Does the Scale or Speed of Immigration Generate Nativism? Evidence from a Comparison of New Zealand Regions

Nativism, the belief that the rights of those who came first should be prioritized over immigrants, is an increasingly important driver of the rise of far-right populism. It is also leading to hate crimes and even terrorist attacks against immigrants. However, it remains unclear when and why local communities come to oppose immigration. One important set of questions concerns whether nativism is most likely to emerge in societies in which immigrants constitute a higher proportion of the total population or those where there is rapid growth in the immigrant population, even if absolute numbers or their proportion of society remain low. This paper employs multivariate analysis to test these two hypotheses. We use data from a survey of nativist (and populist) sentiment in New Zealand conducted in 2020 along with population data from the national censuses of 2013 and 2018. We compare the results from all New Zealand regions. Our findings strongly support the second hypothesis regarding the importance of the rate of growth in the immigrant population. Those regions that have the highest rate of change in immigrant populations present the highest levels of nativist sentiment, despite their immigrant populations being both small in size and as a proportion of the local population. Conversely, those regions where immigrant numbers are high or they constitute a large proportion of the local population return low levels of nativist sentiment.

Extraregional Migratory Flows in Transit as Complex Unbounded Emergency (Risk): Conceptual Challenges and Empirical Lessons in Costa Rica

Recent migratory flows transiting through Central America have led to unprecedented institutional and humanitarian responses across the sub-region. Between 2015 and 2016, the small Central American countries and Costa Rica in particular experienced at least two major “migration waves,” triggered by thousands of “extraregional migrants” in transit from Cuba, Haiti, and many countries from Asia and Africa who became stranded for months in Central America. The article examines how these recent and unusual migratory flows led to novel state responses, including the use of disaster risk management principles and operational mechanisms. Based on empirical data from Costa Rica, the article explores how the concept and notion of complex unbounded emergency (risk) may be appropriate in understanding the practical implications of this new migratory reality in terms of disaster risk reduction and management. It aims to shed new insights on the complexities of extraregional migratory flows, which are likely to continue into the foreseeable future.

Can You Hear Me Now? Attorney Perceptions of Interpretation, Technology, and Power in Immigration Court

The Executive Office for Immigration Review houses America's trial-level immigration courts, which adjudicate hundreds of thousands of cases annually, many resulting in deportations. Most proceedings require interpretation and all rely heavily upon technology. Yet, we know little about communication and technology in these hearings, and even less about the views of attorneys who navigate this system daily. I examine the effects courtroom interpretation and technology have on immigrant voices as described in interviews with immigration attorneys representing clients facing deportation. Attorneys overwhelmingly characterize the court as procedurally unjust, pinpointing how flaws in interpretation, telephonic conferencing, and videoconferencing offer the illusion of due process. Drawing upon criminology, legal sociology, and linguistics, this study finds profound improvements are needed to ensure due process in the nation's immigration courts, including: Elimination of telephonic and videoconferencing in all but extreme circumstances. Modernization of telephonic and videoconference technology. Improvement of interpreter standards and working conditions. Education of attorneys, judges, and interpreters regarding challenges inherent to courtroom interpretation and technology. Although enhancing the quality of interpretation and technology protocols may improve immigrants’ access to justice in immigration court, meaningful immigration court reforms should reduce the need for an immigration court altogether.

The CRISIS Survey: The Catholic Church's Work with Immigrants in a Period of Crisis

