 1 2 s t u d e n t w e re $ 4 , 7 0 2 . T h u s , a n a v e r a g e U . S . bor n household in Califor nia w i t h o n e K – 1 2 p u b l i c s c h o o l s t u d e n t re c e i v e d $ 2 , 7 5 6 m o re i n
state and local services than i t p a i d i n t a x e s , a n d h o u s e h o l d s w i t h t w o s t u d e n t s re c e i v e d
$7,458. Even if we include fe d e r a l t a x e s a n d e x p e n d i t u re s , f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d re n a re s t i l l
a net burden. Those with one c h i l d re c e i v e $ 8 7 2 m o re i n s e r v i c e s t h a n t h e y p a y i n t a x e s
at all levels of gover nment an d t h o s e w i t h t w o c h i l d re n re c e i v e $ 6 , 4 1 1 m o re . S e e N a t i o n a l
Research Council, “Do Immig r a n t s I m p o s e a N e t F i s c a l B u rd e n ? A n n u a l E s t i m a t e s . ” T h e
New Americans, National Aca d e m y P re s s , Wa s h i n g t o n , D . C . , 1 9 9 7 .
20
The Califor nia Immigrant Welf a re C o l l a b o r a t i v e l i s t s h e a l t h a n d w e l f a re p ro g r a m s t h a t
immigrants in Califor nia are e l i g i b l e f o r a t h t t p : / / w w w. n i l c . o rg / c i w c / t b l s _ o t h e r- m a t s / C a l _
Benefits_Table_0905.pdf.
21
Camarota, Steven A. The Hig h C o s t o f C h e a p L a b o r : I l l e g a l I m m i g r a t i o n a n d t h e F e d e r a l
Budget. Center for Immigrati o n S t u d i e s , Wa s h i n g t o n , D . C . , A u g u s t 2 0 0 4 .
22
Little Hoover Commission. “We T h e P e o p l e : H e l p i n g N e w c o m e r s B e c o m e C a l i f o r n i a n s . ”
Report #166, Sacramento, CA , J u n e 2 0 0 2 .
23
See Cor nelius, Wayne A. “Dea t h a t t h e B o rd e r : T h e E ff i c a c y a n d U n i n t e n d e d C o n s e q u e n c e s
of U.S. Immigration Control P o l i c y, 1 9 9 3 - 2 0 0 0 . ” C e n t e r f o r C o m p a r a t i v e I m m i g r a t i o n S t u d i e s .
Working paper, University of C a l i f o r n i a , S a n D i e g o , C A , 2 0 0 0 .
PPIC [ 17 ]
PPIC IMMIGRATION EXPERTS
Hans P. Johnson
Research Fellow, 415.291.4460, [email protected]
Expertise
• Immigration and migration
• Population issues and demographics
Census 2000 • Population growth • Population projections • Regional population • Fertility
Education
• Housing
Ph.D. (1997), demography, and M.A. (1989), biostatistics
University of California, Berkeley
Mark Baldassare
Director of Research, Senior Fellow, 415.291.4427, [email protected]
Expertise
Education
• Public policy preferences
• Public opinion on immigration
• Elections
• State initiatives
• State and local government relations
• Political participation
• Demographics
Ph.D. (1976), sociology, University of California, Berkeley
M.A. (1973), sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara
Arturo Gonzalez
Research Fellow, 415.291.4464, [email protected]
Expertise
• Immigration and immigrants
Labor market assimilation • English language acquisition
Social and economic progress of immigrants and their descendants
• Education
Community college attendance • Latino performance • Job training programs • Education and earnings
Education
Ph.D. (1997) and M.A. (1993), economics
University of California, Santa Barbara
Laura E. Hill
Research Fellow, 415.291.4424, [email protected]
Expertise
• Immigration and immigrants
• Multiracial populations
• Fertility
Trends among immigrants • Trends among successive generations of immigrants
• California’s youth
Education
Ph.D. (1998), demography, and M.A. (1996), economics
University of California, Berkeley
AT ISSUE [ I L L E G A L I M M I G R AT I O N ] 1 8
RELATED PPIC PUBLICATIONS
“California’s Newest Immigrants,” California Counts: Population Trends and Profiles,
Vol. 5, No. 2
Laura E. Hill, Joseph M. Hayes
November 2003
Educational Progress Across Immigrant Generations in California
Deborah Reed, Laura E. Hill, Christopher Jepsen, Hans P. Johnson
September 2005
Holding the Line? The Effect of Recent Border Build-up on
Unauthorized Immigration
Belinda I. Reyes, Hans P. Johnson, Richard Van Swearingen
July 2002
The Socioeconomic Well-Being of California’s Immigrant Youth
Laura E. Hill
July 2004
Understanding the Future of Californians’ Fertility: The Role of Immigrants
Laura E. Hill, Hans P. Johnson
April 2002
Undocumented Immigration to California: 1980–1993
Hans P. Johnson
September 1996
© April 2006 by Public Policy Institute of California. All rights reserved. San Francisco, CA
Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that
full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included.
PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor
does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office.
Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff,
officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California.
PPIC [ 19 ]
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ADVISORY COUNCIL
T h o m a s C. Sutton, Chair
C h a i r m a n and Chief Executive Officer
P a c i f i c Life Insurance Company
Clifford W. Grave s
General Manager
Community Devel o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t
City of Los Angele s
L i n d a G riego
P re s i d e nt and Chief Executive Officer
G r i e g o Enterprises, Inc.
E d w a rd K. Hamilton
Chairman
H a m i l t o n, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc.
G a r y K . Hart
Founder
I n s t i t u t e for Education Reform
C a l i f o r n i a State University, Sacramento
Wa l t e r B. Hewlett
D i re c t o r
C e n t e r f or Computer Assisted Research
i n t h e H umanities
D a v i d W. Lyon
P re s i d e nt and Chief Executive Officer
P u b l i c P olicy Institute of Califor nia
C h e r y l White Mason
Vi c e - P re sident Litigation
L e g a l D epartment
H o s p i t a l Corporation of America
K i S u h Park
D e s i g n and Managing Partner
G r u e n A ssociates
C o n s t a nce L. Rice
C o - D i re ctor
T h e A d v ancement Project
R a y m o n d L. Watson
Vi c e C h airman of the Board Emeritus
T h e I r v i n e Company
C a ro l W hiteside
P re s i d e nt
G re a t Va lley Center
Elizabeth G. Hill
Legislative Analys t
State of Califor nia
Hilary W. Hoynes
Associate Profess o r
Department of Ec o n o m i c s
University of Cali f o r n i a , D a v i s
Andrés E. Jiméne z
Director
Califor nia Policy R e s e a rc h C e n t e r
University of Cali f o r n i a
Office of the Pres i d e n t
Norman R. King
Director, Universi t y Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n C e n t e r
Califor nia State U n i v e r s i t y, S a n B e r n a rd i n o
Daniel A. Mazma n i a n
School of Policy, P l a n n i n g , a n d D e v e l o p m e n t
University of Sou t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a
Dean Misczynski
Director
Califor nia Researc h B u re a u
Rudolf Nothenbe r g
Chief Administrati v e O ff i c e r ( R e t i re d )
City and County o f S a n F r a n c i s c o
Manuel Pastor
Professor
Latin American & L a t i n o S t u d i e s
University of Cali f o r n i a , S a n t a C r u z
Peter Schrag
Contributing Edito r
The Sacramento B e e
James P. Smith
Senior Economist
RAND Corporation
This publication was funded in part by a grant from The James Irvine Foundation.
AT ISSUE
CRITICAL FACTS ON CRITICAL ISSUES
DOWNLOAD THIS PUBLICATION FREE OF CHARGE AT WWW.PPIC.ORG
PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE
of
CALIFORNIA •
500 WASHIN G T O N
S T R E E T, S U I T E
P 415.291.4400 • F 415.291.4401 • www.ppic.org
800 •
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
94111