essay causes of immigration

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Illegal Immigration — Causes and Effects of Immigration

Causes and Effects of Immigration

• Categories: Illegal Immigration

About this sample

Words: 731 |

Published: Jan 29, 2024

Words: 731 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Causes of immigration, effects of immigration, a. economic factors, b. political factors, c. social factors, a. economic effects, b. social effects, c. political effects.

• National Academy of Sciences. (2017). The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration .
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development (OECD). (2019). International Migration Outlook 2019 .
• Peri, G., & Shih, K. (2019). "The Economic Contribution of Unauthorized Workers: An Industry Analysis". National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

6 pages / 2562 words

2 pages / 771 words

1 pages / 646 words

1 pages / 681 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Illegal Immigration

Illegal immigration is a contentious and multifaceted issue that has been a topic of debate for decades. While the term "illegal" implies a breach of immigration laws, it's essential to acknowledge that this issue has various [...]

Refugees have become a significant issue in today's world, as millions of people are forcibly displaced from their homes due to conflict, persecution, and other human rights abuses. This essay aims to delve into the complexities [...]

The issue of Illegal immigration in the United States remains a complex and multifaceted one, posing significant challenges to policymakers and society as a whole. It involves a diverse range of factors, perspectives, and [...]

Illegal immigration has been a long-standing and contentious aspect in the United States, and its dynamics and consequences continue to evolve. In the years 2023-2024, the landscape of illegal immigration witnessed various [...]

The resent research indicates that illegal Immigration population is declining for the first time in the last ten years, as the nation undergoes a tough economy period discourages people from sneaking into the USA”. Illegal [...]

Illegal immigration has been a hotly debated topic in the United States for many years, and it continues to be a contentious issue today. The influx of undocumented immigrants into the country has sparked heated discussions on [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

New name, same mission! LIRS is now Global Refuge. Learn more.

New name. Same mission.

LIRS is now Global Refuge .

Welcoming newcomers since 1939.

The browser you are using is not supported. Please consider using a modern browser .

News // Immigration and Asylum

Why do People Immigrate? – The Different Causes of Immigration

• X (formerly Twitter)
• Copy to Clipboard Copied!

Global Refuge Staff

July 14, 2021

Immigration — and its dynamic effect on global development — has been the subject of many reports, studies, and debates. Its economic implications have shaped global industries for years and are changing the world for the better.

Global migration is a large-scale topic. Currently, there are an estimated 272 million international migrants, which account for 3.5% of the world’s population. While the percentage may seem relatively low, the number of migrants already surpasses some projections for 2050.

In a 2020 report by United Nations (UN), it was revealed that one in every 30 people is an international migrant. Europe and Asia alone host around 82 to 84 million immigrants.  These regions were followed by North America, which houses almost 52 million international migrants.

Every year, the percentage of international citizens traversing borders increases and drastically impacts a country’s population size, cultural diversity, and economic productivity.

With the constant wave of settlers and refugees around the world today, a significant question arises — what exactly are the causes of immigration?

The Roots of Immigration

Immigration, in its simplest definition, is the movement of people from one place or country into another one. It is a simple yet fundamental aspect of human history.

Immigration is a concept that pre-dates existing laws. Long ago, nomadic tribes traveled from place to place to find fresh and fertile lands, pastures for their livestock, and rich areas for hunting and fishing.

In modern times, immigration still continues all over the world. In the past decade , the demographic composition of people traversing borders has significantly changed. This can be attributed to a wide range of factors that we can categorize into two groups — push and pull factors.

It is essential to examine these factors in order to perfectly understand the increase of global migration throughout the years.

Push and Pull Factors

To reach well-developed immigration and foreign policy solutions, it is important to recognize the driving factors that prompt individuals to migrate.

People around the globe immigrate for a wide array of reasons that we conceptualize as “push” and “pull” factors.

Push factors are reasons that compel or push people to leave the area of where they reside and settle someplace else. Common factors can include armed conflict, disaster exposure, gender inequality, lack of job opportunities, political corruption, and lack of access to competent healthcare and education. In simple terms, push factors are negative reasons that prompt individuals to leave.

Pull factors are, on the other hand, the exact opposite of push factors. They attract or pull people to move and settle in a particular area. Common pull factors may include better work opportunities, greater security, and access to adequate healthcare and education. Simply put, pull factors are positive reasons that prompt individuals to move.

Immigration, however, is not as simple as being pulled and pushed for merely a few reasons. The push and pull framework is a combination of factors that encourage a person to leave a place of origin and factors that draw a person to a destination.

Push and pull factors are never the same for everyone, and the reasons for immigration are unique to each individual.

However, even though factors can change depending on age, gender, health, social class, and ethnicity, a push or pull factor may describe a pattern that can be attributed to many different reasons.

Quality of Life Factors

Conditions that influence an individual’s quality of life vary from person to person, but may be the leading factors leading to immigration. These can include labor standards, poverty, and the overall state of a country to provide a quality life.

In most cases, people are pulled by work opportunities in a certain area which aren’t available in their place of origin. Data analysis has even shown that there is an increase in the immigrant’s quality of life due to migration that is reflected in financial status and job satisfaction.

People from places like Syria (which has a high unemployment rate of 50%) often immigrate to escape poverty and lack of work opportunities. Numerous developed countries, including the United States, provide a network or social platform that proves to be advantageous for people hailing from less developed countries.

Immigrant workers (people who migrate to pursue work) represent nearly two-thirds of the international migrants in 2017 — standing at roughly 164 million worldwide.

Another large factor involving an individual’s quality of life is access to a proper education and to medical services that are otherwise inaccessible in their country.

War-Torn Country Factors

A major socio-political factor pushing individuals to leave their place of origin is the presence of war and conflict.

Oppression because of one’s ethnicity, religion, gender, race, and culture poses a significant risk to quality of life, which increases the odds of an individual settling elsewhere.

People fleeing conflict zones, human rights violations, and government persecution are asylum seekers that desire international protection and a safer region. Individuals who are forcibly displaced because of external factors, such as war, are refugees.

In recent times, a large number of people have fled to Europe to escape conflict, persecution, and terror in their homeland. Over a quarter of asylum seekers from Syria were granted protection status, with those from Afghanistan and Iraq following respectively.

Environmental Factors

Natural disasters and climate change are environmental factors that disproportionately affect impoverished families, especially in less developed countries.

Individuals that experience regular occurrences of floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes are most likely to immigrate. Additionally, climate change is expected to worsen weather events, leading to an increase in immigration flow.

Environmental immigrants are obliged to leave their point of origin, be it temporarily or permanently, and either move within their country or abroad to avoid the adversities of nature.

According to the United Nations Environment Programme ’s statement on climate change and immigration, these are the three environmental factors that can affect immigration in a significant way:

• Effects of Warming: Constant warming in certain areas will slowly bring down agricultural productivity which may lead to a lack of fertile soil and clean water.
• Increase in Extreme Weather Events: Extreme weather events caused by the change in climate, such as violent storms and resulting flash floods, may displace millions of people.
• Rising of Sea Level: The constant sea level rise poses an extreme environmental danger to low-lying coastal areas and may result in the permanent displacement of more than a million individuals.

Why Do People Immigrate to the US?

According to the UN’s World Migration Report of 2020 , the United States of America has been the primary destination for foreign migrants since 1970.

In less than 50 years, the number of foreign-born residents of the country has more than quadrupled — from less than 12 million to close to 51 million.

The reasons why so many people immigrate to the US have changed throughout the years, but the country’s core pull factors are what make it the leading destination for immigration.

The United States ranks as one of the most desirable countries to immigrate to because of the better living conditions provided.

The country has an active economy with a wide array of work opportunities for everyone. Wages are higher than most countries, with a relatively low cost of living. Individuals coming from a more collective society prefer American individualistic values.

People that are employed in the United States who have long-distance families are great examples of what compels families to immigrate. When these people gain their green cards, they want their children to move from their native country to the United States to be with them.

Moreover, the United States has access to healthcare and quality education that is not available in many countries.

The Impacts of Immigration

As the number of immigrants increases by the year, the patterns and factors involved become harder to analyze and evaluate. With the dynamic change and demands that immigration brings, it is important to take note of its impacts.

So what exactly are the causes and effects of immigration?

• Economic Output Growth: Net immigration can lead to an increase in the labor force and productive capacity of the economy. When this happens, there is an increase in living standards with a decline in the dependency ratio . Immigration leads to stronger economic growth and, as a result, higher tax revenues, allowing for more national spending options.
• Better Workforce: Because of immigration, the economy of certain countries, like the UK , attracts highly skilled professionals that fill job vacancies, which contributes even more to higher tax revenues. This is due to the fact that immigrants are more likely to have higher educational and skill levels.
• A Flexible Labor Market: Immigrants move to economies when the wages are high, which increases labor demands. The immigrants’ high mobility keeps a booming economy from overheating by providing labor to meet expanding demand.
• Filling In for Undesirable Job Opportunities: Due to low earnings or the lack of prestige associated with some positions, native-born individuals have a tough time filling them. Businesses and employers who rely on flexible labor to fill job vacancies profit from immigration. Furthermore, when low-skilled positions are filled by migrants, native-born people can seek higher-skilled work elsewhere.

A growing scarcity of workers is widely acknowledged as one of the world’s most critically significant barriers to sustained economic growth amidst increasingly tight labor markets.

Immigration, without fail, is the reason behind the development and prosperity of most businesses and fills the increasing shortage of workers in labor markets.

There are numerous drivers behind an individual’s immigration, and such a complex process needs good research, political will, and most importantly, collective action from the citizens.

Immigrants are breathing new life into rural and urban communities, shaping labor markets, and building a dynamic society — all of which begins with a simple “push” and “pull”.

• Immigration and Asylum

July 8, 2024

Timeline: Our Advocacy for Afghan Allies

In early 2021, Global Refuge joined veterans’ groups and resettlement agencies to form the Evacuate our Allies coalition, and we advocate for the continued evacuation of at-risk Afghans and the integration of Afghans already in the United States.

Press Release

June 28, 2024

DHS Extends and Redesignates Haiti for Temporary Protected Status

The Biden administration announced today the extension of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti for 18 months from Aug. 4, 2024, to Feb. 3, 2026. 

June 27, 2024

At first presidential debate, immigration poised to take the spotlight

As immigration comes to the forefront, candidates must address the issue with compassion and common sense, grounded in both human rights and practical policy solutions.

June 18, 2024

Global Refuge Commends Executive Order Protecting Certain Immigrant Families

Washington, D.C. – The Biden administration announced today an executive order that will protect certain immigrant spouses and children of U.S. citizens without status currently living in the United States from being removed from the country.

June 4, 2024

Biden administration announces additional asylum restrictions

The Biden administration announced today a proclamation to further restrict asylum eligibility at the southern border for people who cross between official U.S. ports of entry.

Related Posts

News · Foster Care

Looking Back on 2023

December 20th

News · Immigration and Asylum

Unsung Heroes: Immigrants in the U.S. Military

November 10th

Celebrating Hispanic Culture Means Recognizing the Breadth of the Hispanic Immigrant Experience in the U.S.  

October 16th

• Arguments For and Against Immigration Words: 561
• Illegal Immigration: Causes and Consequences Words: 1171
• Immigration Policy and International Security Words: 2260
• Immigration in the U.S. and Its Economic Implications Words: 1245
• Immigration in the 1900s vs. Immigration Now Words: 1181
• Reasons Why Immigration Enhances Diversity Words: 2264
• Immigration Entrepreneurship and Economic Development Words: 853
• Immigration: Information Sources Words: 2165
• Canada and US Economic Relation: Immigration Impact Words: 2793
• Immigration: Advantages and Ways of Improving Words: 1970

Immigration: Causes and Effects

Introduction, economic causes, social causes, works cited.

For a long time, immigration has been a significant policy subject in the United States, with numerous reports and studies conducted on its motives and implications. Immigration is the movement or relocation of people from one country to another. Factors that promote immigration can be categorized to economic, social, and political causes. Although limited by slight economic downsides and political backlash, immigration is necessary for creating social diversity, protecting individuals’ rights and freedoms, and enhancing international relations. There are two significant groups of immigration causes: economic and social, which are associated with particular consequences.

First, the economic causes for immigration are high demand of manpower, unemployment, the desire for better entrepreneurial and employment opportunity. Income and economic status differences between resident and destination nations encourage people to migrate from poor to more prosperous countries. Developed countries have a high demand for labor unlike in less developed countries with high unemployment rates (Duan 3). The shortage of specialists in a particular profession in a specific region increases wages for this profession and stimulates the influx of migrants. The effect of the economic causes of immigration is overwhelming the available opportunities and resources. In 2019, the American Immigration Council reported a population of 44.9 million immigrants in the U.S (American Immigration Council 1). The right-wing Democratic Party in the US is opposed to immigration in effect, that unregulated inflow of foreign labor increases job competition, reduced wages, and increased unemployment. The social zeal for a better quality of life and connection to friends and families promoting immigration results in enhanced diversity, improved international relations, cross-cultural exchange, cosmopolitanism and diversity. Immigration has enhanced international relations and access to social amenities such as education.

The social rationale for immigration is aspirations for a better quality of life and connection with close family and friends. Social factors that influence the rate of immigration include crime rate, access to social amenities such as schools, and inter-cultural exchange (Duan 2). An immigrant can sponsor a family member or friend through an affidavit. Political grounds for immigration include state policies, threats of persecution, armed conflict, and humanitarian issues that force people to seek refuge in stable countries. The social causes of immigration are the inclination for a better life, while political migration is often due to unsafe conditions in the residence country. The effect of social immigration is in the occurrence of cosmopolitanism resulting from social immigration enhances the redistribution of wealth diversity and adequate co-existence of nationalities and socio-cultural exchange. Immigration protects the rights and freedoms of individuals advanced of their countries by political factors of armed conflict, state assassination, and discrimination.

Ultimately, immigration is a significant economic, social, and political factor with clashing implications. The desire for better quality of life and family bonds social causes of immigration lead to enhanced diversity, cosmopolitanism, cross-cultural exchange and international relations. Moreover, immigration protects the rights and freedoms of people threatened by political factors. On the downside the economic immigration driven by the desire for better employment and investment opportunities is characterized by high unemployment, prejudice, discrimination, and political backlash. While policymakers perceive immigration to drive slow wage growth and unemployment, Immigrants present remarkable social, economic, and political benefits. Therefore, migration significantly affects the economic and social structure of the countries. The mentioned effects are connected with the primary causes of migration.

American Immigration Council. “Immigrants in the United States.” American Immigration Council , 2021. Web.

Duan, Carson, Bernice Kotey, and Kamaljeet Sandhu. “A systematic literature review of determinants of immigrant entrepreneurship motivations.” Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship (2021): 1-33. Web.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2023, September 5). Immigration: Causes and Effects. https://studycorgi.com/immigration-causes-and-effects/

"Immigration: Causes and Effects." StudyCorgi , 5 Sept. 2023, studycorgi.com/immigration-causes-and-effects/.

StudyCorgi . (2023) 'Immigration: Causes and Effects'. 5 September.

1. StudyCorgi . "Immigration: Causes and Effects." September 5, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/immigration-causes-and-effects/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Immigration: Causes and Effects." September 5, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/immigration-causes-and-effects/.

StudyCorgi . 2023. "Immigration: Causes and Effects." September 5, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/immigration-causes-and-effects/.

This paper, “Immigration: Causes and Effects”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: December 7, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

No results found

We're sorry, but there are no results that match your search criteria. Try checking your spelling or using alternate search terms. We add new data to USAFacts all the time; you can subscribe to our newsletter to get unbiased, data-driven insights sent to your inbox weekly, no searching required.

Subscribe to get unbiased, data-driven insights sent to your inbox weekly.

• Government finance
• Defense and security
• Environment

Why do immigrants come to the US?

Of all people legally immigrating to the US in 2021, about 42% came for work, 32% for school, and 23% for family.

Updated on Fri, November 17, 2023 by the USAFacts Team

People immigrate to the US to work, reunite with family, study, or seek personal safety. In 2021, 42% of the 1.5 million people who immigrated to the US came for work.

What reasons for immigration does the government track?

The US government generally allows legal immigration for five broad reasons : work , school , family, safety, and encouraging diversity.

People immigrating for work or school are often granted temporary entry rather than permanent residency. Immigration for family generally means the immigrant has a relative who is already in the US as a citizen, green card holder, or temporary visa holder with whom they want to be reunited with. Those who immigrate for safety are refugees or asylum-seekers. And finally, up to 50,000 immigrants obtain green cards annually through the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program lottery that grants entry to individuals from countries with low rates of immigration to the US.

How many immigrants came for each reason in 2021?

Of the 1.5 million people who immigrated to the US in 2021, about 42% came for work, 32% for school, and 23% for family. Nearly 2% were seeking safety, and about 0.9% were admitted on Diversity Immigrant Visas.

How have reasons for immigration evolved over the past 15 years?

Since 2006, work has consistently been the top reason people immigrate to the US, with the exception of 2013–2015 when immigration for work was equal to or slightly lower than for school.

School is usually the second most common reason for immigration except for 2018, when a higher percentage of people began immigrating for family reunification than education. In 2021 school again became the second most common reason.

Safety and diversity have consistently been the fourth and fifth most common reasons for immigration, respectively.

How do the reasons for immigration change depending on where people are immigrating from?

Of the 638,551 immigrants who came to the US for work in 2021, 61% came from North America. Immigrants from Asia represent the largest geographic cohort among the other four primary reasons for immigration: school (58%), family (45%), safety (34%), and encouraging diversity (33%).

In 2021, 74% of all immigrants came from Asia and North/Central America. Roughly 53% of Asian immigrants came from China and India, while nearly 80% of immigrants from North/Central America were from Mexico.

Get facts first

Unbiased, data-driven insights in your inbox each week

You are signed up for the facts!

Why do Chinese people immigrate to America?

School was the top reason Chinese people immigrated between 2006–2021; 19% of people who came to the US for school were from China, the highest percentage of any other country. The number of Chinese immigrants coming to the US for school peaked in 2015, growing 680% from 40,477 people in 2006 to 315,628 people in 2015.

Despite a sharp decrease after 2016, most Chinese immigrants continue to come to the US for school. Fewer than 57,000 Chinese immigrants have come to the US per year for work or family reasons since 2006, and those numbers hit record lows of 5,323 and 13,412 in 2021.

Why do Indian people immigrate to America?

The largest share of immigrants who came to be with family were from India, at 18% . But in 2021, more Indians immigrated for school than for family reunification. Work was the third most common reason.

Prior to 2021, most Indian immigrants came to the US for family and work, but those numbers have been decreasing. Fewer people came to the US from India for work (54,032 people) and family in 2021 (62,407) than in 2006 (117,189 and 81,045 people, respectively).

Meanwhile, the number of Indians immigrating for school increased by over 300% between 2020 and 2021, from 20,629 to 85,385.

Why do Mexican people immigrate to America?

In 2021, people from Mexico comprised the largest share of immigrants coming for work — 55% of all immigrants, or 351,586 people. Work has consistently been the top reason Mexican people immigrate to the US. Family and school have consistently been the second and third reasons.

More than double the number of people immigrated to the US for work from Mexico in 2021 (351,586 people) than in 2006 (168,619 people).

Where did this data come from?

There are multiple data sources because immigrants enter the US through multiple pathways. Data on visa admissions comes from the US State Department; we exclude people who come with visas for short-term tourism, cultural exchange, or visiting. Data on refugees and asylum-seekers comes from the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. Data on green cards comes from the DHS’s expanded lawful permanent resident tables.

Read more about where immigrants are moving in the US , and get the data directly in your inbox by signing up for our email newsletter .

Explore more of USAFacts

Related articles.

Population and society

Asylum in the United States: How the case backlog grew to hundreds of thousands

How many DACA recipients are there in the United States?

Immigration demographics: A look at the native and foreign-born populations

The Census has been asking about citizenship on and off for nearly 200 years

Related Data

Immigrant population

46.18 million

Visas granted

6.82 million

Unauthorized immigrant population

11.39 million

Data delivered to your inbox

Keep up with the latest data and most popular content.

SIGN UP FOR THE NEWSLETTER

The Situation at the U.S.-Mexico Border Can’t Be ‘Solved’ Without Acknowledging Its Origins

W ith the U.S. “on pace to encounter more individuals on the southwest border than we have in the last 20 years,” as Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement March 16, immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border has emerged as one of the toughest challenges facing the Biden Administration. Last week, President Biden put Vice President Kamala Harris in charge of “ stemming ” the flow of migrants, Biden was questioned about the immigration situation at his first official press conference , immigrant detention centers began to fill up once again , and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle made trips to the border to publicize the issue and propose solutions.

Biden’s attempts to address immigration may be new, but the issue is one that has dogged his predecessors for decades. Since the 1970s, Republicans and Democrats alike have tried to address undocumented immigration by constructing ever more draconian policies of border control, deportation and detention—border theater that grabs headlines and sometimes leads to short-term change, but never actually solves the problem.

There’s a reason why the U.S. government has failed for so many years to “control” the border: none of these policies have addressed the real reasons for migration itself. In migration studies, these are known as “push” and “pull” factors, the causes that drive migrants from one country to another.

Today, the countries sending the most migrants to the U.S.-Mexico border–especially the Central American countries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador–are experiencing a combination of push factors that include poverty and inequality, political instability, and violence. And while the current situation may be unique, it is also deeply rooted in history.

Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter

Many countries in Central America have struggled with poverty since the time of independence from Spain in the early 19th century. While they are beautiful countries that are rich in culture and history, that colonial past has meant they have historically been home to large, landless, poor, rural populations, including many indigenous people of Mayan descent. In the years after Spanish control, they were typically ruled by small oligarchies that disproportionately held wealth, land and power, and their economies were primary export-dependent, which brought great riches to landowners but also exacerbated and perpetuated inequality and the poverty of the majority. Those dynamics have carried forward to today. More recently, climate change–in particular, drought and massive storms –has forced the vulnerable rural poor out of the countryside.

Throughout Central America, political instability has also been a long-term problem. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, there were constant struggles between liberal and conservative elites. While rural, landless populations— such as the followers of guerrilla insurgent Augusto Sandino in Nicaragua in the 1920s—would occasionally rise up in popular resistance, more often than not these uprisings were suppressed in violent conflicts. The United States often exacerbated these conflicts, deploying the U.S. Marines in Latin America whenever political uprisings seemed to threaten U.S. business interests or national security.

By the mid-20th century, there were new and worse waves of political violence. Popular movements on the Left—some influenced by Marxist movements, others by the labor movement or by anti-imperialism—aggressively, and sometimes violently, attempted to challenge old hierarchies and ruling classes. Conservative political elites often responded to these movements by inviting the military to take power, and the resulting conflict would eventually develop into civil wars in Guatemala (1960-1996), El Salvador (1980-1992) and Nicaragua (1979-1990). The United States played a central role in many of these conflicts, propping up military dictatorships and supporting them with logistical aid, money, training and weapons, even as many of them committed human rights atrocities . These conflicts generated huge surges in emigration from Central America, establishing the migration patterns that persist today.