Over the last five years, the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) has conducted four surveys of Catholic immigrant-serving institutions, programs, and ministries in the United States. These surveys identify the multi-faceted needs of immigrants and refugees, and examine the successes and challenges of Catholic institutions in responding to them. CMS administered its most recent survey, the Catholic Refugee and Immigrant Service Integration Survey (the “CRISIS Survey”) from December 14, 2020 through February 5, 2021. This survey explored the work of Catholic institutions during the Trump administration and the COVID-19 pandemic. The CRISIS Survey documents the reach, diversity, and productivity of Catholic institutions that worked with immigrants and refugees during a pandemic that particularly devastated their communities and an administration whose policies and rhetoric made their work far more difficult. At a time of rampant “Catholic decline” narratives, the survey also documents the reach, vitality, and relevance of Catholic immigrant-serving institutions. It identifies the obstacles encountered by immigrants in accessing Catholic programs and ministries — both organizational (funding, staffing, and siting) and exogenous (federal policies, the pandemic, and community opposition). It underscores the threat posed by US immigration policies to immigrants and to the work of Catholic institutions. Survey respondents reported that they offered new services during this period, such as: Financial assistance for families, particularly those at risk of losing housing or utilities. COVID-19 testing, education, contact tracing, and quarantine services. Mental health services. Grief support and assistance with funeral expenses. Delivery of food and sanitation supplies for infected and other homebound persons. Voter registration and Census promotion activities. Virtually all respondents provided services remotely during the pandemic. Many reported on difficulties faced by immigrants in accessing their services, due to poor internet connections, limited computer access, and lack of communications technology and training. Respondents identified several factors that negatively affected immigrants’ access to their services pre-pandemic. As in previous CMS surveys, these factors included lack of immigration status, negative community attitudes toward immigrants, fear of apprehension (particularly after traffic stops) and deportation, public transportation deficiencies, stigma over receipt of mental health services, and identification requirements to access public benefits. Respondents also reported on obstacles in working with immigrants during the pandemic. These included the pandemic itself, limited funding, demand that outpaced resources, government restrictions on relief and benefit eligibility, and (particularly for students) living arrangements, work, and family caretaking responsibilities. Respondents overwhelmingly believed that immigration enforcement, tied to fear of deportation, very negatively or somewhat negatively affected participation in their services and programs. In Catholic terms, they reported that nativist immigration policies, rhetoric, and media sources interfered with their practice of discipleship. One respondent stated, “Fear of ICE and round-ups, locally in our state and nationally, along with negative immigration rhetoric from the out-going president have made our clients very fearful to access services they rightly qualify for.” A healthcare provider reported that immigrants were “avoiding or delaying seeking treatment for COVID-19 for fear of apprehension and/or deportation.” Many said that enforcement partnerships between Immigration and Customs Enforcement and states and localities made immigrants fearful of reporting crimes or accessing government facilities. One said that potential sponsors feared coming forward to reunify with children. Respondents also cited as problems delays in family reunification, barriers to asylum-seekers entering the United States, decreased refugee admissions, and the Trump administration's rule on the public charge ground of inadmissibility. The report recommends that Catholic institutions take stock of the creative new programs, skills and capacities that they have developed during the pandemic and build on them. It also recommends that scholars and researchers prioritize independent, person-centered research that critically analyzes the work of Catholic immigrant-serving institutions. Such research would ask whether these institutions, in the words of Pope Francis, are putting “the person at the center, in his or her many aspects” and honoring the “fundamental equality” of every person. It would draw on the perspectives of immigrants served by Catholic institutions to examine the degree to which these institutions advance the rights, participation, and wellbeing of immigrants and their families in US society. Finally, it would analyze how Catholic institutions work with each other — within Arch/dioceses, regionally, nationally, and across these realms — in response to the cross-cutting needs of immigrants. The report recommends that Catholic institutions develop programmatic plans to ensure that immigrants can return to or can continue to access their programs and ministries as the pandemic subsides. These plans will need to combine communication strategies, financial support, and services such as transportation and childcare. In addition, Catholic institutions should make it a high priority to ensure that immigrants can access the infrastructure, platforms, and training that will allow them to access virtual services. They should also develop strategies to engage Catholics who do not understand, who ignore, or who work at cross-purposes to Catholic teaching and policy positions in this area. Finally, they should redouble their work with the administration and Congress to reform US immigration laws, and with states and localities to promote welcoming and inclusive communities.

