The Center for Growth and Opportunity

Immigration has been a controversial topic among economists for a long time. The issue became more important to researchers as immigrant inflows were significantly increased (Card, 2009). The question of an earnings gap between immigrants and natives and the question of economic assimilation of immigrants go back more than 40 years, when labor economists first started this line of research.

When Donald Trump descended the escalator in Trump tower in June of 2015 to announce his candidacy for the presidency, he famously declared his intention to “build a great, great wall on our southern border.” His goal was to deter and prevent entry from those with “lots of problems [who are] bringing those problems to us.” Trump was successful in politicizing immigration and making border security a core element of not only his presidential campaign but also his presidency.

While US immigration reform has largely been stalled since 1996, attempts to address the inflow of crossings at the US–Mexico border have occurred over the past three decades. As part of the war on terror, which began after the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, DC in September 2001, Congress passed, and President Bush signed, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (hereafter SFA).

The United States has long held the reputation of being a land of opportunity for immigrant entrepreneurs. Home to many Fortune 500 companies, it has welcomed immigrant CEOs from various home countries to establish businesses such as Google, Pfizer, and Nvidia. It would follow that the United States is likely the most attractive country for foreign entrepreneurs looking to start a new business. Up until recently, that assumption would likely have been true.

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. […] They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” —Donald Trump, June 2015 During the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump made it clear that migration was going to be one of the core topics in his political agenda (Eshbaugh-Soha, and Barnes, 2021).

As the 2024 U.S. presidential election approaches, the heated debate about immigration shows no signs of cooling. A question simmering in this broader debate is whether immigrants should have a voice at the ballot box in their communities before becoming citizens.

Beginning in World War II, the United States and Mexico struck an agreement called the Bracero program, where Mexican workers could temporarily relocate to the United States to aid with agricultural labor shortages. During the 1960s, the Bracero program abruptly ended. Suddenly, abundant foreign labor disappeared, and farmers turned to machines to keep production going.

In December, Samsung delayed a Texas-based chip manufacturing facility’s start date. In January, the Taiwanese chip manufacturing company TSMC pushed back one of its planned Arizona plants. The reason? Workforce shortages. Two years after the U.S. passed legislation providing $280 billion over the next decade to spur the development of its semiconductors industry, such delays represent significant hiccups in America’s plan to boost our ability to build advanced computer chips.

Growing concerns about the educational outcomes of ethnic and racially diverse students in the United States have prompted schools and different levels of government to adopt policies to improve their achievement. The past several decades have seen the implementation of programs such as TRIO and Head Start to support the academic progression of primarily low-income disadvantaged students.

The media portrays immigrants as criminals (Farris and Silber Mohamed 2018), welfare abusers (Brown 2016; Yoo 2008), and a general threat to the well-being of the United States (L. R. Chavez 2008; M. Chavez, Whiteford, and Hoewe 2010). These portrayals are common despite research showing that immigrants are less likely to engage in criminal behavior than natives (Butcher and Piehl 2007; Forrester et al.