Read more: How 1970s U.S. Immigration Policy Put Mexican Migrants at the Center of a System of Mass Expulsion

A final push factor—with a very important transnational history—is gang violence. MS-13 is now one of the largest gangs in the world , and has contributed to violent crime across the region. What many Americans don’t know is that MS-13 was founded in poor neighborhoods in Los Angeles in the 1980s, within communities of Central American refugees who had fled civil wars. Many of these gang members were subsequently imprisoned in the United States, and then deported to Central America through a program that began under President Bill Clinton. With governments weakened by decades of war and incapable of dealing with this criminal influx, there was a huge rise in violence, extortion and impunity across Central America, contributing to a new increase in emigration as people sought the security and safety that their governments could not provide.

Pull factors in the U.S. have also created the conditions for continued unauthorized migration from Central America. Since the 1990s, entire sectors of the U.S. economy have become increasingly dependent on low-wage immigrant labor. Today, undocumented immigrants make up significant proportions of the labor force in certain industries, especially agriculture, the service industry (restaurants and housecleaning), and construction.

Despite the demand for their labor, U.S. immigration policy makes it very difficult for would-be migrants from Latin America to come to the United States legally. Although U.S. immigration laws allow for family reunification, it can take a decade or more for U.S. citizens of Central American origin to successfully sponsor family members for visas, and other paths are mostly limited to “highly skilled” immigrants with at least a college degree. Nevertheless, would-be migrants, desperate for a better life, know that if they can make it across the border, odds are they can get a job even without papers. This situation incentivizes risky border crossings and unauthorized entry into the United States.

There is one way that immigrants from Central America can legally migrate immediately—and that is by requesting asylum after they arrive in the United States. To gain asylum, immigrants must prove that they had to leave their country owing to “a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” And while many Central Americans could indeed qualify for asylum based on their experiences of persecution, the previous administration made every effort to limit their ability to obtain it. Now the Biden Administration must decide whether to restore the asylum framework, which has become the only possible path to legal migration (as well as safety and security) for Central Americans and other migrants who—due to these combined push and pull factors—are desperate to come to the United States.

Read more: The U.S. Separated Families Decades Ago, Too. With 545 Migrant Children Missing Their Parents, That Moment Holds a Key Lesson

Given the complicated and deep-rooted reasons behind migration, lawmakers cannot control or “solve” the ongoing crisis at the border by simply pouring money and resources into ever more militaristic border theater. It’s no wonder that decades of such policies have done little to change the underlying dynamics.

Instead, if Americans are serious about changing the situation at the border, we need to address the push and pull factors behind Central American migration. We need to acknowledge the reality of the U.S. economy (in particular, that it demands immigrant labor to work low-wage jobs) and work to construct new legal frameworks that reflect that reality. We need to target financial and logistical support to encourage Central American countries to address the poverty and inequality that fuel migration, rather than cutting foreign aid , as the Trump Administration did. We need to do all we can to end the pervasive gang violence that pushes so many migrants out of their homelands. And of course, we must continue to evaluate our own historical and contemporary role in creating the longstanding problems that are pushing Central Americans to migrate.

Historians’ perspectives on how the past informs the present

Julia G. Young is an associate professor of history and historian of immigration and Latin America at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.

More Must-Reads from TIME

• The Rise of a New Kind of Parenting Guru
• Ukraine’s Plan to Survive Trump
• The Young Women Challenging Iran’s Regime
• Ilona Maher TikToks Through the Olympics
• Can Food Really Change Your Hormones?
• Every Marvel Cinematic Universe Movie, Ranked
• Column: The Prosecutor Versus Felon Narrative Helps No One
• Get Our Paris Olympics Newsletter in Your Inbox

Contact us at [email protected]

Exploring migration causes: why people migrate

People migrate for many reasons, ranging from security, demography and human rights to poverty and climate change. Find out more.

The total number of non-EU citizens residing within the EU as of 1 January 2021 was 23.7 million, according to Eurostat, the EU’s statistical office. This represents 5.3% of the EU population. In most EU countries, the majority of non-nationals were from outside the EU.

What is migration?

Migration is the movement of people from one place to another, to settle in a new location. Migration can be voluntary or involuntary and can occur for a variety of different reasons, including economic, environmental and social issues.

Reasons for migration: push and pull factors

Push factors are the reasons people leave a country. Pull factors are the reason they move to a particular country. There are three major push and pull factors.

Social and political factors

Persecution because of one's ethnicity, religion, race, politics or culture can push people to leave their country. A major factor is war, conflict, government persecution or there being a significant risk of them. Those fleeing armed conflict, human rights violations or persecution are more likely to be humanitarian refugees. This will affect where they settle as some countries have more liberal approaches to humanitarian migrants than others. In the first instance, these people are likely to move to the nearest safe country that accepts asylum seekers.

The backbone of international humanitarian law is the Geneva Conventions , which regulate the conduct of armed conflict and seek to limit its effects.

In recent years, people have been fleeing to Europe in large numbers from conflict, terror and persecution at home. Of the 384,245 asylum seekers granted protection status in the EU in 2022, more than a quarter came from war-torn Syria, with Afghanistan and Venezuela in second and third place respectively.

Demographic and economic causes

Demographic change determines how people move and migrate. A growing or shrinking, aging or youthful population has an impact on economic growth and employment opportunities in the countries of origin or migration policies in the destination countries.

Demographic and economic migration is related to poor labour standards, high unemployment and the overall health of a country’s’ economy. Pull factors include higher wages, better employment opportunities, a higher standard of living and educational opportunities. If economic conditions are not favourable and appear to be at risk of declining further, a greater number of people will probably migrate to countries with a better outlook.

According to the UN International Labour Organization, migrant workers - defined as people who migrate with a view to being employed - stood at roughly 169 million worldwide in 2019 and represented more than two thirds of international migrants. More than two-thirds of all migrant workers were concentrated in high-income countries.

Environmental and climate migration

The environment has always been a driver of migration, as people flee natural disasters, such as floods, hurricanes and earthquakes. However, climate change is expected to exacerbate extreme weather events, meaning more people could be on the move.

According to the International Organization for Migration , "Environmental migrants are those who for reason of sudden or progressive changes in the environment that adversely affect their lives or living conditions, are obliged to leave their habitual homes, either temporarily or permanently, and who move either within their country or abroad."

It is hard to estimate how many environmental migrants there are globally due to factors such as population growth, poverty, governance, human security and conflict, which have an impact. Estimates vary from 25 million to one billion by the year 2050.

How is the EU addressing these causes?

Migrant workers having easier access to legal ways to move to the eu.

The European Union has been encouraging legal migration to address labour shortages, fill skill gaps and boost economic growth. These include:

• The EU Blue Card: a work and residency permit that allows non-EU citizens to work and live in an EU country, provided they have a degree or equivalent qualification and a job offer that meets a minimum salary threshold
• The Single Permit: a combined work and residency permit, issued for up to two years by an EU country
• EU long-term resident status: allows people from outside the EU to stay, work and move freely in the EU for an indefinite period
• Read more about legal ways to work in the EU

New Pact on Migration and Asylum

Managing migration effectively to deal with asylum seekers and protect external borders has been an EU priority for many years. The EU has been working on a New Pact on Migration and Asylum , and in April 2024 Parliament backed an agreement with the Counci to revamp the EU’s asylum and migration laws.

The pact sets out improved and faster procedures throughout the EU’s asylum and migration system. It revises the Dublin regulation, which determines the country responsible for processing each asylum claim. The new system sets different types of contributions from EU countries, including the relocation of asylum seekers from the country of first entry, financial contributions or providing operational and technical support. The new system is based on solidarity and flexible forms of support, which could become requirements at times of pressure .

Once the new rules come into force, EU countries will have two years to incorporate them into their national laws.

• Read more about the EU’s response to migration
• Facts and figures on asylum and migration in the EU

More about migration

• Study: interlinks between migration and development
• Briefing: legal migration to the EU

Share this article on:

• Sign up for mail updates
• PDF version

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Contentious Politics and Political Violence
• Governance/Political Change
• Groups and Identities
• History and Politics
• International Political Economy
• Policy, Administration, and Bureaucracy
• Political Anthropology
• Political Behavior
• Political Communication
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Philosophy
• Political Psychology
• Political Sociology
• Political Values, Beliefs, and Ideologies
• Politics, Law, Judiciary
• Post Modern/Critical Politics
• Public Opinion
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• World Politics
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Global migration: causes and consequences.

• Benjamin Helms Benjamin Helms Department of Politics, University of Virginia
•  and  David Leblang David Leblang Department of Politics, Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy, University of Virginia
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.631
• Published online: 25 February 2019

International migration is a multifaceted process with distinct stages and decision points. An initial decision to leave one’s country of birth may be made by the individual or the family unit, and this decision may reflect a desire to reconnect with friends and family who have already moved abroad, a need to diversify the family’s access to financial capital, a demand to increase wages, or a belief that conditions abroad will provide social and/or political benefits not available in the homeland. Once the individual has decided to move abroad, the next decision is the choice of destination. Standard explanations of destination choice have focused on the physical costs associated with moving—moving shorter distances is often less expensive than moving to a destination farther away; these explanations have recently been modified to include other social, political, familial, and cultural dimensions as part of the transaction cost associated with migrating. Arrival in a host country does not mean that an émigré’s relationship with their homeland is over. Migrant networks are an engine of global economic integration—expatriates help expand trade and investment flows, they transmit skills and knowledge back to their homelands, and they remit financial and human capital. Aware of the value of their external populations, home countries have developed a range of policies that enable them to “harness” their diasporas.

• immigration
• international political economy
• factor flows
• gravity models

Introduction

The steady growth of international labor migration is an important, yet underappreciated, aspect of globalization. 1 In 1970 , just 78 million people, or about 2.1% of the global population, lived outside their country of birth. By 1990 , that number had nearly doubled to more than 150 million people, or about 2.8% of the global population (United Nations Population Division, 2012 ). Despite the growth of populist political parties and restrictionist movements in key destination countries, the growth in global migration shows no signs of slowing down, with nearly 250 million people living outside their country of birth as of 2015 . While 34% of all global migrants live in industrialized countries (with the United States and Germany leading the way), 38% of all global migration occurs between developing countries (World Bank, 2016 ).

Identifying the causes and consequences of international labor migration is essential to our broader understanding of globalization. Scholars across diverse academic fields, including economics, political science, sociology, law, and demography, have attempted to explain why individuals voluntarily leave their homelands. The dominant thread in the labor migration literature is influenced by microeconomics, which posits that individuals contemplating migration are rational, utility-maximizing actors who carefully weigh the potential costs and benefits of leaving their country of origin (e.g., Borjas, 1989 ; Portes & Böröcz, 1989 ; Grogger & Hanson, 2011 ). The act of migration, from this perspective, is typically conceptualized as an investment from which a migrant expects to receive some benefit, whether it be in the form of increased income, political freedom, or enhanced social ties (Schultz, 1961 ; Sjaastad, 1962 ; Collier & Hoeffler, 2014 ).

In this article we go beyond the treatment of migration as a single decision and conceive of it as a multifaceted process with distinct stages and decision points. We identify factors that are relevant at different stages in the migration process and highlight how and when certain factors interact with others during the migration process. Economic factors such as the wage differential between origin and destination countries, for example, may be the driving factor behind someone’s initial decision to migrate (Borjas, 1989 ). But when choosing a specific destination, economic factors may be conditioned by political or social conditions in that destination (Fitzgerald, Leblang, & Teets, 2014 ). Each stage or decision point has distinguishing features that are important in determining how (potential) migrants respond to the driving forces identified by scholars.

This is certainly not a theoretical innovation; migration has long been conceived of as a multi-step process, and scholars often identify the stage or decision point to which their argument best applies. However, most interdisciplinary syntheses of the literature on international labor migration do not provide a systematic treatment of this defining feature, instead organizing theoretical and empirical contributions by field of study, unit or level of analysis, or theoretical tradition (e.g., Portes & Böröcz, 1989 ; Massey et al., 1993 ; European Asylum Support Office, 2016 ). Such approaches are undoubtedly valuable in their own right. Our decision to organize this discussion by stage allows us to understand this as a process, rather than as a set of discrete events. As a result, we conceptualize international labor migration as three stages or decision points: (a) the decision to migrate or to remain at home, (b) the choice of destination, and (c) the manner by which expatriates re-engage—or choose not to re-engage—with their country of origin once abroad. We also use these decision points to highlight a number of potential new directions for future research in this still-evolving field.

Figure 1. Global migration intentions by educational attainment, 2008–2017.

Should I Stay or Should I Go, Now?

The massive growth in international labor migration in the age of globalization is remarkable, but the fact remains that over 95% of the world’s population never leave their country of origin (United Nations Population Division, 2012 ). Figure 1 shows the percentage of people who expressed an intention to move abroad between 2008 and 2017 by educational attainment, according to data from the Gallup World Poll. Over this time period, it appears that those who were highly educated expressed intent to migrate in greater numbers than those who had less than a college education, although these two groups have converged in recent years. What is most striking, however, is that a vast majority of people, regardless of educational attainment, expressed no desire to move abroad. Even though absolute flows of migrants have grown at a near-exponential rate, relative to their non-migrating counterparts, they remain a small minority. What factors are important in determining who decides to migrate and who decides to remain at home? 2

From Neoclassical Economics to the Mobility Transition

Neoclassical economic models posit that the primary driving factor behind migration is the expected difference in wages (discounted future income streams) between origin and destination countries (Sjaastad, 1962 ; Borjas, 1989 ; Clark, Hatton, & Williamson, 2007 ). All else equal, when the wage gap, minus the costs associated with moving between origin and destination, is high, these models predict large flows of labor migrants. In equilibrium, as more individuals move from origin to destination countries, the wage differential narrows, which in turn leads to zero net migration (Lewis, 1954 ; Harris & Todaro, 1970 ). Traditional models predict a negative monotonic relationship between the wage gap and the number of migrants (e.g., Sjaastad, 1962 ). However, the predictions of neoclassical models are not well supported by the empirical record. Empirical evidence shows that, at least in a cross-section, the relationship between economic development and migration is more akin to an inverted U. For countries with low levels of per capita income, we observe little migration due to a liquidity constraint: at this end of the income distribution, individuals do not have sufficient resources to cover even minor costs associated with moving abroad. Increasing income helps to decrease this constraint, and consequently we observe increased levels of emigration as incomes rise (de Haas, 2007 ). This effect, however, is not monotonic: as countries reach middle-income status, declining wage differentials lead to flattening rates of emigration, and then decreasing rates as countries enter later stages of economic development. 3

Some research explains this curvilinear relationship by focusing on the interaction between emigration incentives and constraints : for example, increased income initially makes migration more affordable (reduces constraints), but also simultaneously reduces the relative economic benefits of migrating as the wage differential narrows (as potential migrants now have the financial capacity to enhance local amenities) (Dao, Docquier, Parsons, & Peri, 2016 ). The theoretical underpinnings of this interaction, however, are not without controversy. Clemens identifies several classes of theory that attempt to explain this curvilinear relationship—a relationship that has been referred to in the literature as the mobility transition (Clemens, 2014 ). These theories include: demographic changes resulting from development that also favor emigration up to a point (Easterlin, 1961 ; Tomaske, 1971 ), the loosening of credit restraints on would-be migrants (Vanderkamp, 1971 ; Hatton & Williamson, 1994 ), a breakdown of information barriers via the building of transnational social networks (Epstein, 2008 ), structural economic changes in the development process that result in worker dislocation (Zelinsky, 1971 ; Massey, 1988 ), the dynamics of economic inequality and relative deprivation (Stark, 1984 ; Stark & Yitzhaki, 1988 ; Stark & Taylor, 1991 ), and changing immigration policies in destination countries toward increasingly wealthy countries (Clemens, 2014 ). While each of these play some role in the mobility transition curve, Dao et al. ( 2016 ) run an empirical horse race between numerous explanations and find that changing skill composition resulting from economic development is the most substantively important driver. Economic development is correlated with an increase in a country’s level of education; an increase in the level of education, in turn, is correlated with increased emigration. However, traditional explanations involving microeconomic drivers such as income, credit constraints, and economic inequality remain important factors (Dao et al., 2016 ). The diversity of explanations offered for the mobility transition curve indicates that while most research agrees the inverted-U relationship is an accurate empirical portrayal of the relationship between development and migration, little theoretical agreement exists on what drives this relationship. Complicating this disagreement is the difficulty of empirically disentangling highly correlated factors such as income, skill composition, and demographic trends in order to identify robust causal relationships.

Political Conditions at the Origin

While there is a scholarly consensus around the mobility transition and the role of economic conditions, emerging research suggests that the political environment in the origin country may also be salient. We do not refer here to forced migration, such as in the case of those who leave because they are fleeing political persecution or violent conflict. Rather, we focus on political conditions in the homeland that influence a potential migrant’s decision to emigrate voluntarily. Interpretations of how, and the extent to which, political conditions in origin countries (independent of economic conditions) influence the decision to migrate have been heavily influenced by Hirschman’s “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty” framework (Hirschman, 1970 , 1978 ). Hirschman argues that the opportunity to exit—to exit a firm, an organization, or a country—places pressure on the local authorities; voting with one’s feet forces organizations to reassess their operations.

When applied to the politics of emigration, Hirschman’s framework generates two different hypotheses. On the one hand, politicians may allow, encourage, or force the emigration of groups that oppose the regime as a political safety valve of sorts. This provides the government with a mechanism with which to manage potential political challengers by encouraging their exit. On the other hand, politicians—especially those in autocracies—may actively work to prevent exit because they fear the emigration of economic elites, the highly skilled, and others who have resources vital to the survival of the regime. 4

A small number of studies investigate how local-level, rather than national, political circumstances affect a potential migrant’s calculus. The limited empirical evidence currently available suggests that local conditions are substantively important determinants of the emigration decision. When individuals are highly satisfied with local amenities such as their own standard of living, quality of public services, and overall sense of physical security, they express far less intention to migrate compared with highly dissatisfied individuals (Dustmann & Okatenko, 2014 ). Furthermore, availability of public transport and access to better education facilities decreases the propensity to express an intention to emigrate (Cazzuffi & Modrego, 2018 ). This relationship holds across all levels of wealth and economic development, and there is some evidence that satisfaction with local amenities matters as much as, or even more than, income or wealth (Dustmann & Okatenko, 2014 ).

Political corruption, on both national and local levels, also has substantively important effects on potential migrants, especially those who are highly skilled. Broadly defined as the use of public office for political gain, political corruption operates as both a direct and an indirect factor promoting emigration. 5 Firstly, corruption may have a direct effect on the desire to emigrate in that it can decrease the political and economic power of an individual, leading to a lower standard of living and poorer quality of life in origin countries. If the reduction in life satisfaction resulting from corruption is sufficiently high—either by itself or in combination with other “push” factors—then the exit option becomes more attractive (Cooray & Schneider, 2016 ). Secondly, corruption also operates through indirect channels that influence other push factors. Given the large literature on how political corruption influences a number of development outcomes, it is conceivable that corruption affects the decision-making process of a potential migrant through its negative effect on social spending, education, and public health (Mo, 2001 ; Mauro, 1998 ; Gupta, Davoodi, & Thigonson, 2001 ).

The combination of its direct and indirect impacts means that corruption could be a significant part of a migrant’s decision-making process. At present there is limited work exploring this question, and the research does not yield a consensus. Some scholars argue that political corruption has no substantive effect on total bilateral migration, but that it does encourage migration among the highly skilled (Dimant, Krieger, & Meierrieks, 2013 ). This is the case, the argument goes, because corruption causes the greatest relative harm to the utility of those who have invested in human capital, who migrate to escape the negative effect on their fixed investment. In contrast, others find that a high level of corruption does increase emigration at the aggregate level (Poprawe, 2015 ). More nuanced arguments take into account the intensity of corruption: low to moderate levels of corruption lead to increased emigration of all groups, and especially of the highly skilled. But at high levels of corruption, emigration begins to decrease, indicating that intense corruption can act as a mobility constraint (Cooray & Schneider, 2016 ). All of these existing accounts, however, employ state-level measures of corruption by non-governmental organizations, such as those produced by Transparency International. Scholars have yet to harness micro-level survey data to explore the influence of personal corruption perception on the individual’s decision-making process.

The Land of Hopes and Dreams

Given that an individual has decided to emigrate, the next decision point is to choose a destination country. Advanced industrial democracies, such as those in the OECD, are major migrant-receiving countries, but so are Russia and several Gulf countries including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (World Bank, 2016 ). A country’s constellation of political, economic, and social attributes is crucial to understanding an emigrant’s choice of destination. Potential migrants weigh all of these factors simultaneously when choosing a destination: will the destination allow political rights for the migrant and their children, is access to the labor market possible, and does the destination provide an opportunity for reunification with friends and family? In this section we focus on the non-economic factors that draw migrants to certain countries over others. In addition, we emphasize how skill level adds layers of complexity to a migrant’s calculus.

Political Environment, Both Formal and Informal

As noted earlier, traditional neoclassical models and their extensions place wage differentials and associated economic variables at the heart of a migrant’s choice. Gravity models posit that migrants choose a destination country based on their expected income—which itself is a function of the wage rate and the probability of finding employment in the destination—less the costs associated with moving (Ravenstein, 1885 ; Todaro, 1969 ; Borjas, 1989 ). A rigid focus on economic factors, however, blinds us to the empirical reality that a destination country’s political environment influences what destination a migrant chooses (Borjas, 1989 ). A country’s legal and political rights structure for migrants, as well as its level of tolerance for newcomers, is critical to migrants discriminating between an array of potential destinations. Fitzgerald, Leblang, and Teets ( 2014 ) argue, for example, that states with restrictive citizenship policies and strong radical right anti-immigrant parties will receive fewer migrants, while states with relatively liberal citizenship requirements and weak radical right political movements will receive more migrants. In the rational actor framework, migrants seek countries with hospitable political environments to maximize both their political representation in government and their access to labor market opportunities as a result of citizenship rights and social acceptance (Fitzgerald et al., 2014 ).

Using a broad sample of origin countries and 18 destination countries, they find that relative restrictiveness of citizenship policies and level of domestic support for the radical right are substantively important determinants of global migratory flows. Further, they find that these political variables condition a migrant’s choice of destination: the relative importance of economic factors such as the unemployment rate or the wage differential diminishes as a destination country’s political environment becomes more open for migrants. In other words, when migrants are choosing a destination country, political considerations may trump economic ones—a finding that is an important amendment to the primarily economics-focused calculus of the initial stage of the immigration decision.

However, prior to choosing and entering a destination country, a migrant must also navigate a country’s immigration policy—the regulation of both migrant entry and the rights and status of current migrants. While it is often assumed that a relatively more restrictive immigration policy deters entry, and vice versa, a lack of quantitative data has limited the ability of scholars to confirm this intuition cross-nationally. Money ( 1999 ) emphasizes that the policy output of immigration politics does not necessarily correlate with the outcome of international migrant flows. There are a number of unanswered questions in this field, including: is immigration policy a meaningful determinant of global flows of migration? Do certain kinds of immigration policies matter more than others? How does immigration policy interact with other political and economic factors, such as unemployment and social networks?