Making Citizenship an Organizing Principle of the US Immigration System: An Analysis of How and Why to Broaden Access to Permanent Residence and Naturalization for New Americans

This paper proposes that the United States treat naturalization not as the culmination of a long and uncertain individual process, but as an organizing principle of the US immigration system and its expectation for new Americans. It comes at a historic inflection point, following the chaotic departure of one of the most nativist administrations in US history and in the early months of a new administration whose executive orders, administrative actions, and legislative proposals augur a different view of immigrants and immigration. The paper examines two main ways that the Biden–Harris administration can realize its immigration, naturalization and integration goals: i.e., by expanding access to permanent residence and by increasing naturalization numbers and rates. First, it proposes administrative and, to a lesser degree, legislative measures that would expand the pool of eligible-to-naturalize immigrants. Second, it identifies three underlying factors—financial resources, English language proficiency, and education—that strongly influence naturalization rates. These factors must be addressed, in large part, outside of and prior to the naturalization process. In addition, it provides detailed estimates of populations with large eligible-to-naturalize numbers, populations that naturalize at low rates, and populations with increasing naturalization rates. It argues that the administration's immigration strategy should prioritize all three groups for naturalization. The paper endorses the provisions of the US Citizenship Act that would place undocumented and temporary residents on a path to permanent residence and citizenship, would reduce family- and employment-based visa backlogs, and would eliminate disincentives and barriers to permanent residence. It supports the Biden-Harris administration's early executive actions and proposes additional measures to increase access to permanent residence and naturalization. It also endorses and seeks to inform the administration's plan to improve and expedite the naturalization process and to promote naturalization. The paper's major findings regarding the eligible-to-naturalize population include the following: In 2019, about 74 percent, or 23.1 million, of the 31.2 million immigrants (that were eligible for naturalization) had naturalized. Three states—Indiana, Arizona, and Texas—had naturalization rates of 67 percent, well below the national average of 74 percent. Fresno, California had the lowest naturalization rate (58 percent) of the 25 metropolitan (metro) areas with the largest eligible-to-naturalize populations, followed by Phoenix at 66 percent and San Antonio and Austin at 67 percent. Four cities in California had rates of 52–58 percent—Salinas, Bakersfield, Fresno, and Santa Maria-Santa Barbara. McAllen, Laredo, and Brownsville had the lowest naturalization rates in Texas. Immigrants from Japan had the lowest naturalization rate (47 percent) by country of origin, followed by four countries in the 60–63 percent range—Mexico, Canada, Honduras, and the United Kingdom. Guatemala and El Salvador each had rates of 67 percent. Median household income was $25,800, or 27 percent, higher for the naturalized population, compared to the population that had not naturalized (after an average of 23 years in the United States for both groups). In the past 10 years, naturalization rates for China and India have fallen, and rates for Mexico and Central America have increased (keeping duration of residence constant). In short, the paper provides a roadmap of policy measures to expand the eligible-to-naturalize population, and the factors and populations that the Biden–Harris administration should prioritize to increase naturalization rates, as a prerequisite to the full integration and participation of immigrants, their families, and their descendants in the nation's life.

When Internal Migration Fails: A Case Study of Central American Youth Who Relocate Internally Before Leaving Their Countries

Executive Summary This paper examines the experiences of Central American youth who have attempted internal relocation before migrating internationally. Based on interviews and participant observation with Guatemalan, Honduran, and Salvadoran youth migrating through Mexico, this paper shows how youth from the Northern Countries of Central America turn to their domestic networks to escape labor exploitation and gang violence before undertaking international journeys. The paper further demonstrates how those domestic networks lead youth into contexts of poverty and violence similar to those they seek to escape, making their internal relocation a disappointment. The failure of their internal relocation attempts makes them turn to international migrant networks as their next option. This paper sheds light on the underexplored issue of internal migration among Central American youth and that migration's synergy with Central American youths’ migration to the United States. The paper finds that internal relocation is unsuccessful when the internal destination fails to resolve the issues from which youth are attempting to escape. This failure ultimately triggers their departure from their home country.

Tax Equality for Immigrants: The Indispensable Ingredient for Remedying Child Poverty in the United States

