Duncan Lawrence: The vitriolic debate we hear today is hardly new; it resembles the fears articulated by the American Protective Association in the late 19th century, raising the specter of “Papist devilry” associated with new immigrant populations. But there are distinctive problems in the present period, most significantly the greater difficulty of integrating second-generation immigrants and refugees. Sadly, the greatest challenge facing immigration policy today is a lack of investment in learning how best to turn refugees into new Americans. Although now beginning to shift at the local and state-level, immigration policy in the United States could greatly benefit from the equivalent of a major investment in research and development. We have little systematic knowledge about what policies and programs generate the most benefits for immigrants and the communities in which they live, in part because there is unbelievable hesitancy to explore, pilot new ideas, and refine or scrap policies and programs that do not work.
JF: To what extent does the United States currently commit resources to the integration of immigrants in this country? And to what extent do those resources benefit illegal immigrants?
DL: There are thousands of service providers, community-based organizations, local, state, and federal agencies, and foundations that commit resources to the integration of immigrants. There are some fundamental questions about what policies and programs are most effective in fostering integration, but there are a multitude of organizations working diligently to help immigrants and create inclusive and successful communities — both for citizens and immigrants. In many cases, the services are provided to members of a community, and immigration status is not a factor related to eligibility. Education is arguably a fundamental piece of integration. School-aged children, no matter what their immigration status, have a right to public education. Many major universities now admit students regardless of immigration status, affording more equal access to educational resources.
The debate around government budgets benefitting undocumented immigrants requires complex political choices. For those adamant that undocumented immigrants should have no access to any government resources whatsoever, they might consider that blocking benefits can have significant unintended consequences on the health and competitiveness of America’s next generation: there are 4.5 million U.S.-citizen children with at least one undocumented parent. Denying benefits to the parents can lead to disastrous futures for their children, that is the next generation of America’s adult population.
JF: What kinds of barriers are the hardest for most immigrants to traverse in this country? And to what extent are these barriers unique to specific populations?
DL: In many ways, America is a model for the world in the successful integration of immigrants from throughout the world, but this doesn’t mean that the transition is without pain. Language and cultural differences present challenges for immigrants. Refugees often face additional psychological challenges given their previous traumatic experiences. We can assume that certain barriers affect different immigration populations and therefore different approaches to immigrant integration are likely necessary to overcome the inequalities that immigrants face, but we do not yet know specifically what policies work best for what populations. This is why investment in learning, as I mentioned earlier, is so important.
JF: Given the recent controversy over the Department of Homeland Security’s lack of knowledge about how many foreign visitors overstay their visas every year, to what extent do you believe that current immigration estimates accurately assess the immigrant population in the United States?
DL: Our estimates are imperfect but not wildly wrong. A number of different non-governmental organizations — Pew Hispanic Center, Migration Policy Institute, Center for Migration Studies — have a long history of producing estimates of the immigrant population. I’m generalizing, but the methodology for estimating the immigrant population, which uses imputation techniques based on available government data, is fairly similar across demographers. These imputation models necessarily have some built-in error.
I think service providers, policymakers, academics, and government agencies could all benefit from more accurate information regarding the immigrant population. This would require linking data across a variety of government agencies, which raises concerns about privacy and confidentiality. Other countries, such as Canada, have made a major effort in the past few years to have various sources of linked administrative data. Such data helps those countries to better understand the economic and social situation of their immigrant populations. Whether the United States moves in that direction for security reasons or in an effort to better understand the inequalities immigrants face is an open question.
JF: As unaccompanied children migrate to the United States from Latin America, there is a tension between protection and prevention. What are the sorts of solutions you envision for this immigration problem?
DL: I think there is strong reason to believe that many unaccompanied children arriving in the United States face legitimate life-threatening situations in their home countries. Any solution needs to recognize that unaccompanied minors are children first and foremost: they need safety, food, housing, healthcare and education and legal representation to properly process their asylum claims. Prevention is more complex, and I think it would be shortsighted to think that demand for drugs in the United States and the southern flow of U.S.-made weapons is not a significant contributing factor to the violence in Central America. The United States has a long history of intervention in Latin America with less than rosy results. Alleviating the conditions that contribute to powerful and incredibly violent gangs will take creativity and undoubtedly, significant resources. I don’t see tension between protection and prevention but rather an opportunity for reinforcing programs and policies to help families lead dignified lives without the threat of violence or persecution.
JF: David Laitin, the faculty co-director of the Immigration and Integration Policy Lab, has proposed that a sizeable Syrian population be resettled in Detroit. To what extent would the relocation of a substantial immigrant population to one particular city strain the resources of that community? If there were to be a relocation of a sizeable Syrian community to this country, what sorts of additional resources would we have to commit? Do you anticipate that the availability of jobs for refugees would be an issue or do you believe the entrepreneurial refugee communities will create jobs for themselves?
DL: David’s suggestion of resettling 50,000 refugees in Detroit would result in an approximate 7 percent increase in the city’s population, which is not insignificant. However, in Germany this past summer during certain periods, 10,000 asylum seekers were arriving daily. and over a million asylum seekers were registered in 2015. I think it is important to put the proposal in context. The overall scale of the refugee crisis is massive and so even resettling 50,000 Syrian refugees will leave over a million in refugee camps in countries with far fewer resources than the United States (e.g., Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey). Yes, resettling refugees requires resources: housing, cash assistance, language and job training, counseling and, especially in Detroit, additional resources for schools. The United States has previously relocated large numbers of refugees facing persecution from a common enemy (e.g., Hungarians and Vietnamese fleeing communist regimes), so there is precedent for this type of policy. Jobs are always a concern, and I do not have a detailed knowledge of the current entrepreneurial community in Detroit and its economic trajectory, but we’ve seen refugees help revitalize other communities in the United States.
JF: Can you briefly tell us about some of the projects on which the Immigration and Integration Policy Lab is working?
DL: In just over a year, we have developed an array of exciting projects involving a fantastic group of interdisciplinary faculty at Stanford and leading universities throughout the United States and Europe. For each project, we address a specific question and rely on new social scientific techniques to offer policy relevant answers. We have a project with the Office of New Americans in New York to determine whether the encouragement of legal permanent residents to become citizens has returns on their economic and social standing. We have a project that measures the wait times for asylum seekers to receive regularization, and the implications of that wait for future success on the job market. We have a set of projects on the granting of legal status to the undocumented and the degree to which this affects children’s health. We are examining the impact of providing driver’s licenses regardless of immigration status on road safety, insurance premiums, economic activity and healthcare utilization. We seek to avoid the vitriol and to make contributions to the success of immigration policy both for immigrants and their communities.
Jonathan Faust, a sophomore studying international relations, is a staff interviewer at Stanford Political Journal.