Only a handful of studies analyze whether or not immigration policy is a significant determinant of the size and character of migratory flows. Perhaps the most prominent answer to this question is the “gap hypothesis,” which posits that immigration rates continue to increase despite increasingly restrictive immigration policies in advanced countries (Cornelius & Tsuda, 2004 ). Some subsequent work seems to grant support to the gap hypothesis, indicating that immigration policy may not be a relevant factor and that national sovereignty as it relates to dictating migrant inflows has eroded significantly (Sassen, 1996 ; Castles, 2004 ). The gap hypothesis is not without its critics, with other scholars arguing that the existing empirical evidence actually lends it little or no support (Messina, 2007 ).

A more recent body of literature does indicate that immigration policy matters. Brücker and Schröder ( 2011 ), for example, find that immigration policies built to attract highly skilled migrants lead to higher admittance rates. They also show that diffusion processes cause neighboring countries to implement similar policy measures. Ortega and Peri ( 2013 ), in contrast to the gap hypothesis literature, find that restrictive immigration policy indeed reduces migrant inflows. But immigration policy can also have unintended effects on international migration: when entry requirements increase, migrant inflows decrease, but migrant outflows also decrease (Czaika & de Haas, 2016 ). This indicates that restrictive immigration policy may also lead to reduced circular migrant flows and encourage long-term settlement in destination countries.

Disaggregating immigration policy into its different components provides a clearer picture of how immigration policy may matter, and whether certain components matter more than others. Immigration policy is composed of both external and internal regulations. External regulations refer to policies that control migrant entry, such as eligibility requirements for migrants and additional conditions of entry. Internal regulations refer to policies that apply to migrants who have already gained status in the country, such as the security of a migrant’s legal status and the rights they are afforded. Helbling and Leblang ( 2017 ), using a comprehensive data set of bilateral migrant flows and the Immigration Policies in Comparison (IMPIC) data set, find that, in general, external regulations prove slightly more important in understanding migrant inflows (Helbling, Bjerre, Römer, & Zobel, 2017 ). This indicates that potential migrants focus more on how to cross borders, and less on the security of their status and rights once they settle. They do find, however, that both external and internal components of immigration are substantively important to international migrant flows.

The effects of policy, however, cannot be understood in isolation from other drivers of migration. Firstly, poor economic conditions and restrictive immigration policy are mutually reinforcing: when the unemployment rate is elevated, restrictive policies are more effective in deterring migrant flows. An increase in policy effectiveness in poor economic conditions suggests that states care more about deterring immigration when the economy is performing poorly. Secondly, a destination country’s restrictive immigration policy is more effective when migrants come from origin countries that have a common colonial heritage. This suggests that cultural similarities and migrant networks help to spread information about the immigration policy environment in the destination country. Social networks prove to be crucial in determining how much migrants know about the immigration policies of destination countries, regardless of other cultural factors such as colonial heritage or common language (Helbling & Leblang, 2017 ). In summary, more recent work supports the idea that immigration policy of destination countries exerts a significant influence on both the size and character of international migration flows. Much work remains to be done in terms of understanding the nuances of specific immigration policy components, the effect of policy change over time, and through what mechanisms immigration policy operates.

Transnational Social Networks

None of this should be taken to suggest that only political and economic considerations matter when a potential migrant contemplates a potential destination; perhaps one of the biggest contributions to the study of bilateral migration is the role played by transnational social networks. Migrating is a risky undertaking, and to minimize that risk, migrants are more likely to move to destinations where they can “readily tap into networks of co-ethnics” (Fitzgerald et al., 2014 , p. 410). Dense networks of co-ethnics not only help provide information about economic opportunities, but also serve as a social safety net which, in turn, helps decrease the risks associated with migration, including, but not limited to, finding housing and integrating into a new community (Massey, 1988 ; Portes & Böröcz, 1989 ; Portes, 1995 ; Massey et al., 1993 ; Faist, 2000 ; Sassen, 1995 ; Light, Bernard, & Kim, 1999 ). Having a transnational network of family members is quite important to destination choice; if a destination country has an immigration policy that emphasizes family reunification, migrants can use their familial connections to gain economically valuable permanent resident or citizenship status more easily than in other countries (Massey et al., 1993 , p. 450; Helbing & Leblang, 2017 ). When the migrant is comparing potential destinations, countries in which that migrant has a strong social network will be heavily favored in a cost–benefit analysis.

Note, however, that even outside of a strict rational actor framework with perfect information, transnational social networks still may be quite salient to destination choice. An interesting alternative hypothesis for the patterns we observe draws on theories from financial market behavior which focus on herding. Migrants choosing a destination observe the decisions of their co-ethnics who previously migrated and assume that those decisions were based on a relevant set of information, such as job opportunities or social tolerance of migrants. New migrants then choose the same destination as their co-ethnics not based on actual exchanges of valuable information, but based solely on the assumption that previous migration decisions were based on rational calculation (Epstein & Gang, 2006 ; Epstein, 2008 ). This is a classic example of herding, and the existing empirical evidence on the importance of transnational social networks cannot invalidate this alternative hypothesis. One could also explain social network effects through the lens of cumulative causation or feedback loops: the initial existence of connections in destination countries makes the act of migration less risky and attracts additional co-ethnics. This further expands migrant networks in a destination, further decreasing risk for future waves of migrants, and so on (Massey, 1990 ; Fussel & Massey, 2004 ; Fussel, 2010 ).

No matter the pathway by which social networks operate, the empirical evidence indicates that they are one of the most important determinants of destination choice. Potential migrants from Mexico, for example, who are able to tap into existing networks in the United States face lower direct, opportunity, and psychological costs of international migration (Massey & Garcia España, 1987 ). This same relationship holds in the European context; a study of Bulgarian and Italian migrants indicates that those with “social capital” in a destination community are more likely to migrate and to choose that particular destination (Haug, 2008 ). Studies that are more broadly cross-national in nature also confirm the social network hypothesis across a range of contexts and time periods (e.g., Clark et al., 2007 ; Hatton & Williamson, 2011 ; Fitzgerald et al., 2014 ).

Despite the importance of social networks, it is, again, important to qualify their role in framing the choice of destinations. It seems that the existence of co-ethnics in destination countries most strongly influences emigration when they are relatively few in number. Clark et al. ( 2007 ), in their study of migration to the United States, find that the “friends and relatives effect” falls to zero once the migrant stock in the United States reaches 8.3% of the source-country population. In addition, social networks alone cannot explain destination choice because their explanatory power is context-dependent. For instance, restrictive immigration policies limiting legal migration channels and family reunification may dampen the effectiveness of networks (Böcker, 1994 ; Collyer, 2006 ). Social networks are not an independent force, but also interact with economic and political realities to produce the global migration patterns we observe.

The Lens of Skill

For ease of presentation, we have up to now treated migrants as a relatively homogeneous group that faces similar push and pull factors throughout the decision-making process. Of course, not all migrants experience the same economic, political, and social incentives in the same way at each stage of the decision-making process. Perhaps the most salient differentiating feature of migrants is skill or education level. Generally, one can discuss a spectrum of skill and education level for current migrants, from relatively less educated (having attained a high school degree or less) to relatively more educated (having attained a college or post-graduate degree). The factors presented here that influence destination choice interact with a migrant’s skill level to produce differing destination choice patterns.

A migrant’s level of education, or human capital, often serves as a filter for the political treatment he or she anticipates in a particular destination country. For instance, the American public has a favorable view of highly educated migrants who hold higher-status jobs, while simultaneously having an opposite view of migrants who have less job training and do not hold a college degree (Hainmueller & Hiscox, 2010 ; Hainmueller & Hopkins, 2015 ). Indeed, the political discourse surrounding migration often emphasizes skill level and education as markers of migrants who “should be” admitted, across both countries and the ideological spectrum. 6 While political tolerance may be a condition of entry for migrants in the aggregate, the relatively privileged status of highly educated and skilled migrants in most destination countries may mean that this condition is not as salient.

While it is still an open question to what extent immigration policy influences international migration, it is clear that not all migrants face evenly applied migration restrictions. Most attractive destination countries have policies that explicitly favor highly skilled migrants, since these individuals often fill labor shortages in advanced industries such as high technology and applied science. Countries such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand all employ so-called “points-based” immigration systems in which those with advanced degrees and needed skills are institutionally favored for legal entry (Papademetriou & Sumption, 2011 ). Meanwhile, the United States maintains the H-1B visa program, which is restricted by educational attainment and can only be used to fill jobs in which no native talent is available (USCIS). Even if destination countries decide to adopt more restrictive immigration policies, the move toward restriction has typically been focused on low-skilled migrants (Peters, 2017 ). In other words, even if immigration policy worldwide becomes more restrictive, this will almost certainly not occur at the expense of highly skilled migrants and will not prevent them choosing their most preferred destination.

Bring It on Home to Me

This article began by asserting that international labor migration is an important piece of globalization, as significant as cross-border flows of capital, goods, and services. This section argues that migrant flows enhance flows of capital and commodities. Uniquely modern conditions such as advanced telecommunications, affordable and efficient international travel, and the liberalization of financial flows mean that diasporas—populations of migrants living outside their countries of origin—and home countries often re-engage with each other (Vertovec, 2004 ; Waldinger, 2008 ). This section reviews some of the newest and most thought-provoking research on international labor migration, research that explores diaspora re-engagement and how that re-engagement alters international flows of income, portfolio and foreign direct investment (FDI), trade, and migratory flows themselves.

Remittances

As previously argued, migration is often driven by the prospect of higher wages. Rational, utility-maximizing migrants incur the cost of migration in order to earn increased income that they could not earn at home. But when migrants obtain higher wages, this additional increment to income is not always designated for individual consumption. Often, migrants use their new income to send remittances, direct transfers of money from one individual to another across national borders. Once a marginal financial flow, in 2015 remittances totaled $431 billion, far outpacing foreign aid ($135 billion) and nearly passing private debt and portfolio equity ($443 billion). More than 70% of total global remittances flow into developing countries (World Bank, 2016 ). In comparison with other financial flows such as portfolio investment and FDI, remittances are more impervious to economic crises, suggesting that they may be a countercyclical force to global downturns (Leblang, 2017 ).

Remittances represent one of the most common ways in which migrants re-engage with their homeland and alter both global income flows and distribution. Why do migrants surrender large portions of their new income, supposedly the very reason they migrated in the first place, to their families back home? New economics of labor migration (NELM) theory argues that immigration itself is motivated by a family’s need or demand for remittances—that remittances are an integral part of a family’s strategy for diversifying household financial risk (Stark & Bloom, 1985 ). Remittances “are a manifestation of informal contractual agreements between migrants and the households from which they move,” indicating that remitting is not an individual-level or purely altruistic action but rather occurs in a larger social context, that of one’s immediate or extended family (European Asylum Support Office, 2016 , p. 15).

The impact of migrant remittances on countries of origin is multifaceted yet somewhat ambiguous. Most scholarly work focuses on whether remittances positively or negatively influence existing economic conditions. A number of studies find that remittances modestly reduce poverty levels in developing countries (Adams & Page, 2005 ; Yang & Martinez, 2006 ; Acosta, Calderon, Fajnzybler, & Lopez, 2008 ; Lokshin, Bontch-Osmolovski, & Glinskaya, 2010 ). On other measures of economic well-being, such as growth, inequality, and health, the literature is quite mixed and no definitive conclusions can be drawn. For instance, some studies find that remittances encourage investment in human capital (Yang, 2008 ; Adams & Cuecuecha, 2010 ), while others find no such effect and suggest that families typically spend remittances on non-productive consumption goods (Chami, Fullenkamp, & Jahjah, 2003 ). Here we can only scratch the surface of the empirical work on remittances and economic outcomes. 7

Some of the most recent research in the field argues that remittances have a distinct political dimension, affecting regime support in developing countries and altering the conditions in which elections are held. Ahmed ( 2012 ), grouping remittances with foreign aid, argues that increased remittances allow autocratic governments to extend their tenure in office. These governments can strategically channel unearned government and household income to finance political patronage networks, which leads to a reduced likelihood of autocratic turnover, regime collapse, and mass protests against the regime. More recent research posits nearly the exact opposite: remittances are linked to a greater likelihood of democratization under autocratic regimes. Escriba-Folch, Meseguer, and Wright ( 2015 ) argue that since remittances directly increase household incomes, they reduce voter reliance on political patronage networks, undermining a key tool of autocratic stability.

Remittances may also play an important role in countries with democratic institutions, yet more research is needed to fully understand the conditions under which they matter and their substantive impact. Particularly, remittances may alter the dynamics of an election as an additional and external financial flow. There is evidence of political remittance cycles : the value of remittances spikes in the run-up to elections in developing countries. The total value of remittances to the average developing country increases by 6.6% during election years, and by 12% in elections in which no incumbent or named successor is running (O’Mahony, 2012 ). The effect is even larger in the poorest of developing countries. Finer-grained tests of this hypothesis provide additional support: using monthly and quarterly data confirms the existence of political remittance cycles, as well as using subnational rather than cross-national data (Nyblade & O’Mahony, 2014 ). However, these studies do not reveal why remittances spike, or what the effects of that spike are on electoral outcomes such as vote share, campaign financing, and political strategy.

Remittances represent a massive international financial flow that warrants more scholarly attention. While there are numerous studies on the relationship between remittances and key economic indicators, there remains much room for further work on their relationship to political outcomes in developing countries. Do remittances hasten the downfall of autocratic regimes, or do they contribute to autocratic stability? In democratic contexts, do remittances substantively influence electoral outcomes, and if so, which outcomes and how? Finally, do remittances prevent even more migration because they allow one “breadwinner from abroad” to provide for the household that remains in the homeland? While data limitations are formidable, these questions are important to the study of both international and comparative political economy.

Bilateral Trade

The argument that migrant or co-ethnic networks play an important role in international economic exchange is not novel. Greif ( 1989 , 1993 ) illustrates the role that the Maghrebi traders of the 11th century played in providing informal institutional guarantees that facilitated trade. This is but a single example. Cowen’s historical survey identifies not only the Phoenicians but also the “Spanish Jews [who] were indispensable for international commerce in the Middle Ages. The Armenians controlled the overland route between the Orient and Europe as late as the nineteenth century . Lebanese Christians developed trade between the various parts of the Ottoman empire” (Cowen, 1997 , p. 170). Rauch and Trindade ( 2002 ) provide robust empirical evidence linking the Chinese diaspora to patterns of imports and exports with their home country.

A variety of case studies document the importance of migrant networks in helping overcome problems of information asymmetries. In his study of Indian expatriates residing in the United States, Kapur ( 2014 ) documents how that community provides U.S. investors with a signal of the work ethic, labor quality, and business culture that exists in India. Likewise, Weidenbaum and Hughes ( 1996 ) chronicle the Bamboo Network—the linkages between ethnic Chinese living outside mainland China and their homeland—and how these linkages provide superior access to information and opportunities for investment.

Connections between migrant communities across countries affect cross-national investment even when these connections do not provide information about investment opportunities. In his work on the Maghrebi traders of the 11th century , Greif argues that this trading network was effective because it was able to credibly threaten collective punishment by all merchants if even one of them defected (Greif, 1989 , 1993 ). Grief shows that this co-ethnic network was able to share information regarding the past actions of actors (they could communicate a reputation)—something that was essential for the efficient functioning of markets in the absence of formal legal rules. Weidenbaum and Hughes reach a similar conclusion about the effectiveness of the Bamboo Network, remarking that “if a business owner violates an agreement, he is blacklisted. This is far worse than being sued, because the entire Chinese networks will refrain from doing business with the guilty party” (Hughes, 1996 , p. 51).

Migrants not only alter the flow of income by remitting to their countries of origin, but also influence patterns of international portfolio investment and FDI. Most existing literature on international capital allocation emphasizes monadic factors such as the importance of credible commitments and state institutional quality, failing to address explicitly dyadic phenomena that may also drive investment. Diaspora networks, in particular, facilitate cross-border investment in a number of ways. They foster a higher degree of familiarity between home and host countries, leading to a greater preference for investment in specific countries. Diaspora networks can also decrease information asymmetries in highly uncertain international capital markets in two ways. Firstly, they can provide investors with salient information about their homeland, such as consumer tastes, that can influence investment decision-making. Secondly, they can share knowledge about investment opportunities, regulation and procedures, and customs that decrease transaction costs associated with cross-border investment (Leblang, 2010 ). This place of importance for migrants suggests to the broader international political economy literature the importance of non-institutional mechanisms for channeling economic activity.

Although the hypothesized link between migrants and international investment has only recently been identified, the quantitative evidence available supports that hypothesis. Leblang ( 2010 ), using dyadic cross-sectional data, finds that diaspora networks “have both a substantively significant effect and a statistically significant effect on cross-border investment,” including international portfolio investment and FDI (p. 584). The effect of bilateral migratory flows correlates positively with the degree of information asymmetry: when informational imperfections are more pervasive in a dyad, migrants (especially the highly skilled) play a disproportionately large role in international capital allocation (Kugler, Levinthal, & Rapoport, 2017 ). Other quantitative studies find substantively similar results for FDI alone (e.g., Javorcik, Özden, Spatareanu, & Neagu, 2011 ; Aubry, Rapoport, & Reshef, 2016 ).

Many questions still remain unanswered. Firstly, does the effect of migrants on investment follow the waves of the global economy, or is it countercyclical as remittances have been shown to be? Secondly, how does this additional investment, facilitated by migrants, affect socioeconomic outcomes such as inequality, poverty, and economic development (Leblang, 2010 )? Does the participation of migrants lead to more successful FDI projects in developing countries because of their ability to break down information barriers? Within portfolio investment, do migrants lead to a preference for certain asset classes over others, and if so, what are the effects on bilateral and international capital markets? These are just a few directions in an area ripe for additional research.

Return Migration and Dual Citizenship

Besides financial flows, migrants themselves directly contribute to global flows of capital by returning to their countries of origin in large numbers. This phenomenon of return migration—or circular migration—can come in a few temporal forms, including long-term migration followed by a permanent return to a country of origin, or repeat migration in which a migrant regularly moves between destination and origin countries (Dumont & Spielvogel, 2008 ). While comparable data on return migration is scarce, some reports suggest that 20% to 50% of all immigrants leave their destination country within five years after their arrival (e.g., Borjas & Bratsberg, 1996 ; Aydemir & Robinson, 2008 ; Bratsberg, Raaum, & Sørlie, 2007 ; Dustmann & Weiss, 2007 ). An independent theoretical and empirical account of return migration does not yet exist in the literature and is beyond the scope of this paper. But in the rational actor framework, motivations to return home include a failure to realize the expected benefits of migration, changing preferences toward a migrant’s home country, achievement of a savings or other economic goal, or the opening of additional employment opportunities back home due to newly acquired experience or greater levels of economic development (Dumont & Spielvogel, 2008 ).

While most migration literature treats the country of origin as a passive actor that only provides the conditions for migration, new literature on return migration gives home country policies pride of place. Origin countries can craft policies that encourage diaspora re-engagement, incentivizing individuals to return home. Dual citizenship, for example, is an extension of extraterritorial rights, allowing migrants to retain full legal status in their home country. Dual citizenship “decreases the transaction costs associated with entering a host country’s labor market and makes it easier for migrants to return home” (Leblang, 2017 , p. 77). This leads migrants to invest their financial resources in the form of remittances back home as well as their valuable human capital. When states provide such extraterritorial rights, expatriates are 10% more likely to remit and 3% more likely to return home. Dual citizenship is also associated with a doubling of the dollar amount of remittances received by a home country (Leblang, 2017 ). These striking results suggest that in addition to the power of migrants to affect cross-border flows of money and people, countries of origin can also play a significant role.

Conclusion and Future Directions

This brief article has attempted to synthesize a broad range of literature from political science, economics, sociology, migration studies, and more to construct an account of international labor migration. To do so, the migratory process was broken down into distinct stages and decision points, focusing particularly on the decision to migrate, destination choice, and the re-engagement of migrants with their homeland. In doing so, the article also discussed the interlinkages of international migration with other fields of study in international political economy, including cross-border financial flows, trade, and investment. Through a multiplicity of approaches, we have gained a greater understanding of why people decide to move, why they decide to move to one country over another, and how and why they engage with the global economy and their homeland. Despite this intellectual progress, there remain many paths for future research at each stage of the migratory process; we highlight just a few of them here.

We know that income differentials, social ties, and local political conditions are important variables influencing the migration process. Yet the question remains: why do a small but growing number of people choose to leave while the overwhelming majority of people remain in their country of birth? Here, individual- or family-level subjective characteristics may be significant. There are a handful of observational studies that explore the relationship between subjective well-being or life satisfaction and the intention to migrate, with the nascent consensus being that life dissatisfaction increases the intention to migrate (Cai, Esipova, Oppenheimer, & Feng, 2014 ; Otrachshenko & Popova, 2014 ; Nikolova & Graham, 2015 ). But more research on intrinsic or subjective measures is needed to understand (a) their independent importance more fully and (b) how they interact with objective economic, political, and social factors. For instance, do those who are more optimistic migrate in larger numbers? Do minority individuals who feel they live in an environment in which diversity is not accepted feel a greater urge to leave home? Synthesizing these types of subjective variables and perceptions with the more prominent gravity-style models could result in a more complete picture of the international migration process.

For the “typical” migrant, one who is relatively less educated than the population in the chosen destination and does not have specialized skills, social networks are key to minimizing the risk of migrating and quickly tapping into economic opportunities in destination countries. Does this remain true for those who are highly educated? Although little empirical research exists on the topic, greater human capital and often-accompanying financial resources may operate as a substitute for the advantages offered by social networks, such as housing, overcoming linguistic barriers, and finding gainful employment. This would indicate that the “friends and family effect” is not as influential for this subset of migrants. Economic considerations, such as which destination offers the largest relative wage differential, or political considerations, such as the ease of quickly acquiring full citizenship rights, may matter more for the highly skilled. Neoclassical economic models of migration may best capture the behavior of migrants who hold human capital and who have the financial resources to independently migrate in a way that maximizes income or utility more broadly.

Since we have focused on international migration as a series of discrete decision points in this article, we have perhaps underemphasized the complexity of the physical migration process. In reality, migrants often do not pick a country and travel directly there, but travel through (perhaps several) countries of transit such as Mexico, Morocco, or Turkey along the way (Angel Castillo, 2006 ; Natter, 2013 ; Icduygu, 2005 ). There is little existing theoretical work to understand the role of transit countries in the migratory process, with much of it focusing on the potential for cooperation between destination and transit countries in managing primarily illegal immigration (Kahana & Lecker, 2005 ; Djajic & Michael, 2014 ; Djajic & Michael, 2016 ). Another related strand of the literature focuses on how wealthy destination countries are “externalizing” their immigration policy, encompassing a broader part of the migratory process than simply crossing a physically demarcated border (Duvell, 2012 ; Menjivar, 2014 ). But many questions remain, such as the following: how do we understand those who desire to enter, say, the United States, but instead relocate permanently to Mexico along the way? How do countries of transit handle the pressure of transit migrants, and how does this affect economic and political outcomes in these countries?

Finally, the focus of nearly all literature on international migration (and this article as a byproduct) implicitly views advanced economies as the only prominent destinations. However, this belies the fact that 38% of all migration stays within the “Global South” (World Bank, 2016 ). While there is certainly some literature on this phenomenon (see Ratha & Shaw, 2007 ; Gindling, 2009 ; Hujo & Piper, 2007 ), international political economy scholars have yet to sufficiently tackle this topic. The overarching research question here is: do the same push and pull factors that influence the decision to migrate and destination choice apply to those who migrate within the Global South? Do we need to construct new theories of international migration with less emphasis on factors such as wage differentials and political tolerance, or are these sufficient to understand this facet of the phenomenon? If we fail to answer these questions, we may miss explaining a significant proportion of international migration with its own consequences and policy implications.