Both at the federal and state levels, tax credits have proved effective policy instruments to combat poverty, and they are at the heart of President Biden's massive initiative on childhood poverty. However, about one of every five children suffering poverty in the United States has an unauthorized immigrant parent and thus little or no access to tax credits. That is nearly two million children, and 85 percent of them are US citizens. Achieving historic reductions in childhood poverty thus will be impossible without remedying the eligibility exclusions and bureaucratic impediments that unauthorized immigrants face in the US tax system. All individuals who make money and reside in the United States are obliged to pay federal income taxes via a return filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). For unauthorized immigrants and others who do not qualify for a Social Security Number (SSN) that requires an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). In this two-tier system, ITIN filers have the same income tax due as Social Security filers, but they do not receive the same credits. ITIN filers have never been eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and some of their children were excluded from the Child Tax Credit (CTC) in the Trump administration's 2017 tax bill. Both credits are highly effective anti-poverty programs, providing immediate relief while also incentivizing work and earnings. The tax credits are the critical policy tool in Biden's American Plan for reducing child poverty, and they would be funded through the budget reconicilation legislation devised by Congressional Democrats in the summer of 2021. As summer drew to a close, ITIN inclusion was beginning to enter the discussion among advocates and legislators about the bill's detailed provisions. But eligibility is not the only barrier. Internal government monitors have repeatedly criticized the IRS for heavy-handed and inefficient practices that have placed undue burdens on ITIN taxpayers and that have hindered compliance with the law. The use of ITINs has plummeted in recent years from a high of 4.6 million returns in 2014 to 2.5 million in 2020. Prompted by the economic losses and the medical toll suffered by unauthorized immigrants during the pandemic and by their newly valued roles as “essential workers,” the federal government and several state governments have taken important steps to lessen the exclusion of ITIN taxpayers. The first federal stimulus package excluded not only ITIN holders but also their family members with SSNs. Congress extended eligibility to members of ITIN households with SSNs for the second and third stimulus checks. Meanwhile, California, Colorado, Maryland, New Mexico, Washington, Maine, and Oregon broke with the federal government and made ITIN filers fully eligible for their state EITCs, and as of July 2021 similar measures were under consideration in four other states. Early evidence from California and Colorado suggests that ITIN inclusion could prove a highly effective means of reaching poor children with the benefits of a state EITC. Child poverty can only be attacked successfully if ITIN households receive equal access to federal and state tax credit programs. This can be accomplished if: Congress and state legislatures permit full eligibility for all EITC and CTC programs. Congress mandates reforms to the procedures for getting and keeping an ITIN that have been proposed in multiple reports to Congress by the Taxpayer Advocate Service, an internal monitor at the IRS. Immigrants’ rights advocates and other civil society organizations, with government support, undertake a multi-year campaign to encourage ITIN application and use. The IRS receives funding to support a greatly expanded ITIN program.

Promoting Voice and Agency Among Forcibly Displaced Children and Adolescents: Participatory Approaches to Practice in Conflict-Affected Settings

Globally, large numbers of children and adolescents are displaced by armed conflict, which poses significant threats to their mental health, psychosocial well-being, and protection. Although humanitarian work to support mental health, psychosocial well-being, and protection has done considerable good, this paper analyzes how humanitarian action is limited by excessive reliance on a top-down approach. Although the focus is on settings of armed conflict, the analysis offered in this paper applies also to the wider array of humanitarian settings that spawn increasing numbers of refugees globally.

Resilience within Communities of Forced Migrants: Updates and the Path Forward

We explore the current state of the principal literature relevant to resilience and vulnerability within and among communities of forced migrants. We highlight strengths, gaps, and weaknesses in these literatures, utilizing a case study to illustrate the importance of what we deem to be essential omitted variables. We make recommendations for moving these literatures—and their associated underlying conceptual frameworks—forward.

The Role of Demographic Research in Promoting Refugee Resettlement and Integration in the United States

This introduction to this special issue of the Journal on Migration and Human Security discusses the background and focus of two meetings precursory to this collection, considers refugee resettlement and integration in the United States within the broader framework of the literature on migrant integration, and reflects on the role that population research can play in promoting successful and healthy refugee resettlement in the United States. Other contributions to the special issue are based on five of the presentations at a scientific workshop held in May 2019 in Washington, DC, entitled, “Forced Migration Research: From Theory to Practice in Promoting Migrant Well-Being.” A sixth article evolved from a virtual stakeholder meeting held as a follow-up activity in December 2020, entitled, “Refugee Resettlement in the United States: The Role of Migration Research in Promoting Migrant Well-being in a Post-Pandemic Era.” Both the workshop and the virtual meeting were hosted by the Committee on Population of the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, with dedicated support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.