• Abreu, A. (2012). The New Economics of Labor Migration: Beware of Neoclassicals Bearing Gifts. Forum for Social Economics , 41 (1), 46–67.
• Acosta, P. , Calderon, C. , Fajnzybler, P. , & Lopez, H. (2008). What Is the Impact of International Remittances on Poverty and Inequality in Latin America? World Development , 36 (1), 89–114.
• Adams, R., Jr. (2011). Evaluating the Economic Impact of International Remittances on Developing Countries Using Household Surveys: A Literature Review. Journal of Development Studies , 47 (6), 809–828.
• Adams, R., Jr. , & Cuecuecha, A. (2010). Remittances, Household Expenditure and Investment in Guatemala. World Development , 38 (11), 1626–1641.
• Adams, R., Jr. , & Page, J. (2005). Do International Migration and Remittances Reduce Poverty in Developing Countries? World Development , 33 (10), 1645–1669.
• Ahmed, F. Z. (2012). The Perils of Unearned Foreign Income: Aid, Remittances, and Government Survival. American Political Science Review , 106 (1), 146–165.
• Akerman, S. (1976). Theories and Methods of Migration Research. In H. Runblom & H. Norman (Eds.), From Sweden to America: A History of the Migration . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Angel Castillo, M. (2006). Mexico: Caught Between the United States and Central America . Migration Policy Institute.
• Aubry, A. , Rapoport, H. , & Reshef, A. (2016). Migration, FDI, and the Margins of Trade. Mimeo . Paris School of Economics.
• Aydemir, A. , & Robinson, C. (2008). Global Labour Markets, Return, and Onward Migration. Canadian Journal of Economics , 41 (4), 1285–1311.
• Böcker, A. (1994). Chain Migration over Legally Closed Borders: Settled Immigrants as Bridgeheads and Gatekeepers. Netherlands Journal of Social Sciences , 30 (2), 87–106.
• Borjas, G. J. (1989). Economic Theory and International Migration. International Migration Review , 23 (3), 457–485.
• Borjas, G. J. , & Bratsberg, B. (1996). Who Leaves? The Outmigration of the Foreign-Born. Review of Economics and Statistics , 41 (4), 610–621.
• Bratsberg, B. , Raaum, O. , & Sørlie, K. (2007). Foreign-Born Migration to and from Norway. In Ç. Özden & M. Schiff (Eds.), International Migration, Economic Development and Policy . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Brücker, H. , & Schröder, P. J. H. (2011). Migration regulation contagion. European Union Politics , 12 (3), 315–335.
• Cai, R. , Esipova, N. , Oppenheimer, M. , & Feng, S. (2014). International Migration Desires Related to Subjective Well-Being. IZA Journal of Migration , 3 (8), 1–20.
• Castles, S. (2004). Why Migration Policies Fail. Ethnic and Racial Studies , 27 (2), 205–227.
• Cazzuffi, C. , & Modrego, F. (2018). Place of Origin and Internal Migration Decisions in Mexico. Spatial Economic Analysis , 13 (1), 1–19.
• Chami, R. , Fullenkamp, C. , & Jahjah, S. (2003). Are Immigrant Remittance Flows a Source of Capital for Development ? IMF Working Paper 03/189.
• Clark, X. , Hatton, T. J. , & Williamson, J. G. (2007). Explaining US Immigration, 1971–1998. Review of Economics and Statistics , 89 (2), 359–373.
• Clemens, M. A. (2014). Does Development Reduce Migration ? IZA Discussion Paper No. 8592.
• Collier, P. , & Hoeffler, A. (2014). Migration, Diasporas and Culture: An Empirical Investigation . Unpublished manuscript.
• Collyer, M. (2006). When Do Social Networks Fail to Explain Migration? Accounting for the Movement of Algerian Asylum-Seekers to the UK. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 31 (4), 699–718.
• Constant, A. , & Massey, D. S. (2002). Return Migration by German Guestworkers: Neoclassical versus New Economic Theories. International Migration , 4 0(4), 5–38.
• Cooray, A. , & Schneider, F. (2016). Does Corruption Promote Emigration? An Empirical Examination. Journal of Population Economics , 29 , 293–310.
• Cornelius, W. A. , & Tsuda, T. (2004). Controlling Immigration: The Limits of Government Intervention . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Cowen, R. (1997). Global Diasporas: An Introduction . London: Routledge.
• Czaika, M. , & de Haas, H. (2016). The Effect of Visas on Migration Processes. International Migration Review , 51 (4), 893–926.
• Dao, T. H. , Docquier, F. , Parsons, C. , & Peri, G. (2018). Migration and Development: Dissecting the Anatomy of the Mobility Transition. Journal of Development Economics , 132 , 88–101.
• Dao, T. H. , Docquier, F. , Parsons, C. , & Peri, G. (2016). Migration and Development: Dissecting the Anatomy of the Mobility Transition . IZA Discussion Paper No. 10272.
• De Haas, H. (2007). Turning the Tide? Why Development Will Not Stop Migration. Development and Change , 38 , 819–841.
• Dimant, E. , Krieger, T. , & Meierrieks, D. (2013). The Effect of Corruption on Migration, 1985–2000. Applied Economics Letters , 20 (13), 1270–1274.
• Djajic, S. , & Michael, M. S. (2014). Controlling Illegal Immigration: On the Scope for Cooperation with a Transit Country. Review of International Economics , 22 (4), 808–824.
• Djajic, S. , & Michael, M. S. (2016). Illegal Immigration, Foreign Aid, and the Transit Countries. CESifo Economic Studies , 572–593.
• Dumont, J.-C. , & Spielvogel, G. (2008). Return Migration: A New Perspective. International Migration Outlook 2008 . OECD, 166–212.
• Dustmann, C. , & Okatenko, A. (2014). Out-Migration, Wealth Constraints, and the Quality of Local Amenities. Journal of Development Economics , 110 , 52–63.
• Dustmann, C. , & Weiss, Y. (2007). Return Migration: Theory and Empirical Evidence from the UK. British Journal of Industrial Relations , 45 (2), 236–256.
• Duvell, F. (2012). Transit Migration: A Blurred and Politicized Concept. Population, Space and Place , 18 , 415–427.
• Easterlin, R. A. (1961). Influences in European Overseas Emigration Before World War I. Economic Development and Cultural Change , 9 (3), 331–351.
• Epstein, G. (2008). Herd and Network Effects in Migration Decision-Making. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 34 (4), 567–583.
• Epstein, G. , & Gang, I. (2006). The Influence of Others on Migration Plans. Review of Development Economics , 10 (4), 652–665.
• Escriba-Folch, A. , Meseguer, C. , & Wright, J. (2015). Remittances and Democratization. International Studies Quarterly , 59 (3), 571–586.
• European Asylum Support Office . (2016). The Push and Pull Factors of Asylum-Related Migration: A Literature Review .
• Faist, T. (2000). The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social Space . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Fitzgerald, J. , Leblang, D. , & Teets, J. C. (2014). Defying the Law of Gravity: The Political Economy of International Migration. World Politics , 66 (3), 406–445.
• Fussel, E. (2010). The Cumulative Causation of International Migration in Latin America. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 630 , 162–177.
• Fussel, E. , & Massey, D. (2004). The Limits to Cumulative Causation: International Migration from Mexican Urban Areas. Demography , 41 (1), 151–171.
• Gindling, T. H. (2009). South­–South Migration: The Impact of Nicaraguan Immigrants on Earnings, Inequality, and Poverty in Costa Rica. World Development , 37 (1), 116–126.
• Gould, J. D. (1979). European Inter-Continental Emigration 1815–1914: Patterns and Causes. Journal of European Economic History , 8 (3), 593–679.
• Greif, A. (1989). Reputation and Coalitions in Medieval Trade: Evidence on the Maghribi Traders. Journal of Economic History , 49 (4), 857–882.
• Greif, A. (1993). Contract Enforceability and Economic Institutions in Early Trade: The Maghribi Traders’ Coalition. American Economic Review , 83 (3), 525–548.
• Grogger, J. , & Hanson, G. H. (2011). Income Maximization and the Selection and Sorting of International Migrants. Journal of Development Economics , 95 , 42–57.
• Gupta, S. , Davoodi, H. , & Tiongson, E. (2001). Corruption and the Provision of Healthcare and Education Services. In A. Jain (Ed.), The Political Economy of Corruption . New York: Routledge.
• Hainmueller, J. , & Hiscox, M. J. (2010). Attitudes toward Highly Skilled and Low-Skilled Immigration: Evidence from a Survey Experiment. American Political Science Review , 104 (1), 61–84.
• Hainmueller, J. , & Hopkins, D. J. (2015). The Hidden Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants. American Journal of Political Science , 59 (3), 529–548.
• Harris, J. R. , & Todaro, M. P. (1970). Migration, Unemployment and Development: A Two-Sector Analysis. American Economic Review , 60 (1), 126–142.
• Hatton, T. J. , & Williamson, J. G. (1994). What Drove the Mass Migrations from Europe in the Late Nineteenth Century? Population and Development Review , 20 (3), 533–559.
• Hatton, T. J. , & Williamson, J. G. (2011). Are Third World Emigration Forces Abating? World Development , 39 (1), 20–32.
• Haug, S. (2008). Migration Networks and Migration Decision-Making. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 34 (4), 585–605.
• Helbling, M. , Bjerre, L. , Römer, F. , & Zobel, M. (2017). Measuring Immigration Policies: The IMPIC-Database. European Political Science, 16 (1), 79–98.
• Helbling, M. , & Leblang, D. (forthcoming). Controlling Immigration? European Journal of Political Research .
• Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and Sates . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Hirsh, A. O. (1978). “Exit, Voice, and the State.” World Politics , 31 (1), 90–107.
• Hujo, K. , & Piper, N. (2007). South–South Migration: Challenges for Development and Social Policy. Development , 50 (4), 1–7.
• Icduygu, A. (2005). Transit Migration in Turkey: Trends, Patterns, and Issues . Euro-Mediterranean Consortium for Applied Research on International Migration Research Report 2005/04.
• Javorcik, B. , Özden, C. , Spatareanu, M. , & Neagu, C. (2011). Migrant Networks and Foreign Direct Investment. Journal of Development Economics , 94 , 231–241.
• Kahana, N. , & Lecker, T. (2005). Competition as a Track for Preventing Illegal Immigration. Economics of Governance , 6 , 33–39.
• Kapur, D. (2014). Political Effects of International Migration. Annual Review of Political Science , 17 , 479–502.
• Kugler, M. , Levinthal, O. , & Rapoport, H. (2017). Migration and Cross-Border Financial Flows . World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 8034.
• Leblang, D. (2010). Familiarity Breeds Investment: Diaspora Networks and International Investment. American Political Science Review , 104 (3), 584–600.
• Leblang, D. (2017). Harnessing the Diaspora: Dual Citizenship, Migrant Return, and Remittances. Comparative Political Studies , 50 (1), 75–101.
• Lewis, A. W. (1954). Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labor. The Manchester School , 22 (2), 139–191.
• Lichter, D. T. (1983). Socioeconomic Returns to Migration among Married Women. Social Forces , 62 (2), 487–503.
• Light, I. , Bernard, R. B. , & Kim, R. (1999). Immigrant Incorporation in the Garment Industry of Los Angeles. International Migration Review , 33 (1), 5–25.
• Lokshin, M. , Bontch-Osmolovski, M. , & Glinskaya, E. (2010). Work-Related Migration and Poverty Reduction in Nepal. Review of Development Economics , 14 (2), 323–332.
• Massey, D. S. (1988). Economic Development and International Migration in Comparative Perspective. Population and Development Review , 14 (3), 383–413.
• Massey, D. S. (1990). Social Structure, Household Strategies, and the Cumulative Causation of Migration. Population Index , 56 (1), 3–26.
• Massey, D. S. , Arango, J. , Hugo, G. , Kouaouci, A. , Pellegrino, A. , & Taylor, J. E. (1993). Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal. Population and Development Review , 19 (3), 431–466.
• Massey, D. S. , & Garcia España, F. (1987). The Social Process of International Migration. Science , 237 (4816), 733–738.
• Mauro, P. (1998). Corruption and the Composition of Government Expenditure. Journal of Public Economics , 69 , 263–279.
• Menjivar, C. (2014). Immigration Law Beyond Borders: Externalizing and Internalizing Border Controls in an Era of Securitization. Annual Review of Law and Social Science , 10 , 353–369.
• Messina, A. M. (2007). The Logics and Politics of Post-WWII Migration to Western Europe . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Mincer, J. (1978). Family Migration Decisions. Journal of Political Economy , 86 (51), 749–773.
• Miller, M. K. , & Peters, M. E. (2018). Restraining the Huddled Masses: Migration Policy and Autocratic Survival . British Journal of Political Science .
• Mo, P. H. (2001). Corruption and Economic Growth. Journal of Comparative Economics , 29 , 66–79.
• Money, J. (1999). Fences and Neighbors: The Political Geography of Immigration Control . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Morrison, D. R. , & Lichter, D. T. (1988). Migration and Female Employment. Journal of Marriage and Family , 50 (1), 161–172.
• Natter, K. (2013). The Formation of Morocco’s Policy Towards Irregular Migration (2000–2007): Political Rationale and Policy Processes. International Migration , 52 (5), 15–28.
• Nikolova, M. , & Graham, C. (2015). Well-Being and Emigration Intentions: New Evidence from the Gallup World Poll. Unpublished manuscript.
• Nyblade, B. , & O’Mahony, A. (2014). Migrants Remittances and Home Country Elections: Cross-National and Subnational Evidence. Studies in Comparative International Development , 49 (1), 44–66.
• O’Mahony, A. (2012). Political Investment: Remittances and Elections. British Journal of Political Science , 43 (4), 799–820.
• Ortega, F. , & Peri, G. (2013). The Effect of Income and immigration Policies on International Migration. Migration Studies , 1 (1), 47–74.
• Otrachshenko, V. , & Popova, O. (2014). Life (Dis)satisfaction and the Intention to Migrate: Evidence from Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of Socio-Economics , 48 , 40–49.
• Papademetriou, D. , & Sumption, M. (2011). Rethinking Points Systems and Employer-Based Selected Immigration . Migration Policy Institute.
• Peters, M. (2017). Trading Barriers: Immigration and the Remaking of Globalization . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Poprawe, M. (2015). On the Relationship between Corruption and Migration: Evidence from a Gravity Model of Migration. Public Choice , 163 , 337–354.
• Portes, A. (Ed.). (1995). The Economic Sociology of Immigration . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Portes, A. , & Böröcz, J. (1989). Contemporary Immigration: Theoretical Perspectives on its Determinant and Modes of Incorporation. International Migration Review , 23 (3), 606–630.
• Rapoport, H. , & Docquier, F. (2006). The Economics of Migrants’ Remittances. In S.-C. Kolm & J. M. Ythier (Eds.), Handbook on the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity . New York: Elsevier-North Holland.
• Ratha, D. , & Shaw, W. (2007). South-South Migration and Remittances . World Bank WP 102.
• Rauch, J. E. , & Trindade, V. (2002). Ethnic Chinese Networks in International Trade. Review of Economics and Statistics , 84 (1), 116–130.
• Ravenstein, E. G. (1885). The Laws of Migration. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society of London , 48 (2), 167–235.
• Sassen, S. (1995). Immigration and Local Labour Markets. In A. Portes (Ed.), The Economic Sociology of Immigration . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Sassen, S. (1996). Losing Control? Sovereignty in the Age of Globalization . New York: Columbia University Press.
• Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in Human Capital. American Economic Review , 51 (1), 1–17.
• Severin, T. , & Martin, M. (2018). German Parties Edge Closer to Coalition with Migration Deal . Reuters, February 2.
• Sjaastad, L. A. (1962). The Costs and Returns of Human Migration. Journal of Political Economy , 70 (5), 80–93.
• Stark, O. (1984). Rural-To-Urban Migration in LDCs: A Relative Deprivation Approach. Economic Development and Cultural Change , 32 (3), 475–486.
• Stark, O. , & Bloom, D. E. (1985). The New Economics of Labor Migration. American Economic Review , 75 (2), 173–178.
• Stark, O. , & Levhari, D. (1982). On Migration and Risk in LDCs. Economic Development and Cultural Change , 31 (1), 191–196.
• Stark, O. , & Taylor, J. E. (1991). Migration Incentives, Migration Types: The Role of Relative Deprivation. The Economic Journal , 101 (408), 1163–1178.
• Stark, O. , & Yitzhaki, S. (1988). Migration as a Response to Relative Deprivation. Journal of Population Economics , 1 (1), 57–70.
• Taylor, J. E. (1999). The New Economics of Labour Migration and the Role of Remittances in the Migration Process. International Migration , 37 (1), 63–88.
• Todaro, M. P. (1969). A Model of Labor Migration and Urban Employment in Less Developed Countries. American Economic Review , 59 (1), 138–148.
• Tomaske, J. A. (1971). The Determinants of Intercountry Differences in European Emigration: 1881–1900. Journal of Economic History , 31 (4), 840–853.
• Transparency International . (2018). What is corruption
• United Kingdom Independence Party . (2015). UKIP Launches Immigration Policy .
• United Nations Population Division . (2012). Trends in Total Migrant Stock .
• United Nations Population Division . (2013). International Migration: Age and Sex Distribution. Population Facts, September.
• United States Citizenship and Immigration Services . (2018). H-1B Fiscal Year 2018 Cap Season .
• USA Today . (2014) (20 November). Full Text: Obama’s Immigration Speech .
• Vanderkamp, J. (1971). Migration Flows, Their Determinants and the Effects of Return Migration. Journal of Political Economy , 79 (5), 1012–1031.
• Vertovec, S. (2004). Migrant Transnationalism and Modes of Transformation. International Migration Review , 38 (3), 970–1001.
• Waldinger, R. (2008). Between “Here” and “There”: Immigrant Cross-Border Activities and Loyalties. International Migration Review , 42 (Spring), 3–29.
• Weidenbaum, M. , & Hughes, S. (1996). The Bamboo Network: How Expatriate Chinese Entrepreneurs are Creating a New Economic Superpower in Asia . New York: Martin Kessler Books.
• World Bank . (2016). Migration and Remittances Factbook 2016 . 3rd ed. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
• Yang, D. (2008). International Migration, Remittances, and Household Investment: Evidence from Philippine Migrants’ Exchange Rate Shocks. The Economic Journal , 118 (528), 591–630.
• Yang, D. , & Martinez, C. (2006). Remittances and Poverty in Migrants Home Areas: Evidence from the Philippines. In C. Ozden & M. Schiff (Eds.), International Migration, Remittances and the Brain Drain . Washington, DC: World Bank.
• Zaiceva, A. , & Zimmerman, K. (2014). Migration and the Demographic Shift. IZA Discussion Paper #8743 .
• Zelinsky, W. (1971). The Hypothesis of the Mobility Transition. Geographical Review , 61 (2), 219–249.

1. Our use of the term international labor migration follows academic and legal conventions; we use the term migration to refer to the voluntary movement of people across national borders, either in a temporary or permanent fashion. This excludes any discussion of refugees, asylum seekers, or any other groups that are forced to migrate.

2. We do not have space in this article to delve into the theoretical and empirical work unpacking the effect of demographic characteristics—age, gender, marital status, household size, and so forth on the migration decision and on subsequent flows of migrants. For comprehensive reviews, see Lichter ( 1983 ), Morrison and Lichter ( 1988 ); United Nations Population Division ( 2013 ); and Zaiceva and Zimmerman ( 2014 ).

3. Zelinsky ( 1971 ) originally identified this relationship and termed it mobility transition curve . A wealth of empirical work supports Zelinsky’s descriptive theory in a number of contexts (see Akerman, 1976 ; Gould, 1979 ; Hatton & Williamson, 1994 ; and Dao et al., 2016 ).

4. For a review of the arguments as well as some empirical tests, see Miller and Peters ( 2018 ) and Docquier, Lodigiani, Rapoport, and Schiff ( 2018 ).

5. Transparency International. “What is corruption?”

6. For example, former United Kingdom Independence Party leader Nigel Farage has called for the United Kingdom to adopt an immigration system that only allows in highly skilled migrants (“UKIP launches immigration policy”). In 2014, US President Barack Obama emphasized that he wanted to attract international students to American universities and that they “create jobs, businesses, and industries right here in America” (USA Today: “Full text: Obama’s immigration speech”). A key issue in Germany’s 2018 government formation was the creation of skill-based migration laws (Severin & Martin, 2018 ).

7. For a more comprehensive review, see Rapoport and Docquier ( 2006 ); and Adams ( 2011 ).

Related Articles

• Space, Mobility, and Legitimacy
• Immigration and Foreign Policy

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 29 July 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.147.128.134]
• 185.147.128.134

Character limit 500 /500

• Social Justice
• Environment
• Health & Happiness
• Get YES! Emails
• Teacher Resources

• Give A Gift Subscription
• Teaching Sustainability
• Teaching Social Justice
• Teaching Respect & Empathy
• Student Writing Lessons
• Visual Learning Lessons
• Tough Topics Discussion Guides
• About the YES! for Teachers Program
• Student Writing Contest

Follow YES! For Teachers

Eight brilliant student essays on immigration and unjust assumptions.

Read winning essays from our winter 2019 “Border (In)Security” student writing contest.

For the winter 2019 student writing competition, “Border (In)Security,” we invited students to read the YES! Magazine article “Two-Thirds of Americans Live in the “Constitution-Free Zone” by Lornet Turnbull and respond with an up-to-700-word essay. 

Students had a choice between two writing prompts for this contest on immigration policies at the border and in the “Constitution-free zone,” a 100-mile perimeter from land and sea borders where U.S. Border Patrol can search any vehicle, bus, or vessel without a warrant. They could state their positions on the impact of immigration policies on our country’s security and how we determine who is welcome to live here. Or they could write about a time when someone made an unfair assumption about them, just as Border Patrol agents have made warrantless searches of Greyhound passengers based simply on race and clothing.

The Winners

From the hundreds of essays written, these eight were chosen as winners. Be sure to read the author’s response to the essay winners and the literary gems that caught our eye.

Middle School Winner: Alessandra Serafini

High School Winner: Cain Trevino

High School Winner: Ethan Peter

University Winner: Daniel Fries

Powerful Voice Winner: Emma Hernandez-Sanchez

Powerful Voice Winner: Tiara Lewis

Powerful Voice Winner: Hailee Park

Powerful Voice Winner: Aminata Toure

From the Author Lornet Turnbull

Literary Gems

Middle school winner.

Alessandra Serafini

Brier Terrace Middle School, Brier, Wash.

Broken Promises

“…Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

These words were written by Emma Lazarus and are inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty. And yet, the very door they talk about is no longer available to those who need it the most. The door has been shut, chained, and guarded. It no longer shines like gold. Those seeking asylum are being turned away. Families are being split up; children are being stranded. The promise America made to those in need is broken.

Not only is the promise to asylum seekers broken, but the promises made to some 200 million people already residing within the U.S. are broken, too. Anyone within 100 miles of the United States border lives in the “Constitution-free zone” and can be searched with “reasonable suspicion,” a suspicion that is determined by Border Patrol officers. The zone encompasses major cities, such as Seattle and New York City, and it even covers entire states, such as Florida, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. I live in the Seattle area, and it is unsettling that I can be searched and interrogated without the usual warrant. In these areas, there has been an abuse of power; people have been unlawfully searched and interrogated because of assumed race or religion.

The ACLU obtained data from the Customs and Border Protection Agency that demonstrate this reprehensible profiling. The data found that “82 percent of foreign citizens stopped by agents in that state are Latino, and almost 1 in 3 of those processed are, in fact, U.S. citizens.” These warrantless searches impede the trust-building process and communication between the local population and law enforcement officers. Unfortunately, this lack of trust makes campaigns, such as Homeland Security’s “If You See Something, Say Something,” ineffective due to the actions of the department’s own members and officers. Worst of all, profiling ostracizes entire communities and makes them feel unsafe in their own country.

Ironically, asylum seekers come to America in search of safety. However, the thin veil of safety has been drawn back, and, behind it, our tarnished colors are visible. We need to welcome people in their darkest hours rather than destroy their last bit of hope by slamming the door in their faces. The immigration process is currently in shambles, and an effective process is essential for both those already in the country and those outside of it. Many asylum seekers are running from war, poverty, hunger, and death. Their countries’ instability has hijacked every aspect of their lives, made them vagabonds, and the possibility of death, a cruel and unforgiving death, is real. They see no future for their children, and they are desperate for the perceived promise of America—a promise of opportunity, freedom, and a safe future. An effective process would determine who actually needs help and then grant them passage into America. Why should everyone be turned away? My grandmother immigrated to America from Scotland in 1955. I exist because she had a chance that others are now being denied.

Emma Lazarus named Lady Liberty the “Mother of Exiles.” Why are we denying her the happiness of children? Because we cannot decide which ones? America has an inexplicable area where our constitution has been spurned and forgotten. Additionally, there is a rancorous movement to close our southern border because of a deep-rooted fear of immigrants and what they represent. For too many Americans, they represent the end of established power and white supremacy, which is their worst nightmare. In fact, immigrants do represent change—healthy change—with new ideas and new energy that will help make this country stronger. Governmental agreement on a humane security plan is critical to ensure that America reaches its full potential. We can help. We can help people in unimaginably terrifying situations, and that should be our America.

Alessandra Serafini plays on a national soccer team for Seattle United and is learning American Sign Language outside of school. Her goal is to spread awareness about issues such as climate change, poverty, and large-scale political conflict through writing and public speaking.

  High School Winner

Cain Trevino

North Side High School, Fort Worth, Texas

Xenophobia and the Constitution-Free Zone

In August of 2017, U.S. Border Patrol agents boarded a Greyhound bus that had just arrived at the White River Junction station from Boston. According to Danielle Bonadona, a Lebanon resident and a bus passenger, “They wouldn’t let us get off. They boarded the bus and told us they needed to see our IDs or papers.” Bonadona, a 29-year-old American citizen, said that the agents spent around 20 minutes on the bus and “only checked the IDs of people who had accents or were not white.” Bonadona said she was aware of the 100-mile rule, but the experience of being stopped and searched felt “pretty unconstitutional.”

In the YES! article “Two-Thirds of Americans Live in the ‘Constitution-Free Zone’” by Lornet Turnbull, the author references the ACLU’s argument that “the 100-mile zone violates Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.” However, the Supreme Court upholds the use of immigration checkpoints for inquiries on citizenship status. In my view, the ACLU makes a reasonable argument. The laws of the 100-mile zone are blurred, and, too often, officials give arbitrary reasons to conduct a search. Xenophobia and fear of immigrants burgeons in cities within these areas. People of color and those with accents or who are non-English speakers are profiled by law enforcement agencies that enforce anti-immigrant policies. The “Constitution-free zone” is portrayed as an effective barrier to secure our borders. However, this anti-immigrant zone does not make our country any safer. In fact, it does the opposite.

As a former student from the Houston area, I can tell you that the Constitution-free zone makes immigrants and citizens alike feel on edge. The Department of Homeland Security’s white SUVs patrol our streets. Even students feel the weight of anti-immigrant laws. Dennis Rivera Sarmiento, an undocumented student who attended Austin High School in Houston, was held by school police in February 2018 for a minor altercation and was handed over to county police. He was later picked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and held in a detention center. It is unfair that kids like Dennis face much harsher consequences for minor incidents than other students with citizenship.

These instances are a direct result of anti-immigrant laws. For example, the 287(g) program gives local and state police the authority to share individuals’ information with ICE after an arrest. This means that immigrants can be deported for committing misdemeanors as minor as running a red light. Other laws like Senate Bill 4, passed by the Texas Legislature, allow police to ask people about their immigration status after they are detained. These policies make immigrants and people of color feel like they’re always under surveillance and that, at any moment, they may be pulled over to be questioned and detained.

During Hurricane Harvey, the immigrant community was hesitant to go to the shelters because images of immigration authorities patrolling the area began to surface online. It made them feel like their own city was against them at a time when they needed them most. Constitution-free zones create communities of fear. For many immigrants, the danger of being questioned about immigration status prevents them from reporting crimes, even when they are the victim. Unreported crime only places more groups of people at risk and, overall, makes communities less safe.

In order to create a humane immigration process, citizens and non-citizens must hold policymakers accountable and get rid of discriminatory laws like 287(g) and Senate Bill 4. Abolishing the Constitution-free zone will also require pressure from the public and many organizations. For a more streamlined legal process, the League of United Latin American Citizens suggests background checks and a small application fee for incoming immigrants, as well as permanent resident status for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipients. Other organizations propose expanding the green card lottery and asylum for immigrants escaping the dangers of their home countries.

Immigrants who come to the U.S. are only looking for an opportunity to provide for their families and themselves; so, the question of deciding who gets inside the border and who doesn’t is the same as trying to prove some people are worth more than others. The narratives created by anti-immigrant media plant the false idea that immigrants bring nothing but crime and terrorism. Increased funding for the border and enforcing laws like 287(g) empower anti-immigrant groups to vilify immigrants and promote a witch hunt that targets innocent people. This hatred and xenophobia allow law enforcement to ask any person of color or non-native English speaker about their citizenship or to detain a teenager for a minor incident. Getting rid of the 100-mile zone means standing up for justice and freedom because nobody, regardless of citizenship, should have to live under laws created from fear and hatred.

Cain Trevino is a sophomore. Cain is proud of his Mexican and Salvadorian descent and is an advocate for the implementation of Ethnic Studies in Texas. He enjoys basketball, playing the violin, and studying c omputer science. Cain plans to pursue a career in engineering at Stanford University and later earn a PhD.  

High School Winner

Ethan Peter

Kirkwood High School, Kirkwood, Mo.

I’m an expert on bussing. For the past couple of months, I’ve been a busser at a pizza restaurant near my house. It may not be the most glamorous job, but it pays all right, and, I’ll admit, I’m in it for the money.

I arrive at 5 p.m. and inspect the restaurant to ensure it is in pristine condition for the 6 p.m. wave of guests. As customers come and go, I pick up their dirty dishes, wash off their tables, and reset them for the next guests. For the first hour of my shift, the work is fairly straightforward.

I met another expert on bussing while crossing the border in a church van two years ago. Our van arrived at the border checkpoint, and an agent stopped us. She read our passports, let us through, and moved on to her next vehicle. The Border Patrol agent’s job seemed fairly straightforward.

At the restaurant, 6 p.m. means a rush of customers. It’s the end of the workday, and these folks are hungry for our pizzas and salads. My job is no longer straightforward.

Throughout the frenzy, the TVs in the restaurant buzz about waves of people coming to the U.S. border. The peaceful ebb and flow enjoyed by Border agents is disrupted by intense surges of immigrants who seek to enter the U.S. Outside forces push immigrants to the United States: wars break out in the Middle East, gangs terrorize parts of Central and South America, and economic downturns force foreigners to look to the U.S., drawn by the promise of opportunity. Refugees and migrant caravans arrive, and suddenly, a Border Patrol agent’s job is no longer straightforward.

I turn from the TVs in anticipation of a crisis exploding inside the restaurant: crowds that arrive together will leave together. I’ve learned that when a table looks finished with their dishes, I need to proactively ask to take those dishes, otherwise, I will fall behind, and the tables won’t be ready for the next customers. The challenge is judging who is finished eating. I’m forced to read clues and use my discretion.

Interpreting clues is part of a Border Patrol agent’s job, too. Lornet Turnbull states, “For example, CBP data obtained by ACLU in Michigan shows that 82 percent of foreign citizens stopped by agents in that state are Latino, and almost 1 in 3 of those processed is, in fact, a U.S. citizen.” While I try to spot customers done with their meals so I can clear their part of the table, the Border Patrol officer uses clues to detect undocumented immigrants. We both sometimes guess incorrectly, but our intentions are to do our jobs to the best of our abilities.

These situations are uncomfortable. I certainly do not enjoy interrupting a conversation to get someone’s dishes, and I doubt Border Patrol agents enjoy interrogating someone about their immigration status. In both situations, the people we mistakenly ask lose time and are subjected to awkward and uncomfortable situations. However, here’s where the busser and the Border Patrol officer’s situations are different: If I make a mistake, the customer faces a minor inconvenience. The stakes for a Border Patrol agent are much higher. Mistakenly asking for documentation and searching someone can lead to embarrassment or fear—it can even be life-changing. Thus, Border Patrol agents must be fairly certain that someone’s immigration status is questionable before they begin their interrogation.

To avoid these situations altogether, the U.S. must make the path to citizenship for immigrants easier. This is particularly true for immigrants fleeing violence. Many people object to this by saying these immigrants will bring violence with them, but data does not support this view. In 1939, a ship of Jewish refugees from Germany was turned away from the U.S.—a decision viewed negatively through the lens of history. Today, many people advocate restricting immigration for refugees from violent countries; they refuse to learn the lessons from 1939. The sad thing is that many of these immigrants are seen as just as violent as the people they are fleeing. We should not confuse the oppressed with the oppressor.

My restaurant appreciates customers because they bring us money, just as we should appreciate immigrants because they bring us unique perspectives. Equally important, immigrants provide this country with a variety of expert ideas and cultures, which builds better human connections and strengthens our society.

Ethan Peter is a junior. Ethan writes for his school newspaper, The Kirkwood Call, and plays volleyball for his high school and a club team. He hopes to continue to grow as a writer in the future. 

University Winner

Daniel Fries

Lane Community College, Eugene, Ore.

Detained on the Road to Equality

The United States is a nation of immigrants. There are currently 43 million foreign-born people living in the U.S. Millions of them are naturalized American citizens, and 23 million, or 7.2 percent of the population, are living here without documentation (US Census, 2016). One in seven residents of the United States was not born here. Multiculturalism is, and always has been, a key part of the American experience. However, romantic notions of finding a better life in the United States for immigrants and refugees don’t reflect reality. In modern history, America is a country that systematically treats immigrants—documented or not—and non-white Americans in a way that is fundamentally different than what is considered right by the majority.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states,“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” When a suspected undocumented immigrant is detained, their basic human rights are violated. Warrantless raids on Greyhound buses within 100 miles of the border (an area referred to by some as the “Constitution-free zone”) are clear violations of human rights. These violations are not due to the current state of politics; they are the symptom of blatant racism in the United States and a system that denigrates and abuses people least able to defend themselves.

It is not surprising that some of the mechanisms that drive modern American racism are political in nature. Human beings are predisposed to dislike and distrust individuals that do not conform to the norms of their social group (Mountz, Allison). Some politicians appeal to this suspicion and wrongly attribute high crime rates to non-white immigrants. The truth is that immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans. In fact, people born in the United States are convicted of crimes at a rate twice that of undocumented non-natives (Cato Institute, 2018).

The majority of immigrants take high risks to seek a better life, giving them incentive to obey the laws of their new country. In many states, any contact with law enforcement may ultimately result in deportation and separation from family. While immigrants commit far fewer crimes, fear of violent crime by much of the U.S. population outweighs the truth. For some politicians, it is easier to sell a border wall to a scared population than it is to explain the need for reformed immigration policy. It’s easier to say that immigrants are taking people’s jobs than explain a changing global economy and its effect on employment. The only crime committed in this instance is discrimination.

Human rights are violated when an undocumented immigrant—or someone perceived as an undocumented immigrant—who has not committed a crime is detained on a Greyhound bus. When a United States citizen is detained on the same bus, constitutional rights are being violated. The fact that this happens every day and that we debate its morality makes it abundantly clear that racism is deeply ingrained in this country. Many Americans who have never experienced this type of oppression lack the capacity to understand its lasting effect. Most Americans don’t know what it’s like to be late to work because they were wrongfully detained, were pulled over by the police for the third time that month for no legal reason, or had to coordinate legal representation for their U.S. citizen grandmother because she was taken off a bus for being a suspected undocumented immigrant. This oppression is cruel and unnecessary.

America doesn’t need a wall to keep out undocumented immigrants; it needs to seriously address how to deal with immigration. It is possible to reform the current system in such a way that anyone can become a member of American society, instead of existing outside of it. If a person wants to live in the United States and agrees to follow its laws and pay its taxes, a path to citizenship should be available.

People come to the U.S. from all over the world for many reasons. Some have no other choice. There are ongoing humanitarian crises in Syria, Yemen, and South America that are responsible for the influx of immigrants and asylum seekers at our borders. If the United States wants to address the current situation, it must acknowledge the global factors affecting the immigrants at the center of this debate and make fact-informed decisions. There is a way to maintain the security of America while treating migrants and refugees compassionately, to let those who wish to contribute to our society do so, and to offer a hand up instead of building a wall.

Daniel Fries studies computer science. Daniel has served as a wildland firefighter in Oregon, California, and Alaska. He is passionate about science, nature, and the ways that technology contributes to making the world a better, more empathetic, and safer place.

Powerful Voice Winner

Emma Hernandez-Sanchez

Wellness, Business and Sports School, Woodburn, Ore.

An Emotion an Immigrant Knows Too Well

Before Donald Trump’s campaign, I was oblivious to my race and the idea of racism. As far as I knew, I was the same as everyone else. I didn’t stop to think about our different-colored skins. I lived in a house with a family and attended school five days a week just like everyone else. So, what made me different?

Seventh grade was a very stressful year—the year that race and racism made an appearance in my life. It was as if a cold splash of water woke me up and finally opened my eyes to what the world was saying. It was this year that Donald Trump started initiating change about who got the right to live in this country and who didn’t. There was a lot of talk about deportation, specifically for Mexicans, and it sparked commotion and fear in me.

I remember being afraid and nervous to go out. At home, the anxiety was there but always at the far back of my mind because I felt safe inside. My fear began as a small whisper, but every time I stepped out of my house, it got louder. I would have dreams about the deportation police coming to my school; when I went to places like the library, the park, the store, or the mall, I would pay attention to everyone and to my surroundings. In my head, I would always ask myself, “Did they give us nasty looks?,” “Why does it seem quieter?” “Was that a cop I just saw?” I would notice little things, like how there were only a few Mexicans out or how empty a store was. When my mom went grocery shopping, I would pray that she would be safe. I was born in America, and both my parents were legally documented. My mom was basically raised here. Still, I couldn’t help but feel nervous.

I knew I shouldn’t have been afraid, but with one look, agents could have automatically thought my family and I were undocumented. Even when the deportation police would figure out that we weren’t undocumented, they’d still figure out a way to deport us—at least that was what was going through my head. It got so bad that I didn’t even want to do the simplest things like go grocery shopping because there was a rumor that the week before a person was taken from Walmart.

I felt scared and nervous, and I wasn’t even undocumented. I can’t even imagine how people who are undocumented must have felt, how they feel. All I can think is that it’s probably ten times worse than what I was feeling. Always worrying about being deported and separated from your family must be hard. I was living in fear, and I didn’t even have it that bad. My heart goes out to families that get separated from each other. It’s because of those fears that I detest the “Constitution-free zone.”

Legally documented and undocumented people who live in the Constitution-free zone are in constant fear of being deported. People shouldn’t have to live this way. In fact, there have been arguments that the 100-mile zone violates the Fourth Amendment, which gives people the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld these practices.

One question that Lornet Turnbull asks in her YES! article “Two-Thirds of Americans Live in the ‘Constitution-Free Zone’” is, “How should we decide who is welcome in the U.S and who is not?” Instead of focusing on immigrants, how about we focus on the people who shoot up schools, rape girls, exploit women for human sex trafficking, and sell drugs? These are the people who make our country unsafe; they are the ones who shouldn’t be accepted. Even if they are citizens and have the legal right to live here, they still shouldn’t be included. If they are the ones making this country unsafe, then what gives them the right to live here?

I don’t think that the Constitution-free zone is an effective and justifiable way to make this country more “secure.” If someone isn’t causing any trouble in the United States and is just simply living their life, then they should be welcomed here. We shouldn’t have to live in fear that our rights will be taken away. I believe that it’s unfair for people to automatically think that it’s the Hispanics that make this country unsafe. Sure, get all the undocumented people out of the United States, but it’s not going to make this country any safer. It is a society that promotes violence that makes us unsafe, not a race.

Emma Hernandez-Sanchez is a freshman who is passionate about literature and her education. Emma wan ts to inspire others to be creative and try their best. She enjoys reading and creating stories that spark imagination. 

  Powerful Voice Winner

Tiara Lewis

Columbus City Preparatory Schools for Girls,

Columbus, Ohio

Hold Your Head High and Keep Those Fists Down

How would you feel if you walked into a store and salespeople were staring at you? Making you feel like you didn’t belong. Judging you. Assuming that you were going to take something, even though you might have $1,000 on you to spend. Sometimes it doesn’t matter. This is because people will always judge you. It might not be because of your race but for random reasons, like because your hair is black instead of dirty blonde. Or because your hair is short and not long. Or just because they are having a bad day. People will always find ways to bring you down and accuse you of something, but that doesn’t mean you have to go along with it.

Every time I entered a store, I would change my entire personality. I would change the way I talked and the way I walked. I always saw myself as needing to fit in. If a store was all pink, like the store Justice, I would act like a girly girl. If I was shopping in a darker store, like Hot Topic, I would hum to the heavy metal songs and act more goth. I had no idea that I was feeding into stereotypes.

When I was 11, I walked into Claire’s, a well-known store at the mall. That day was my sister’s birthday. Both of us were really happy and had money to spend. As soon as we walked into the store, two employees stared me and my sister down, giving us cold looks. When we went to the cashier to buy some earrings, we thought everything was fine. However, when we walked out of the store, there was a policeman and security guards waiting. At that moment, my sister and I looked at one another, and I said, in a scared little girl voice, “I wonder what happened? Why are they here?”

Then, they stopped us. We didn’t know what was going on. The same employee that cashed us out was screaming as her eyes got big, “What did you steal?” I was starting to get numb. Me and my sister looked at each other and told the truth: “We didn’t steal anything. You can check us.” They rudely ripped through our bags and caused a big scene. My heart was pounding like a drum. I felt violated and scared. Then, the policeman said, “Come with us. We need to call your parents.” While this was happening, the employees were talking to each other, smiling. We got checked again. The police said that they were going to check the cameras, but after they were done searching us, they realized that we didn’t do anything wrong and let us go about our day.

Walking in the mall was embarrassing—everybody staring, looking, and whispering as we left the security office. This made me feel like I did something wrong while knowing I didn’t. We went back to the store to get our shopping bags. The employees sneered, “Don’t you niggers ever come in this store again. You people always take stuff. This time you just got lucky.” Their faces were red and frightening. It was almost like they were in a scary 3D movie, screaming, and coming right at us. I felt hurt and disappointed that someone had the power within them to say something so harsh and wrong to another person. Those employees’ exact words will forever be engraved in my memory.

In the article, “Two-Thirds of Americans Live in the ‘Constitution-Free Zone’,” Lornet Turnbull states, “In January, they stopped a man in Indio, California, as he was boarding a Los Angeles-bound bus. While questioning this man about his immigration status, agents told him his ‘shoes looked suspicious,’ like those of someone who had recently crossed the border.” They literally judged him by his shoes. They had no proof of anything. If a man is judged by his shoes, who else and what else are being judged in the world?

In the novel  To Kill a Mockingbird , a character named Atticus states, “You just hold your head high and keep those fists down. No matter what anybody says to you, don’t you let’em get your goat. Try fighting with your head for a change.” No matter how much you might try to change yourself, your hairstyle, and your clothes, people will always make assumptions about you. However, you never need to change yourself to make a point or to feel like you fit in. Be yourself. Don’t let those stereotypes turn into facts.

Tiara Lewis is in the eighth grade. Tiara plays the clarinet and is trying to change the world— one essay at a time. She is most often found curled up on her bed, “Divergent” in one hand and a cream-filled doughnut in the other.

Hailee Park

 Wielding My Swords

If I were a swordsman, my weapons would be my identities. I would wield one sword in my left hand and another in my right. People expect me to use both fluently, but I’m not naturally ambidextrous. Even though I am a right-handed swordsman, wielding my dominant sword with ease, I must also carry a sword in my left, the heirloom of my family heritage. Although I try to live up to others’ expectations by using both swords, I may appear inexperienced while attempting to use my left. In some instances, my heirloom is mistaken for representing different families’ since the embellishments look similar.

Many assumptions are made about my heirloom sword based on its appearance, just as many assumptions are made about me based on my physical looks. “Are you Chinese?” When I respond with ‘no,’ they stare at me blankly in confusion. There is a multitude of Asian cultures in the United States, of which I am one. Despite what many others may assume, I am not Chinese; I am an American-born Korean.

“Then… are you Japanese?” Instead of asking a broader question, like “What is your ethnicity?,” they choose to ask a direct question. I reply that I am Korean. I like to think that this answers their question sufficiently; however, they think otherwise. Instead, I take this as their invitation to a duel.

They attack me with another question: “Are you from North Korea or South Korea?” I don’t know how to respond because I’m not from either of those countries; I was born in America. I respond with “South Korea,” where my parents are from because I assume that they’re asking me about my ethnicity. I’m not offended by this situation because I get asked these questions frequently. From this experience, I realize that people don’t know how to politely ask questions about identity to those unlike them. Instead of asking “What is your family’s ethnicity?,” many people use rude alternatives, such as “Where are you from?,” or “What language do you speak?”

When people ask these questions, they make assumptions based on someone’s appearance. In my case, people make inferences like:

“She must be really good at speaking Korean.”

“She’s Asian; therefore, she must be born in Asia.”

“She’s probably Chinese.”

These thoughts may appear in their heads because making assumptions is natural. However, there are instances when assumptions can be taken too far. Some U.S. Border Patrol agents in the “Constitution-free zone” have made similar assumptions based on skin color and clothing. For example, agents marked someone as an undocumented immigrant because “his shoes looked suspicious, like those of someone who had recently crossed the border.”

Another instance was when a Jamaican grandmother was forced off a bus when she was visiting her granddaughter. The impetus was her accent and the color of her skin. Government officials chose to act on their assumptions, even though they had no solid proof that the grandmother was an undocumented immigrant. These situations just touch the surface of the issue of racial injustice in America.

When someone makes unfair assumptions about me, they are pointing their sword and challenging me to a duel; I cannot refuse because I am already involved. It is not appropriate for anyone, including Border Patrol agents, to make unjustified assumptions or to act on those assumptions. Border Patrol agents have no right to confiscate the swords of the innocent solely based on their conjectures. The next time I’m faced with a situation where racially ignorant assumptions are made about me, I will refuse to surrender my sword, point it back at them, and triumphantly fight their ignorance with my cultural pride.

Hailee Park is an eighth grader who enjoys reading many genres. While reading, Hailee recognized the racial injustices against immigrants in America, which inspired her essay. Hailee plays violin in her school’s orchestra and listens to and composes music. 

Aminata Toure

East Harlem School, New York City, N.Y.

We Are Still Dreaming

As a young Muslim American woman, I have been labeled things I am not: a terrorist, oppressed, and an ISIS supporter. I have been accused of planning 9/11, an event that happened before I was born. Lately, in the media, Muslims have been portrayed as supporters of a malevolent cause, terrorizing others just because they do not have the same beliefs. I often scoff at news reports that portray Muslims in such a light, just as I scoff at all names I’ve been labeled. They are words that do not define me. 

In a land where labels have stripped immigrants of their personalities, they are now being stripped of something that makes them human: their rights. The situation described in Lornet Turnbull’s article, “Two-Thirds of Americans are Living in the ‘Constitution-Free Zone’,” goes directly against the Constitution, the soul of this country, something that asserts that we are all equal before the law. If immigrants do not have protection from the Constitution, is there any way to feel safe?

Although most insults are easy to shrug off, they are still threatening. I am ashamed when I feel afraid to go to the mosque. Friday is an extremely special day when we gather together to pray, but lately, I haven’t been going to the mosque for Jummah prayers. I have realized that I can never feel safe when in a large group of Muslims because of the widespread hatred of Muslims in the United States, commonly referred to as Islamophobia. Police surround our mosque, and there are posters warning us about dangerous people who might attack our place of worship because we have been identified as terrorists.

I wish I could tune out every news report that blasts out the headline “Terrorist Attack!” because I know that I will be judged based on the actions of someone else. Despite this anti-Muslim racism, what I have learned from these insults is that I am proud of my faith. I am a Muslim, but being Muslim doesn’t define me. I am a writer, a student, a dreamer, a friend, a New Yorker, a helper, and an American. I am unapologetically me, a Muslim, and so much more. I definitely think everyone should get to know a Muslim. They would see that some of us are also Harry Potter fans, not just people planning to bomb the White House.

Labels are unjustly placed on us because of the way we speak, the color of our skin, and what we believe in—not for who we are as individuals. Instead, we should all take more time to get to know one another. As Martin Luther King Jr. said in his “I Have a Dream” speech, we should be judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin. To me, it seems Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream is a dream that should be a reality. But, for now, we are dreaming.

Aminata Toure is a Guinean American Muslim student. Aminata loves spoken-word poetry and performs in front of hundreds of people at her school’s annual poetry slam. She loves writing, language, history, and West African food and culture. Aminata wants to work at the United Nations when she grows up.

From the Author 

Dear Alessandra, Cain, Daniel, Tiara, Emma, Hailee, Aminata and Ethan,

I am moved and inspired by the thought each of you put into your responses to my story about this so-called “Constitution-free zone.” Whether we realize it or not, immigration in this country impacts all of us— either because we are immigrants ourselves, have neighbors, friends, and family who are, or because we depend on immigrants for many aspects of our lives—from the food we put on our tables to the technology that bewitches us. It is true that immigrants enrich our society in so many important ways, as many of you point out.

And while the federal statute that permits U.S. Border Patrol officers to stop and search at will any of the 200 million of us in this 100-mile shadow border, immigrants have been their biggest targets. In your essays, you highlight how unjust the law is—nothing short of racial profiling. It is heartening to see each of you, in your own way, speaking out against the unfairness of this practice.

Alessandra, you are correct, the immigration system in this country is in shambles. You make a powerful argument about how profiling ostracizes entire communities and how the warrantless searches allowed by this statute impede trust-building between law enforcement and the people they are called on to serve.

And Cain, you point out how this 100-mile zone, along with other laws in the state of Texas where you attended school, make people feel like they’re “always under surveillance, and that, at any moment, you may be pulled over to be questioned and detained.” It seems unimaginable that people live their lives this way, yet millions in this country do.

You, Emma, for example, speak of living in a kind of silent fear since Donald Trump took office, even though you were born in this country and your parents are here legally. You are right, “We shouldn’t have to live in fear that our rights will be taken away.”

And Aminata, you write of being constantly judged and labeled because you’re a Muslim American. How unfortunate and sad that in a country that generations of people fled to search for religious freedom, you are ashamed at times to practice your own. The Constitution-free zone, you write, “goes directly against the Constitution, the soul of this country, something that asserts that we are all equal before the law.”

Tiara, I could personally relate to your gripping account of being racially profiled and humiliated in a store. You were appalled that the Greyhound passenger in California was targeted by Border Patrol because they claimed his shoes looked like those of someone who had walked across the border: “If a man is judged by his shoes,” you ask, “who else and what else are getting judged in the world?”

Hailee, you write about the incorrect assumptions people make about you, an American born of Korean descent, based solely on your appearance and compared it to the assumptions Border Patrol agents make about those they detain in this zone.

Daniel, you speak of the role of political fearmongering in immigration. It’s not new, but under the current administration, turning immigrants into boogiemen for political gain is currency. You write that “For some politicians, it is easier to sell a border wall to a scared population than it is to explain the need for reformed immigration policy.”

And Ethan, you recognize the contributions immigrants make to this country through the connections we all make with them and the strength they bring to our society.

Keep speaking your truth. Use your words and status to call out injustice wherever and whenever you see it. Untold numbers of people spoke out against this practice by Border Patrol and brought pressure on Greyhound to change. In December, the company began offering passengers written guidance—in both Spanish and English—so they understand what their rights are when officers board their bus. Small steps, yes, but progress nonetheless, brought about by people just like you, speaking up for those who sometimes lack a voice to speak up for themselves.

With sincere gratitude,

Lornet Turnbull

Lornet Turnbull is an editor for YES! and a Seattle-based freelance writer. Follow her on Twitter  @TurnbullL .

We received many outstanding essays for the Winter 2019 Student Writing Competition. Though not every participant can win the contest, we’d like to share some excerpts that caught our eye:

After my parents argued with the woman, they told me if you can fight with fists, you prove the other person’s point, but when you fight with the power of your words, you can have a much bigger impact. I also learned that I should never be ashamed of where I am from. —Fernando Flores, The East Harlem School, New York City, N.Y.

Just because we were born here and are privileged to the freedom of our country, we do not have the right to deprive others of a chance at success. —Avalyn Cox, Brier Terrace Middle School, Brier, Wash.

Maybe, rather than a wall, a better solution to our immigration problem would be a bridge. —Sean Dwyer, Lane Community College, Eugene, Ore.

If anything, what I’ve learned is that I don’t know what to do. I don’t know how to change our world. I don’t know how to make a difference, how to make my voice heard. But I have learned the importance of one word, a simple two-letter word that’s taught to the youngest of us, a word we all know but never recognize: the significance of ‘we.’ —Enna Chiu, Highland Park High School, Highland Park, N.J.

Not to say the Border Patrol should not have authorization to search people within the border, but I am saying it should be near the border, more like one mile, not 100. —Cooper Tarbuck, Maranacook Middle School, Manchester, Maine.

My caramel color, my feminism, my Spanish and English language, my Mexican culture, and my young Latina self gives me the confidence to believe in myself, but it can also teach others that making wrong assumptions about someone because of their skin color, identity, culture, looks or gender can make them look and be weaker. —Ana Hernandez, The East Harlem School, New York City, N.Y.

We don’t need to change who we are to fit these stereotypes like someone going on a diet to fit into a new pair of pants. —Kaylee Meyers, Brier Terrace Middle School, Brier, Wash.

If a human being with no criminal background whatsoever has trouble entering the country because of the way he or she dresses or speaks, border protection degenerates into arbitrariness. —Jonas Schumacher, Heidelberg University of Education, Heidelberg, Germany

I believe that you should be able to travel freely throughout your own country without the constant fear of needing to prove that you belong here . —MacKenzie Morgan, Lincoln Middle School, Ypsilanti, Mich.

America is known as “the Land of Opportunity,” but this label is quickly disappearing. If we keep stopping those striving for a better life, then what will become of this country? —Ennyn Chiu, Highland Park Middle School, Highland Park, N.J.

The fact that two-thirds of the people in the U.S. are living in an area called the “Constitution-free zone” is appalling. Our Constitution was made to protect our rights as citizens, no matter where we are in the country. These systems that we are using to “secure” our country are failing, and we need to find a way to change them. —Isis Liaw, Brier Terrace Middle School, Brier, Wash.

I won’t let anyone, especially a man, tell me what I can do, because I am a strong Latina. I will represent where I come from, and I am proud to be Mexican. I will show others that looks can be deceiving. I will show others that even the weakest animal, a beautiful butterfly, is tough, and it will cross any border, no matter how challenging the journey may be. —Brittany Leal, The East Harlem School, New York City, N.Y.

Get Stories of Solutions to Share with Your Classroom

Teachers save 50% on YES! Magazine.

Inspiration in Your Inbox

Get the free daily newsletter from YES! Magazine: Stories of people creating a better world to inspire you and your students.

Free Immigration Essay Examples & Topics

Immigration is a process that involves a temporary or permanent relocation of people from one country to another. It may occur due to various reasons: economic, political, cultural, social, etc.

A person who lives in a country other than that of their birth is called an immigrant . The only way to mitigate that status is to apply for and pass the citizenship test. Then, the person becomes naturalized.

Immigration is quite a complex issue. It has both positive and negative influences on societies and countries. For example, it affects international economics, national security, demographics, culture, and even religion. Thus, immigration is a phenomenon that offers a lot of aspects to explore.

You can write a paper on immigration for sociology, international relations, and many other subjects. Our IvyPanda team has prepared this article to help you find the right approach to this phenomenon. Also, you’ll find 13 topics and excellent immigration essay examples for you.

Immigration Essay: What Paper Type to Choose

Before writing a paper, you have to decide on its type if it wasn’t assigned. There are a lot of them, of course. Yet, not many are suitable for an immigration essay. Writing a narrative paper, for example, will be extremely difficult if you haven’t had a similar experience. Moreover, teachers usually expect research and analysis of existing facts and statistics. Thus, certain essay types are more suitable for your work than others.

Let’s see what essay types are suitable for papers on immigration:

A persuasive essay aims to convince its readers to accept the writer’s idea. For that, the author needs to collect strong arguments and reliable facts. The discourse surrounding immigration has been rampant in the past couple of decades. Therefore, it will be crucial to double-check the validity of the collected data. The goal is then to present that data to the audience so that they believe your position is the correct one. The key is to appeal to the sentiments of your readers and evoke an emotional response.

• Cause-and-Effect

The key aim of a cause-and-effect essay is to explore the relationship between two aspects. In other words, the writer is supposed to show how one event, person, or idea influences another. For this type of essay, you can show how immigration is correlated with other systems in a given country. Provide logical connections to the readers and explain your findings.

• Argumentative

It is crucial to distinguish this type of essay from a persuasive one. In both, you should present various arguments to convince your readers of your thesis statement. However, an argumentative approach does not appeal to the readers’ emotions. This is usually a five-paragraph essay with an introduction, a thesis statement, a body, and a conclusion. The largest part should consist of three paragraphs. They should include two supporting arguments and a counterargument. An argumentative essay works well with an issue such as immigration since you have to consider different points of view.

An expository essay is the most basic type of paper. Its purpose is to define the concept or explain the idea. If you want to remain neutral when exploring the issues of immigration, this is your best approach. The most significant aspect of an expository essay is clarification. Make sure that you explain your ideas as precisely as possible, so the readers can easily understand your thoughts.

Read immigration essays samples under the article as well. This way, you’ll see what formats other students prefer to choose for their assignments.

13 Immigration Essay Topics

As you can tell, the subject of immigration is very broad. Thus, it might be pretty challenging to develop a specific idea for an essay. There are several options for solving this problem. You can search for immigrant essay examples and topics online. Or you can try out our title generator that can automatically create a new idea for you.

Besides, you can check this list of topics:

• How does Amnesty International fight for the human rights of international migrants?
• The key causes and effects of illegal migration in Europe.
• The role of border patrol in catching undocumented workers and preventing them from illegal actions.
• Do second-generation immigrants have the same rights as native Americans?
• What benefits do immigrant scholarships provide for international migrants in the USA?
• Should the government give citizenship to immigrant children?
• Poverty as the main cause of migration from third-world countries.
• Immigration reform and control act of 1986: causes and effects for the USA.
• Life of an immigrant. What are the most common obstacles migrants are facing? What are the possible ways to overcome them?
• Human migration should be under the strict control of international affairs.
• What effects does global migration have on international political and economic performance?
• Immigration in America nowadays. What are the advantages and disadvantages of accepting migrants for the United States?
• What problems might the immigrants have while assimilating with the unknown culture?

For even more ideas, you can these immigration essay topics .

Thanks for your attention! We hope this article will help you in writing your paper. And don’t forget about our immigrant experience essay examples below. You can find a lot of insights in them.

546 Best Essay Examples on Immigration

Essay about immigration causes and effects.

• Words: 1076

Introduction to Human Migration

• Words: 2388

Immigration: Advantages and Disadvantages

• Words: 1236

“A Different Mirror” Analysis and Chapter 8 Summary

Factors that lead to migration.

• Words: 1107

Immigrants in “Mexicans in the Making of America” by Neil Foley

Forced migration, its causes and consequences, challenges faced by immigrants.

• Words: 1889

Two Ways to Belong in America

The ostrich: a metaphor for the immigrant experience in aboulela’s narrative.

• Words: 1169

Cultural Adaptation Plan: Comparing Canada and the Philippines

• Words: 1461

Amnesty Program Pros and Cons

Nostalgic feeling among asylee immigrants: the role of dance.

• Words: 1110

The Immigration Benefits

• Words: 1619

Operation Jump Start in Immigration Issues: Pros and Cons

The plight of african immigrants in america, call it sleep by henry roth review.

• Words: 2035

How Migration Affects Identity

• Words: 1497

Immigration in Enrique’s Journey by Sonia Nazario

• Words: 1108

Rural–Urban Migration and Youth in Bhutan

• Words: 2650

Comparing Sweden Immigration Policy with German Immigration Policy

• Words: 3121

Differences between Japanese and Chinese Immigrants’ Economic and Social Adaption in the US in the 19th Century

• Words: 1647

Life in the Kenya Refugee Camp

Los angeles (la’s) city, history of puerto rican immigration to new york.

• Words: 2116

Immigrants and Refugees Differences

• Words: 1279

The Border Crisis in the United States

Strategies for solving the issue of illegal immigration in the us, immigration and its impact on employment opportunities of local people, immigration from mexico to the united states, the chinese exclusion act, meritocracy and the american dream.

• Words: 1045

The Devil’s Highway by Luis Urrea

• Words: 1571

Travel and New Land: Immigration Experience

Ethnic surname change and earnings examination.

• Words: 1564

Human Migration Nowadays, Its Reasons and Effects

International migration trends.

• Words: 2730

Benefits of Migration to Modern Countries

• Words: 1697

Migration and National Security

• Words: 2262

The right to asylum or the right to sovereignty

• Words: 1174

Effects of illegal immigration on the economy of the United States and the measures that be taken to minimize the effect

• Words: 4533

Transnationalism and migration

• Words: 1665

Concept of the Green Card Lottery in America

The impact of immigration on the american society and culture, conflict perspective of the immigrants, immigration and the united states.

• Words: 1212

US Immigration in Late 19th Century

Immigration and refugee protection act for women.

• Words: 2096

Cultural Assimilation in America

Immigration and homeland security.

• Words: 2354

Live and Become Movie Analysis

Immigration nation: comparing trump’s and sander’s position.

• Words: 1234

Nigerian Immigrants to Italy: Cultural Integration

• Words: 2042

Immigration: The Key Adversities

Human relationships within the migration framework, australian social policy, migrants and refugees.

• Words: 2265

Immigration Policies in the United States

Racial issues and immigration policy in the us, the migration of sinti and roma in germany.

• Words: 3092

Attitudes Toward Newly Arrived Refugees

• Words: 3182

The “Living ‘Illegal'” Book by Marcelo Marquardt

• Words: 1659

The IDEAL Immigration Policy Advocacy

Immigration in the united states and canada in the post hart-cella act (1965) and canadian immigration (1976) act era.

• Words: 2842

Immigration in New York City and Its Effects

Critical thinking on the border crossings argument, support of the american dream act of 2001, the maya immigration to the united states, negative media portrayal of immigrants.

• Words: 2240

Migration, Labor, Segregation, Reparation

The immigration and refugee board of canada.

• Words: 1867

Discussion of Immigrants’ Future in Ohio

Immigrant assimilation in the united states.

• Words: 2308

Refugees, Migrants and Asylum-Seekers in Nevada

Newcomers’ and old-timers’ faultline in quebec, migration patterns: american immigration, the integration concept in the migration context.

• Words: 1120

The Harvest of the Empire: Immigration in the US

Immigration: the key challenges, the immigration crisis in texas.

• Words: 1126

Italian and Jewish Migrants’ Experiences in Australia

• Words: 1472

The 0 Visa: Immigration Case Study

Soledad castillo’s immigration to the usa, discussion of holocaust and immigration, “trends in italian emigration” by cometti, political and religious intolerance and resultant humanitarian crises.

• Words: 1460

Phenomenon of Immigration Analysis

• Words: 2095

Causes of Discrimination Towards Immigrants

• Words: 1391

Humanitarian Standards for Individuals in Customs

• Words: 1118

Is Educating Immigrant Students Too Expensive?

The irish emigration to america, immigration controversy in the united states, lobo family: the case of migration, substantial prejudice against immigrants, immigration in american economic history, title 42 and its effects on immigrants.

• Words: 2794

Abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Detention Centers

• Words: 1723

“Not Just (Any) Body Can Be a Citizen” by Alexander

Reaching the american dream from scratch.

• Words: 1121

Title 42 to Repel Migrants from the US

• Words: 1206

“The Morality of Migration” by Benhabib

Citizenship in vargas’ “my life as an undocumented immigrant”, globalization, immigration, and class division, the florence project: immigration, reservation lands as a protective social factor, alabama and california immigration policies.

• Words: 1392

Review of “Their Eyes Were Watching God” Book

• Words: 1340

Migration Issue: Cultural War

The comparison of different immigrant groups in the usa, waves of immigration: recognizing race and ethnicity.

• Words: 1389

The Challenges and Adapting Strategies of Immigrants in the USA

• Words: 1104

Immigration: Social Issue Feeling Analysis

The problem of immigration in the us.

• Words: 1227

International Migration: Evidence From Migrants in South Africa

Internal migration in laos and its key reasons.

• Words: 1681

Illegal Immigration Policies and Violent Crime

California: the majority-minority state, immigration: life chances and difficulties, resolving mexico’s immigration crisis, fear of immigrants and people of color in the us, immigration, cultural encounters, and cultural clashes.

• Words: 1648

Essay on Causes Of Immigration

Students are often asked to write an essay on Causes Of Immigration in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Causes Of Immigration

Searching for better jobs.

People move to new countries for jobs that pay more money. In some places, there are not enough jobs, so people go where they can find work. They want to earn enough to take care of their families and have a good life.

Running from Danger

Looking for education.

Education is a big reason for moving. In many countries, schools are better and offer more choices. Parents want their kids to learn and have more chances in life, so they move to these places.

Joining Family

Often, people move because their family members are in a different country. They want to be close to their loved ones, like parents, children, or spouses, so they immigrate to live together.

Chasing Adventure

Adventure and the wish to see new places can also cause immigration. Some people are curious and want to experience different cultures, food, and ways of life, so they move to new countries.

250 Words Essay on Causes Of Immigration

Why people move to new countries.

Immigration means moving from one country to another to live there. Many reasons push or pull people to make this big change. Let’s talk about some of these reasons in simple words.

Looking for Work

One big reason people move is for jobs. In some places, there aren’t enough jobs, and the jobs that are there don’t pay well. Other countries might have lots of jobs that pay more money. People go where the work is so they can earn a better living and take care of their families.

Running from Trouble

Sometimes, people leave their homes because it’s not safe. Wars, violence, or bad treatment by leaders can make living in their country scary. They move to find peace and safety.

Better Education and Health

Parents want the best for their kids. They might move to a country with better schools or where it’s easier to see a doctor. Good education and health care are like magnets that attract families to new places.

Often, people move to be with family members who already live in a new country. They want to be close to the ones they love.

Chasing Dreams

Moving countries is a big step. People do it for work, safety, education, family, or to chase their dreams. Each person has their own story, but these are some of the common threads that bring people to a new home.

500 Words Essay on Causes Of Immigration

People move from one country to another for many reasons. Immigration means leaving your home to live in a different place. Many people across the world decide to immigrate every day. Let’s talk about the main reasons why people choose to move to a new country.

Running Away from Trouble

Better education.

Education is another reason for moving. In some parts of the world, schools and universities are better and offer more chances to learn. Parents might move with their children so they can go to these schools. Or, older students might move by themselves to study and get degrees that could help them in their future.

Starting Fresh

In conclusion, people immigrate for many reasons. They might want a job, to escape danger, to learn, to be with family, or to start a new life. Every person who moves has their own story and reasons. Understanding why people immigrate can help us be kinder and more helpful to those who come to live in a new country. It’s important to remember that at some point, many of us have ancestors who also made the big decision to move to a new place.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser or activate Google Chrome Frame to improve your experience.

Thanks for signing up as a global citizen. In order to create your account we need you to provide your email address. You can check out our Privacy Policy to see how we safeguard and use the information you provide us with. If your Facebook account does not have an attached e-mail address, you'll need to add that before you can sign up.

This account has been deactivated.

Please contact us at [email protected] if you would like to re-activate your account.

NPS Photo by Michael Quinn

Here in the US, there’s been a lot of talk recently on immigration. The debate is raging over President Obama’s new series of executive actions that will grant up to 5 million undocumented immigrants protection from deportation. Naturally, this kind of boldness has created quite the ruckus, as his opponents insist he has gone too far. And outside of Washington DC, discussions over immigration are just as heated.

Freedom of speech is one of the most important aspects of our constitution, and lively discourse is the only way to arrive at a thoughtful conclusion. But, how can we talk about these types of issues if we don’t have the facts? For this reason, let’s take a look at some of the reasons why different groups of people choose to immigrate.

1.  To escape past or future persecution based on race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion

Za'atari refugee camp, Jordan | UNHCR/ Brian Sokol

In most countries, and in the United States, families and individuals who meet this criteria may obtain refugee status or asylum. Now, here’s the difference: refugees must secure their status prior to entering the country of choice, where as asylum seekers seek status upon arrival. A complex differentiation that causes a lot of confusion in the process to get people to safety.

2.  To escape conflict or violence

In many countries, but not the United States, families and individuals who immigrate to escape conflicts like war and violence can be considered for refugee status or asylum.

3.  To find refuge after being displaced due to environmental factors

Natural disasters, erosion, and other environmental factors caused by climate change are real threats that disproportionately affect people living in poverty. In fact, Christian Aid reports that 1 billion people could be displaced in the next 50 years as the effects of climate change worsen.

People who fit this description are dubbed climate “refugees,” but the name does not necessarily imply they have, or can receive, refugee status. As this is a newer phenomenon, many countries are still trying to determine how to respond to this growing issue.

4.  To seek superior healthcare

Imagine living in a country with limited access to healthcare when you’re suffering from serious health problems. Not fun.

5.  To escape poverty

Agriculture worker in Argentina picking strawberries | Nahuel Berger/ World Bank

Perhaps the most commonly assumed reason for immigration.  

6.  To offer more opportunities to children

Parents sometimes make the difficult decision to migrate so their children can benefit from things like superior education, and plentiful job opportunities.

7.  Family reunification

Self explanatory, I think? Mom and Dad, I miss you!!

8.  For educational purposes

Students from Merrimack College studying abroad in China | Merrimack College

Shout out to all of the adventurous students. Some study abroad  to seek out better educational opportunities than are available in their own countries, while others simply want the thrill of living in an exciting, new place.

9. For jobs and business opportunities

In some cases, people migrate with the knowledge or hope that more opportunities will be available to them in their particular field than at home. Others migrate after employment has already been offered to them.

10.  Marriage

In today’s globalized world, long-distance dating is all the rage. But, for couples ready to take the next step down the aisle, migrating to be together is the obvious choice (and a lot easier on the wallet.)

11.  Just ‘cus

At Global Citizen, our office is full of Aussies and people from far more interesting places than the US (it’s just my opinion.) Why they would abandon gorgeous beaches and cute little kangaroos is beyond me, but I’m sure they have their reasons.

As we think about immigration, and how best to approach it, let’s try and remember that we’re talking about real people. People who made a major decision to uproot their lives and start from scratch in a scary, new place. After all, isn’t making that human connection what being a Global Citizen is all about?

Christina Nuñez

Demand Equity

Why people migrate: 11 surprising reasons

Dec. 4, 2014

• Skip to main content
• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Study Today

Largest Compilation of Structured Essays and Exams

Essay on Immigration | Causes & Effects

December 4, 2017 by Study Mentor Leave a Comment

Table of Contents

What do you mean by immigration? 

Immigration refers to the movement in which people from one country move to another country for various reasons. They go to another country where they do not have the right to citizenship. This means that they are not the natives of that country.

They move to a new country so that they can settle there, become the citizens of that country, be a worker there and many other reasons. In the history we can see that even animals have moved to another place along with the humans on the early age.

The terms migration, immigration and emigration revolve around the same thing but have different meanings. There has been an increase in the count of people involved in immigration. US has been the destination of most immigrants. Mostly these immigrants have come from Europe or Asia.   

The factors which encourage immigration come under two categories. These two categories are known as push and pull factors. From the terms itself, it can be easily understood what they mean. The push factors mean the people are going away from their place to another because of these factors.

These factors may be like low wage, unemployment, illegal activities, oppression, no technology, improper facilities of life and many other factors. Due to factors like these people leave their country. While the pull factors are the ones which bring people towards them.

These countries may have more facilities than the people’s own country. The country might have advanced facilities and technology. Even though these factors may affect a person’s decision to move to another place, there may be many barriers which a person has to face while moving.

These can be legal and political problems which one has to face. Moreover, a person will take time to get habituated with the new place.  

Reasons responsible for immigration  

Immigration takes place because of the push and pull factors. They are the positive and negative factors respectively. Immigration has been taking place from the time human first came on this planet. During that time people used to migrate in search of food and new places.

After this they wanted better place like for example better lands for settlement and cultivation. After this they started to move to another place for better facilities of their life. In order to have a proper happy life they have been moving from one place to another.

Sometimes people even move to other places due to natural disasters. They may not feel safe because these natural disasters. That is why for their safety they shift to another place. Very often some of the countries face a lot of political and religious problems.

In order to be free from all these problems they decide to shift to another place. Mostly the young and middle adulthood are the ones who are the subject of immigration. They want to get better jobs, earning opportunities and good life. They move to such a place where they think their life will be stable and they will get all the facilities necessary for their life.   

How does immigration affect the society  and economy ?  

Immigration affects the society and economy. It has both positive and negative impacts. When the people move to another country, they are referred there as immigrants. The citizens of that country feel that these immigrants are a burden for them.

This is because these new people in their country can take away their job opportunities and other facilities. According to them these immigrants act as a threat to them. But due to immigration there is economic growth, existence of dynamic and variety society and also the skills for various types of work is met.

When people with enough skills move to another country, that particular country gets a benefit because of them. Due to the payment of the taxes by the immigrants, there is increase in the collection of taxes by the government for their country. The immigrants are always ready to pay these taxes to get many services benefits in return. There is an increase in the different workplace as well.

More people are there for a particular job. This helps to increase the production in a short period of time. The economic growth of the country will increase if there are more immigrants. But if that country has problems in its borders and there are problems for outsiders to enter that country, there will not be so much of economic growth there.

Moreover, the country from where these people are shifting incurs loss in all areas. There is a fall in the economic growth and workforce diversity as well. But when people from low productivity areas shift to the areas which have high productivity the overall impact is a positive one for both the countries.   

Most often the countries where these immigrants shift get all the benefits. When people who possess a lot of skills shift to another country, there is a variety in the production of goods in that country. This variety of production will satisfy the citizens of that country.

Moreover, people who have good education qualification and work experience get the best jobs of the country. But it does not mean that the other immigrants do not get jobs. Even they get jobs but that is according to their qualification and work experience.

When the immigrants start working in a new place, they are not paid in a high amount. As the different workplaces are not spending so much on labor for the various types of work, they start to reduce the price of the goods. This acts as a benefit for the consumers. But when people shift to another country because of easily accessible facilities, that country faces problems in providing services to the public.

The ability to give service and support the people of the country reduces. Moreover, when the society becomes heterogeneous because of immigrants there might be a variety of goods for the people. But this leads to a fall in the production of the public goods of that particular country.

But despite the advantages and disadvantages of immigration, people will not stop from moving to a new place. This is a continuous cycle. Every single day at least one person shifts to a new place. This process of immigration will not be stopping ever. No matter how many problems are there with immigration still this process will continue.   

What is the difference between immigration, emigration and migration? 

People often confuse what are immigration, emigration and migration. But there is more confusion between immigration and emigration. Both these words have a very similar meaning. This is the reason why people make mistakes while using these words. But before moving into immigration and emigration, it is important to know what migration is. Migration means to move from one place to another in order to settle there.

Migration is the bigger term to define immigration and emigration. Immigrate means a person is entering to a new country while emigrate means a person is leaving country. Immigration can also be referred as inward migration and emigration can be known as outward migration. In a simpler way to explain this, immigration means “in” and emigration means “out”.

A person can be called as immigrant and emigrant at the same time. This because when he leaves his country he will be called as an emigrant. But when he enters to a new country he will called as an immigrant. This means he is emigrant for the origin country and immigrant for the destination country. Even though these two terms have different meanings, the reasons due to which these takes place are the same.

But people who are entering into a new country have to face more problems because of the rules of the new country. It is not at all easy for a person to shift to a new place. The most common problem is the language. It will be very difficult for a person to reside at a place whose language one does not know.

They will not be able to converse with the people around them. Social interaction will be very less. Knowing the language of the new country is very important because it will be helpful to get a job in that place. No matter how advanced the place is, any person will take time to get habituated to that new place.

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Top Trending Essays in March 2021

• Essay on Pollution
• Essay on my School
• Summer Season
• My favourite teacher
• World heritage day quotes
• my family speech
• importance of trees essay
• autobiography of a pen
• honesty is the best policy essay
• essay on building a great india
• my favourite book essay
• essay on caa
• my favourite player
• autobiography of a river
• farewell speech for class 10 by class 9
• essay my favourite teacher 200 words
• internet influence on kids essay
• my favourite cartoon character

Brilliantly

Content & links.

Verified by Sur.ly

Essay for Students

• Essay for Class 1 to 5 Students

Scholarships for Students

• Class 1 Students Scholarship
• Class 2 Students Scholarship
• Class 3 Students Scholarship
• Class 4 Students Scholarship
• Class 5 students Scholarship
• Class 6 Students Scholarship
• Class 7 students Scholarship
• Class 8 Students Scholarship
• Class 9 Students Scholarship
• Class 10 Students Scholarship
• Class 11 Students Scholarship
• Class 12 Students Scholarship

STAY CONNECTED

• About Study Today
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions

Scholarships

• Apj Abdul Kalam Scholarship
• Ashirwad Scholarship
• Bihar Scholarship
• Canara Bank Scholarship
• Colgate Scholarship
• Dr Ambedkar Scholarship
• E District Scholarship
• Epass Karnataka Scholarship
• Fair And Lovely Scholarship
• Floridas John Mckay Scholarship
• Inspire Scholarship
• Jio Scholarship
• Karnataka Minority Scholarship
• Lic Scholarship
• Maulana Azad Scholarship
• Medhavi Scholarship
• Minority Scholarship
• Moma Scholarship
• Mp Scholarship
• Muslim Minority Scholarship
• Nsp Scholarship
• Oasis Scholarship
• Obc Scholarship
• Odisha Scholarship
• Pfms Scholarship
• Post Matric Scholarship
• Pre Matric Scholarship
• Prerana Scholarship
• Prime Minister Scholarship
• Rajasthan Scholarship
• Santoor Scholarship
• Sitaram Jindal Scholarship
• Ssp Scholarship
• Swami Vivekananda Scholarship
• Ts Epass Scholarship
• Up Scholarship
• Vidhyasaarathi Scholarship
• Wbmdfc Scholarship
• West Bengal Minority Scholarship
• Click Here Now!!

Mobile Number

Have you Burn Crackers this Diwali ? Yes No

The imperative to address the root causes of migration from Central America

Subscribe to this week in foreign policy, charles t. call charles t. call former brookings expert.

January 29, 2021

This piece is part of a series titled “ Nonstate armed actors and illicit economies: What the Biden administration needs to know ,” from Brookings’s  Initiative on Nonstate Armed Actors .

The Biden administration kicks off with a range of interests to address in the Northern Triangle of Central America — democracy, human rights, trade and investment, and stemming drug trafficking. However, immigration remains its priority. In contrast to the Trump administration’s focus on stopping the immediate flows across the border, the incoming administration has committed to boost spending to $4 billion to address the underlying causes of immigration in Central America.

Those root causes have only worsened in the past few years, thanks largely to nefarious nonstate actors and corrupt and exclusionary states. Economic problems, ongoing violence, worsening corruption, and challenges to democracy have been aggravated by the devastating impact of the coronavirus. In December, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) projected that Central America’s economies will have shrunk 6% in 2020, with a short-lived drop in remittances last spring and ongoing declines in tourism. Although all three governments of the Northern Triangle — Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador — borrowed heavily to extend massive support packages, especially to the poorest sectors, it may take years to recover from virus’ economic consequences. One key problem is that none of the three governments represent an optimal partner for advancing U.S. interests.

Honduras is the most serious challenge. Already the poorest country of mainland Latin America, Hurricanes Eta and Iota displaced over 100,000 people, many of whose houses were destroyed, and wrought significant agricultural destruction. Despite having experienced some growth in the past few years, its deep inequality, poverty, and corruption long predate the 2020 hurricanes. With a poverty rate of 48% and a middle class of only 11% in 2015 (much lower than the 35% regional average), it is no surprise that Honduras became the largest source of migrants to the U.S. in the past few years. In the same week that Joe Biden was inaugurated, Guatemalan and Mexican authorities used force to stop a caravan of an estimated 7,500 people , mainly Hondurans, from advancing north through their countries.

Honduras is also emblematic of the problem of providing large amounts of aid. The entire political system is infused with corruption, as is the judicial system, and politicians keep voting to give themselves new immunities. After an Organization of American States (OAS) anti-corruption mission was terminated last year when the government wanted to gut its investigative authorities, the courts have dismissed many of the charges in key cases. The epitome of malfeasance is sitting President Juan O. Hernández, who has been named in New York’s federal court as a co-conspirator of the notorious drug trafficker “El Chapo.” And one opposition party seems bent on nominating a presidential candidate for the November elections who was released in 2020 from a U.S. prison after serving a three-year term for money laundering.

In Guatemala, the presence of violent gangs and drug trafficking organizations persists, as does impunity, as courts continue to release people indicted in high-profile corruption cases. The country, which suffered a 2% economic decline in 2020, is experiencing political turmoil under President Alejandro Giammattei, a conservative just completing his first year in office. Here too, poverty and inequality afflict the population, especially indigenous communities. A corrupt political class has re-exerted itself after shutting down a U.N.-backed anti-impunity commission that had in 12 years indicted over 400 politicians, businesspeople, and ex-military officers implicated in illicit networks. Backers of that commission became afraid to speak out against corruption, and judges known for courageous decisions received death threats. The backlash against the successful international body illustrated the entrenched power of elites and the challenges to fostering accountability.

Related Books

Vanda Felbab-Brown, Harold Trinkunas, Shadi Hamid

November 28, 2017

Ted Piccone

February 23, 2016

Popular dissatisfaction erupted this past November. Thousands of people streamed into the streets outraged that, in the aftermath of the damaging two hurricanes, the national congress increased its own members’ expense accounts while cutting budgets for COVID-19 patients, nutrition programs, human rights offices, and the judiciary. Protesters broke into the historic national palace, starting a fire and prompting the congress to backtrack on the budget changes. The vice president unsuccessfully called on the president to resign, but the crisis halted the momentum of the “Pact of the Corrupt” group in congress. On top of this, femicides continue to plague all three countries, Guatemala most prominently.

El Salvador

El Salvador presents a slightly different challenge. The country has less presence of drug trafficking but a more serious problem of gang power over many neighborhoods and towns. A populist 37-year-old, Nayib Bukele, was elected president in 2019 running against the two dominant political parties he branded as corrupt and incompetent.

Early on, Bukele adopted a harsh approach to COVID-19, using the army and police against people breaking curfew to confine them in quarantine centers. His efforts were boosted by MS-13 members who wielded baseball bats and threats to enforce the curfew that banned most everyone from circulating. Even as these notorious gangs exerted their power, their violence diminished under Bukele. El Salvador’s homicide rate — the highest in the world in 2015 — dropped dramatically, and in the first five months of 2020 dropped an additional 61% from 2019, on track to be the lowest number of homicides in the country since the 1992 peace accords ended civil war. Speculation that the president had cut a deal with the gang leaders to refrain from killings gained support when documents of such a deal surfaced last September.

Bukele belittled the reporting in a manner consistent with the most troubling turn of his presidency — a decided shift toward authoritarianism. Since assuming office, he has berated journalists and human rights defenders, questioning their commitment to democracy and putting them in jeopardy. He has ridiculed the Supreme Court and defied its decisions. Yet his approval ratings have, remarkably, never dipped below 89% . His supporters routinely join Bukele in using social media to attack anyone who questions him. His party is likely to win legislative elections in February and initiate constitutional changes to extend and bolster his power. Last February, Bukele’s frustration with the legislative assembly led him to order army troops into their chamber, something unprecedented in modern times. Finally, his government has now been implicated in the very corrupt behavior he campaigned against.

Recommendations for U.S. policy

President Biden understands the challenges of Central America. As vice president, he was the Obama administration’s point-man in advancing the $750 million Alliance for Prosperity strategy in 2014 to dissuade unaccompanied minors from fleeing their home countries. That plan helped reduce migration in the short term but failed to have a lasting impact on poor and corrupt governance. A recent Wilson Center review of U.S. assistance to the Northern Triangle from 2014-19 found that successes were limited to well-planned, community-focused security initiatives where multiple sectors (mayors, national authorities, the private sector, churches, nongovernmental organizations) worked together. Nor did it transform economies or stem violence adequately to create labor markets necessary to create sustainable livelihoods.

It is unrealistic to expect that even a well-managed $4 billion investment would transform the economies of the region sufficiently to stem incentives to migrate within a few years. However, these could have an impact on the territorial control of gangs, their extortion and violence, on the judiciary, and on the rule of law. It could also lay the groundwork for subsequent economic transformation.

The most important challenges will not be solved by huge amounts of money. Those are corruption and poor governance.

But the most important challenges will not be solved by huge amounts of money. Those are corruption and poor governance. This was the key finding of the Wilson Center review. The $2.6 billion spent then had some positive effects, but only minimally addressed the targeted problems. Much of the aid was diverted by corrupt officials, went to the pockets of U.S. contractors, or led to little reform because “technical” approaches failed to tackle decades-old political problems.

The Biden administration has emphasized the rule of law and corruption, but it will need to use serious carrots and sticks and prioritize these efforts over others if the $4 billion package from the U.S. is to have a significant effect on average people. Poor governance is what underlies violence, impunity, insecurity, and lack of economic investment. And all the region’s governments either abet or embody corruption.

The United States and other countries largely failed to tackle corruption when pouring billions of dollars into places like Afghanistan and Iraq. However, the U.N.-backed International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala enjoyed remarkable success in its time, due largely to its international experts and investigative mandate. Unfortunately, conditions are not ripe for resurrecting it.

However, a regional commission could be worth instigating if the Biden administration can team with civil society organizations of the region in association with a multilateral political or finance entity like the OAS or the Inter-American Development Bank. Such a regional commission would likely face resistance from the region’s heads of state, but might yet be workable, especially if international financial institutions bring their leverage to ensure billions of dollars aren’t squandered. One alternative to an official commission is a regional non-governmental commission to help investigate malfeasance in support of the region’s attorneys general, similar to the successful work of Honduras’ National Anti-Corruption Council.

Ultimately, the Biden administration’s aspirations will confront more difficult conditions in its efforts to resolve the region’s violence, corruption and impunity than did the Obama administration. It will require more than the usual diplomatic niceties and aid programs to foster sustained improvement in governance and prosperity.

Related Content

Sarah Bermeo

June 26, 2018

Patrick W. Quirk, Lauren Mooney

January 15, 2021

Vanda Felbab-Brown

Central America

Foreign Policy

Central America Latin America & the Caribbean

Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology

Initiative on Nonstate Armed Actors

Charles T. Call

December 3, 2021

Abraham F. Lowenthal

August 3, 2014

Abraham F. Lowenthal, Ted Piccone, Daniel Vaughan-Whitehead Strobe Talbott

March 17, 2009

• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• Pennsylvania
• West Virginia
• Online hoaxes
• Coronavirus
• Health Care
• Immigration
• Environment
• Foreign Policy
• Kamala Harris
• Donald Trump
• Mitch McConnell
• Hakeem Jeffries
• Ron DeSantis
• Tucker Carlson
• Sean Hannity
• Rachel Maddow
• PolitiFact Videos
• 2024 Elections
• Mostly True
• Mostly False
• Pants on Fire
• Biden Promise Tracker
• Trump-O-Meter
• Latest Promises
• Our Process
• Who pays for PolitiFact?
• Advertise with Us
• Suggest a Fact-check
• Corrections and Updates
• Newsletters

Stand up for the facts!

Our only agenda is to publish the truth so you can be an informed participant in democracy. We need your help.

I would like to contribute

• Border Security
• Republican National Committee

Vice President Kamala Harris waves as she boards Air Force Two after a campaign event July 23, 2024, in Milwaukee. (AP)

'Border czar'? Kamala Harris assigned to tackle immigration's causes, not border security

If your time is short.

In March 2021, President Joe Biden tasked Vice President Kamala Harris with working alongside officials in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras to address the issues driving people to leave those countries and come to the United States.

The Biden-Harris administration said it would focus on five key issues: economic insecurity, corruption, human rights, criminal gang violence and gender-based violence.

Border security and management is the Homeland Security secretary’s responsibility.

Vice President Kamala Harris might soon get a new official title: 2024 Democratic presidential nominee. In the meantime, Republicans have revived a title they gave her in 2021: "border czar." 

Claims that President Joe Biden named Harris the "border czar" and that she is responsible for overseeing U.S. border enforcement gained prominence at the Republican National Convention as the party sought to link her to his immigration policy. 

The refrain intensified once Biden dropped out of the race and endorsed Harris. It was echoed in ads and by Trump campaign surrogates, including Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance , the Republican vice presidential nominee.

"Here’s Biden appointing Kamala Harris to be his border czar to deal with illegal immigration," a narrator says in a video the Republican National Committee posted on its X account, @GOP. "And here are a record number of illegal immigrants — 10 million and counting — flooding over the border after Harris was put in charge of stopping illegal immigration."

We’ve repeatedly fact-checked claims about the number of people entering the U.S. illegally under Biden. The federal data tracks how many times officials encountered a person trying to cross the southern border, but it doesn’t reflect the number of people let in. And if one person tries to cross the border multiple times, that counts as multiple encounters, even if it’s the same person. 

For this fact-check, we’re focused on the scope of Harris’ border responsibilities. 

"Border Czar Kamala Harris' reversal of President Trump's immigration policies has created an unprecedented and illegal immigration, humanitarian and national security crisis on our southern border," Trump campaign National Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told PolitiFact in a statement. 

But Biden didn’t put Harris in charge of overseeing border security.

In a meeting with Harris in March 2021 , Biden said Harris would lead U.S. diplomatic efforts and work with officials in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras to stem migration to the U.S. Biden said that when he was vice president, he "got a similar assignment" and that the Obama administration secured $700 million to help countries in Central America.

"One of the ways we learned is that if you deal with the problems in country, it benefits everyone. It benefits us, it benefits the people, and it grows the economies there," Biden said then.

Biden asked Harris "to be the chief diplomatic officer with Central American countries" and address the root causes that make people leave their home countries, said Michelle Mittelstadt, communications director for the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. 

Managing the border "has always been" the Homeland Security secretary’s role, Mittelstadt said.

Biden tasked Harris with addressing the root causes influencing people’s decisions to migrate to the United States.

"I’ve asked her … to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help — are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border," Biden said in March 2021.

Biden held a similar role as vice president to former President Barack Obama. In a 2015 New York Times opinion piece, Biden said he would work with the Northern Triangle’s leaders on security, anti-corruption and investment efforts in the region.

"Donald Trump’s administration didn’t really sustain this strategy, but what Harris sought to revive in 2021 ran along the same lines," said Adam Isacson, defense oversight director at Washington Office on Latin America, a group advocating for human rights in the Americas. 

Within weeks of Biden’s remarks about Harris’ role, Republicans including Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., began calling Harris the " border czar " often in tandem with pointing out she had not yet been to the border.

In April 2021, when a reporter asked Harris whether she would visit the border, she said that her role is addressing the factors that make people leave their home countries, not managing the border.

Featured Fact-check

"The president has asked (Homeland Security) Secretary (Alejandro) Mayorkas to address what is going on at the border. And he has been working very hard at that, and it’s showing some progress because of his hard work," Harris said at an event . "I have been asked to lead the issue of dealing with root causes in the Northern Triangle, similar to what the then-vice president did many years ago."

Harris said she’d focus on economic struggles, violence, corruption and food insecurity in the countries. 

In June 2021, Harris visited El Paso, Texas, with Mayorkas. They outlined their responsibilities to reporters. Harris said she was addressing "the root causes of migration, predominantly out of Central America," and Mayorkas said, "It is my responsibility as the Secretary of Homeland Security to address the security and management of our border."

But this distinction didn’t stop critics from linking Harris with U.S.-Mexico border security. 

"The administration’s messaging on this in mid-2021 was not as clear as it should have been," Isacson said. "But at no time did Harris or the White House state that her duties included the U.S.-Mexico border, or border security."

Immigration experts said it’s hard to measure Harris’ success in her role, and that a "root causes" approach implies that the results will be seen long term, not immediately.

In July 2021, the administration published a strategy , with Harris writing the lead message, for confronting the factors that drive migration in Central America. The plan focused on economic insecurity, corruption, human rights, criminal gang violence and gender-based violence.

In March 2024, the administration said it secured more than $5.2 billion in private sector investments to the region. However, only about $1 billion has been distributed, the Partnership for Central America, a group working with the administration, reported .

The White House said the investments have generated more than 70,000 new jobs in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, provided job training to 1 million people and expanded digital access to 4.5 million people. 

"Still, her engagement on this issue has been sporadic," Isacson said. "She has not traveled very often to the region or otherwise sought to make ‘root causes in Central America’ a central theme of her vice presidency."

Illegal immigration at the U.S. southern border from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador has dropped since 2021. Encounters with people from other countries, Venezuela, have risen . 

"But it’s hard to prove that U.S. assistance is a central reason" for the Northern Triangle countries’ decline, Isacson said.

The issues pushing people to leave Central American countries "are extremely complex and require deep restructuring of so much in those societies," said Cecilia Menjivar, a sociology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles who specializes on immigration. "So it’s very difficult for one person to change all that, even if it is a powerful person."

Immigration patterns at the U.S.-Mexico border have more to do with conditions in Latin American countries than "any U.S. policy," Mittelstadt said. 

For example, a humanitarian crisis in Venezuela has displaced nearly 8 million people since 2014, according to the United Nations. Political, economic and security crises in Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and Ecuador have also led to more migration from these countries, Mittelstadt said. 

In contrast, immigration encounters with people from El Salvador have dropped in past years, partly because of the country’s crime crackdown .

The Republican National Committee said Biden appointed Harris "to be his border czar to deal with illegal immigration...Harris was put in charge of stopping illegal immigration."

Biden tasked Harris with addressing the root causes that drive migration to the United States. He did not task her with controlling who and how many people enter the southern U.S. border. That's the Homeland Security secretary’s responsibility.

Experts say that seeing the results of addressing root causes driving people out of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras  — violence, economic insecurity and corruption — takes time.

The statement contains an element of truth, but it ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.

Read About Our Process

The Principles of the Truth-O-Meter

Our Sources

Truth Social, post , July 22, 2024

The Hill, House Republicans tee up vote condemning Harris as ‘border czar’ , July 23, 2024

C-SPAN, Sen. J.D. Vance campaign rally in Radford, Virginia , July 22, 2024

GOP, post on X , July 21, 2024

PolitiFact, Francis Suarez’s misleading claim about millions of migrants getting free cellphones, plane tickets , July 28, 2024

PolitiFact, There aren’t 20 million to 30 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally, as Sen. Marco Rubio claimed , June 11, 2024

The White House, Remarks by President Biden and Vice President Harris in a meeting on immigration , March 24, 2021

PolitiFact, Central America and the root causes of migration to the US , June 7, 2021

The New York Times, Joe Biden: A Plan for Central America , Jan. 29, 2015

The White House, Remarks by Vice President Harris at virtual roundtable of experts on the Northern Triangle , April 14, 2021

The White House, Remarks by Vice President Harris, Secretary of Homeland Security Mayorkas, Chairman Durbin, and Representative Escobar in press gaggle , June 25, 2021

Fox News, Obama-era DHS secretary: 'There's a real problem' when you have 'bipartisan outrage' , July 23, 2024

The White House, FACT SHEET: Strategy to address the root causes of migration in Central America , July 29, 2021

The White House, FACT SHEET: Vice President Harris announces public-private partnership has generated more than $5.2 billion in private sector commitments for Northern Central America , March 25, 2024

Migration Policy Institute, Shifting patterns and policies reshape migration to U.S.-Mexico border in major ways in 2023 , October 2023

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Venezuela crisis explained , April 17, 2024

PolitiFact, Donald Trump fact-check: 2024 RNC speech in Milwaukee full of falsehoods about immigrants, economy , July 19, 2024

CBS News, The facts about Kamala Harris' role on immigration in the Biden administration , July 23, 2024

Email interview, Michelle Mittelstadt, communications director for the Migration Policy Institute, July 22, 2024

Email interview, Adam Isacson, defense oversight director at Washington Office on Latin America, July 22, 2024

Email interview, Henry Ziemer, research associate for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, July 22, 2024

Email interview, Cecilia Menjivar, sociology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, July 22, 2024

Statement, Karoline Leavitt,  Trump campaign national press secretary, July 23, 2024

Browse the Truth-O-Meter

More by maria ramirez uribe.

'Border czar'? Kamala Harris assigned to tackle immigration's causes, not border security

Support independent fact-checking. Become a member!

Programs submenu

Regions submenu, topics submenu, what does infant formula have to do with national security, postponed: book event - passcode to the third floor: an insider's account of life among north korea's political elite, gaza’s water crisis—what can be done, countering china in the gray zone: lessons from taiwan.

• Abshire-Inamori Leadership Academy
• Aerospace Security Project
• Africa Program
• Americas Program
• Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy
• Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative
• Asia Program
• Australia Chair
• Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy
• Brzezinski Institute on Geostrategy
• Chair in U.S.-India Policy Studies
• China Power Project
• Chinese Business and Economics
• Defending Democratic Institutions
• Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group
• Defense 360
• Defense Budget Analysis
• Diversity and Leadership in International Affairs Project
• Economics Program
• Emeritus Chair in Strategy
• Energy Security and Climate Change Program
• Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program
• Freeman Chair in China Studies
• Futures Lab
• Geoeconomic Council of Advisers
• Global Food and Water Security Program
• Global Health Policy Center
• Hess Center for New Frontiers
• Human Rights Initiative
• Humanitarian Agenda
• Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program
• International Security Program
• Japan Chair
• Kissinger Chair
• Korea Chair
• Langone Chair in American Leadership
• Middle East Program
• Missile Defense Project
• Project on Critical Minerals Security
• Project on Fragility and Mobility
• Project on Nuclear Issues
• Project on Prosperity and Development
• Project on Trade and Technology
• Renewing American Innovation Project
• Scholl Chair in International Business
• Smart Women, Smart Power
• Southeast Asia Program
• Stephenson Ocean Security Project
• Strategic Technologies Program
• Sustainable Development and Resilience Initiative
• Wadhwani Center for AI and Advanced Technologies
• Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program
• All Regions
• Australia, New Zealand & Pacific
• Middle East
• Russia and Eurasia
• American Innovation
• Civic Education
• Climate Change
• Cybersecurity
• Defense Budget and Acquisition
• Defense and Security
• Energy and Sustainability
• Food Security
• Gender and International Security
• Geopolitics
• Global Health
• Human Rights
• Humanitarian Assistance
• Intelligence
• International Development
• Maritime Issues and Oceans
• Missile Defense
• Nuclear Issues
• Transnational Threats
• Water Security

The Biden-Harris Strategy on the Root Causes of Migration (and Fragility) in Central America

Photo: JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

Critical Questions by Erol Yayboke, Catherine Nzuki , and Maxwell Myers

Published August 12, 2021

The Biden-Harris administration recently launched a strategy for addressing the root causes of migration in Central America. This critical questions summarizes the strategy then analyzes how it is different from previous efforts, how it aligns with other administration priorities and international efforts, and what success could look like.

Q1: What is the Biden-Harris administration’s strategy to address root causes of migration in Central America?  

A1: The newly released U.S Strategy for Addressing the Root Causes of Migration in Central America (heretofore referred to as the “root causes strategy” or simply “the strategy”) is the Biden-Harris administration’s blueprint for addressing irregular migration from the region. With an introduction from Vice President Kamala Harris (who was asked to lead the administration’s efforts in the region in March 2021 ), the strategy focuses on the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. The strategy “lays out a framework to use the policy, resources, and diplomacy of the United States, and to leverage the expertise and resources of a broad group of public and private stakeholders, to build hope for citizens in the region that the life they desire can be found at home.” It aims to build a broad coalition that will include Congress, the governments in the region, the private and public sector, and civil society organizations, with the aim of creating tailored and coordinated solutions to both short-term and long-term causes of migration.

The strategy groups the root causes of migration into five pillars , offering several approaches for each:

• Addressing economic insecurity and inequality;
• Combating corruption, strengthening democratic governance, and advancing the rule of law;
• Promoting respect for human rights, labor rights, and a free press;
• Countering and preventing violence, extortion, and other crimes perpetrated by criminal gangs, trafficking networks, and other organized criminal organizations;
• Combating sexual, gender-based, and domestic violence.

Taken together, the five pillars can be seen as the administration’s effort to address the  structural fragility that is so often at the root of why people leave the Northern Triangle. 

Q2: What is different or unique about the proposed strategy?

A2: The root causes strategy differs greatly from the Trump administration’s more reactive, punitive, and shortsighted approach to migration, which included very little mention of root causes, much less proposed solutions for them. For example, under its “ zero tolerance ” strategy toward irregular border crossings, President Trump’s Department of Justice aimed to prosecute  all adult migrants caught crossing the border irregularly, a break from prior administrations, which pursued relatively fewer criminal cases. The zero tolerance policy infamously included the family separation policy, which led to the separation of children into poorly equipped detention facilities and other violations of the human rights of migrants and asylum seekers. At the same time, the Trump administration drastically cut foreign assistance to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, in contrast to how its predecessor and successor administrations utilized foreign aid as a tool to address migration. When then vice president Biden was put in charge of addressing the causes of migration from Central America, he placed foreign aid squarely at the center of his strategy. His plan, developed in cooperation with the presidents of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador and the Inter-American Development Bank, was called the Alliance for Prosperity (A4P). The A4P secured up to $750 million in foreign assistance to “ address the structural causes of irregular migration through the generation of economic opportunities and the improvement of citizens’ quality of life.” With its newly announced root causes strategy, the Biden-Harris administration is once more placing foreign assistance front and center, though Vice President Harris acknowledges in her introduction to the strategy that “providing relief is not sufficient to stem migration from the region.” She is right; while an important tool in the toolkit, evidence suggests that foreign assistance has historically had limited impact on deterring migration and could actually lead to increased migration in the short term .

Overall, the root causes strategy reflects a more nuanced and clear-eyed understanding of the structural fragility at the heart of migration from Central America, especially when compared to the Obama-Biden administration’s A4P, which the new strategy does not even mention.

The root causes strategy reflects a more nuanced and clear-eyed understanding of the structural fragility at the heart of migration from Central America.

Additionally, the root causes strategy differs from past efforts in several important ways. In stark contrast to the previous administration, it places paramount importance on the protection of human rights and the humanity of migrants themselves, making the case that addressing migration challenges at their roots is more sustainable than erecting physical and metaphorical walls. It acknowledges the longer-term nature of the root causes and that the historically inconsistent approach of the United States toward the region has not helped. It places emphasis on international and private-sector partnerships. Perhaps most importantly, the strategy does not pretend that these are easy issues with quick fixes, especially if the United States does not take a holistic view of all the root causes and “build on what works, and . . . pivot away from what does not work.”

Q3: Where does the strategy fit within the broader Biden-Harris immigration reform and global fragility agendas?

A3: The strategy notably ties root causes (typically seen as a foreign policy issue) with immigration policy (typically seen as a domestic policy issue) with the understanding that both domestic and foreign policy issues matter for the execution of the president’s immigration agenda. However, though not surprising, it is notable that the root causes strategy is a standalone document. Two days before the strategy was released, the Biden-Harris administration released a Blueprint for a Fair, Orderly and Humane Immigration System , much of which will require executive action or an act of Congress to achieve. In contrast, the root causes strategy will serve as an actual blueprint for the nation’s foreign policy apparatus, much of which will require neither executive nor congressional action. Despite being separate, the immigration and root causes documents both emphasize that addressing root causes is critical to the administration’s overall immigration efforts.

Though it avoids usage of the “f” word, the root causes strategy essentially offers ways to reduce state fragility in Central America. In other words, it acknowledges the interconnectedness and interdependence of fragility and human mobility issues. As such, the Global Fragility Act (GFA) , a bipartisan effort that uses an interagency approach to addressing fragility and mitigating violent conflict, is relevant. Even if Central American countries are not selected as priority countries for GFA implementation (a selection process that is still ongoing at time of publication), the act could provide a useful framework to help the Biden-Harris administration achieve its overall strategic goals in the region.

Q4: How does this strategy align with global efforts to make migration safe, orderly, and regular? 

A4: Another important element of the strategy is that it specifically includes a focus on international outreach, stating clearly that “the United States cannot do this work alone.” Though their respective titles use different words, the Biden-Harris administration’s root causes strategy is largely in line with global efforts like the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM), a first-of-its-kind intergovernmental agreement to “ protect the safety, dignity and human rights and fundamental freedoms of all migrants, regardless of their migratory status, and at all times” with which the Trump administration refused to engage .

Similarities abound. For example, the GCM seeks to “[minimize] the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin,” which is the very premise of the root causes strategy. The strategy looks to expand private-public partnerships to elevate small businesses and low-income families, also focusing on increasing political stability within states by bolstering rule of law and strengthening civil society. Likewise, the GCM points out the necessity for people to “lead peaceful, productive, and sustainable lives in their own country and to fulfill their personal aspirations,” also stressing the need to “promote inter-institutional networks and collaborative programmes for partnerships between the private sector and educational institutions.” Furthermore, the GCM aims to promote economic growth and stability, protect human rights, and prevent gender-based violence, all of which are key tenets of the root causes strategy. Though it makes no mention of the GCM, the strategy aligns in many ways with it; whether the Biden-Harris administration intended for this to happen or not, it behooves the administration to actively reengage with the GCM execution process in support of its own strategic goals in the region.

Q5: What does successful execution of the root causes strategy look like?

A5: Each pillar in the root causes strategy has associated strategic objectives against which the administration will presumably be tracking its progress. But the “desired end state” is encapsulated in one phrase : “[a] democratic, prosperous, and safe Central America, where people advance economically, live, work, and learn in safety and dignity, contribute to and benefit from the democratic process, have confidence in public institutions, and enjoy opportunities to create futures for themselves and their families at home.” This is as notable for what it does not say as for what it does. For the Biden-Harris administration, success is not stopping all migration from Central America, because it knows very well not only that this is an impossibility, but that a strategy focused just on that will result in irregular migration flows that are inherently unfair, disorderly, and inhumane.

For the Biden-Harris administration, success is not stopping all migration from Central America, because it knows very well not only that this is an impossibility, but that a strategy focused just on that will result in irregular migration flows that are inherently unfair, disorderly, and inhumane.

Thus, successful execution of the root causes strategy would be if Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador addressed state fragility and afforded agency to Guatemalans, Hondurans, and Salvadorians to “create futures for themselves and their families at home.” In other words, success looks a lot like Mexico. Historically a migration origin country, Mexico has drastically reduced net migration to the United States since the mid-2000s, due to economic development and demographic shifts, but also to successful efforts to address social and security concerns. Though Mexico is far from perfect (and every country, including the United States, deals with varying degrees of state fragility), there is little doubt that U.S. policymakers would welcome Central American countries trending in the direction of their neighbor to the north. More importantly, Central Americans themselves might prefer that as well. The Biden-Harris administration’s strategy on the root causes of migration (and fragility) is perhaps a first step in that right direction.

Erol Yayboke is a senior fellow with the International Security Program and director of the Project on Fragility and Mobility (PFM) at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Catherine Nzuki is a program coordinator with the CSIS PFM. Maxwell Myers is a research intern with the CSIS PFM.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.

Critical Questions is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2021 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

Erol Yayboke

Catherine Nzuki

Maxwell myers, programs & projects.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Harris’ struggles with immigration policy expose political vulnerabilities

Sergio Martínez-Beltrán

Jasmine Garsd

A look at Vice President Kamala Harris’ record on immigration

Vice President Kamala Harris, center, along with Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, Rep. Veronica Escobar, a Democrat from Texas, and Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, tour a U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility in El Paso, Texas, U.S., in June 2021. Bloomberg/via Getty Images hide caption

As Vice President Kamala Harris works to secure the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party next month, her role on immigration policy is now in the spotlight.

Minutes after the President Joe Biden announced he was dropping out of the race and was endorsing Harris, Republicans started attacking her record on immigration and border policy.

“Joe Biden has now endorsed and fully supports his ‘Borders Czar’ Kamala Harris to be the Democrat candidate for president,” Gov. Greg Abbott, R-Texas, posted on X . “I think I will need to triple the border wall, razor wire barriers and National Guard on the border.”

Conservatives have often referred to Harris as the Biden administration’s "Border Czar," incorrectly claiming she was tasked with repairing the border.

“Kamala had one job,” said Nikki Haley earlier this month at the Republican National Convention. “One job. And that was to fix the border. Now imagine her in charge of the entire country.”

In reality, that was not Harris’ job.

She was tasked by Biden in 2021 to examine the root causes of migration from Central America, including poverty, violence, and corruption. At that time, unauthorized migration came primarily from Mexico and Central America.

She was never tapped to head immigration policy, which is the responsibility of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who oversees all agencies in charge of the enforcement of immigration laws.

Three years later, this role could be Harris’ Achilles' heel. Her role in pushing for Biden’s immigration proposals have disenchanted Democrats and immigrant rights groups.

“I do think there is an opportunity here for Vice President Harris to have a more hopeful message around immigration than even the Biden administration has had in the past,” said Adriel Orozco, a senior policy counsel with the American Immigration Council.

Biden’s policy proposals have included severely restricting most asylum claims at the border and expediting the removal of unauthorized migrants, something immigrant rights groups have opposed.

Suyapa Portillo, a professor of Chicano/a-Latino/a Transnational Studies at Pitzer College, says Harris should try to separate herself from the Biden administration’s “slow move towards immigration reform,” and from the message of deterrence that “represents that conservatism from the Biden administration and the Democratic Party — the old guard.”

Vice President Kamala Harris speaks from the South Lawn of the White House in Washington on Monday during an event with NCAA college athletes. This was her first public appearance since President Joe Biden endorsed her to be the next presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. Susan Walsh/AP hide caption

A changed immigration landscape

If Harris secures the presidential nomination, she will be facing a very different immigration landscape than back in 2021, when she was tasked with addressing its root causes.

Last year, unauthorized crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border hit an all-time high. In December 2023, the number of encounters reached nearly 250,000, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

For the last four months, the number of migrants trying to cross illegally has dramatically dropped. That’s due in part due to Mexico’s enforcement, and Biden’s policies, which include severely restricting most asylum claims at the border .

But migration has diversified in the last few years. There is an unprecedented crisis of global displacement. When Harris was elected in 2020, 90% of immigration hailed from Mexico and Central America, according to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute .

In 2023, only 49 percent of the encounters were with migrants from those four countries.

Today, immigrants arriving at the US Mexico border are fleeing from the crisis in Venezuela, the war in Ukraine and cartel violence in Ecuador, just to name a few.

A mixed track record

Harris’ record on immigration has been marred by policy blunders.

Her first international trip as vice president made clear her approach on immigration: addressing root causes to stop illegal migration.

In the summer of 2021, she traveled to Guatemala to meet with then-President Alejandro Giammattei. In a speech, she said that the Biden administration was committed to helping Guatemalans find “hope at home.”

But she also warned prospective migrants.

“I want to be clear to folks in this region who are thinking about making that dangerous trek to the United States-Mexico border,” Harris said. “Do not come. Do not come.”

Those three words: Do not come, were seen by many as a blunder . Latino advocates criticized the statement as paternalistic and tone-deaf, given the violent crises rattling the region.

For many immigrant advocates, that statement continues to haunt Harris’ candidacy.

“She needs to separate from Biden,” Portillo says. “She needs to speak to TPS holders and DACA holders for a plan for legalization, and a border plan that does not include throwing children in jail.”

But Harris has maintained that deterrence is essential: last year she announced $950 million in pledges from private companies to support Central American communities.

Judith Browne Dianis, the executive director of the D.C.-based civil rights organization Advancement Project, says Harris will now have to explain how she would tackle immigration if she were elected president.

“Is it a humanitarian response, or is there a criminalization response?” Dianis says. “We don’t need more criminalization. We don’t need a border wall. We need to get to the root causes. We need to make sure that people are taken care of.”

Criticism from GOP for not visiting the border enough

In early June 2021, Harris came under fire for not visiting the border. In an interview with NBC News , she was asked about Republican critiques.

“And I haven’t been to Europe,” Harris fired back. “I mean, I don’t understand the point that you are making.”

Her response was criticized by conservatives as disconnected and flippant towards border communities and agencies which have felt overwhelmed by the influx of migrants in recent years.

Harris’ first trip to the border came later that month, to El Paso, Texas. At a press conference there, she stated that migration “cannot be reduced to a political issue. We’re talking about children, we’re talking about families, we are talking about suffering.”

Earlier this year, Harris backed a Biden-endorsed bipartisan bill on border enforcement.

The measure would have added immigration detention beds, increased the number of U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel and asylum officers, and funded technology to detect fentanyl smuggling at the Southern border. It passed in the Senate but failed to move forward after former President Donald Trump urged House Republicans to kill it.

But for many immigration advocates, Harris is their candidate.

Kerri Talbot, the executive director of the national advocacy organization Immigration Hub, called Harris a “strong defender and champion of American families, including their immigrant family members” in a statement Sunday.

“We have no doubt that she can step up to the challenge, counter Trump and JD Vance’s rhetoric and dark vision for democracy, and protect the progress we’ve made while delivering transformative change for our immigration system,” Talbot said.

Before VP, Harris was already pushing for reform

But Harris involvement with immigration goes way beyond her vice presidency, and her actions show a shift in policies.

When she was the district attorney in San Francisco, she backed a city policy that turned over to federal immigration authorities migrant juveniles suspected of committing a felony. In 2019, Harris’ campaign told CNN “this policy could have been applied more fairly.”

But as California’s attorney general, she had a different stance. In a 2015 interview with CBS Los Angeles, Harris said, “Unfortunately, I know what crime looks like. I know what a criminal looks like who's committing a crime. An undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.”

Harris became U.S. senator from California in 2017.

She was part of a Senate hearing on the Trump administration’s highly controversial separation policy, in which undocumented migrant children were separated from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border, as a form of immigration deterrence. She questioned Trump officials, and said separating families can cause “irreparable harm.”

In 2019, she and several other Democratic senators reintroduced the Reunite Every Unaccompanied Newborn Infant, Toddler and Other Children Expeditiously (REUNITE) Act , “to expedite the reunification of separated immigrant families and promote humane alternatives for asylum-seeking immigrant families.”

When she ran for president in 2019, Harris unveiled an immigration plan that called for a path to citizenship for recipients of Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program, best known as DACA.

That’s similar to what the Biden-Harris campaign promised when they run in 2020. However, none of that has happened during the administration.