(Page 9 of 33) - Undocumented and Undertheorized: Immigration in the Land of American Federalism authored by Filindra, Alexandra.

Alexandra Filindra

have looked specifically at how economic factors have affected national immigration
policymaking, providing strong indications that national immigration policy is not completely
divorced from the national pocketbook (Goldin and Libecap 1994). All of these important
studies make it very clear that demographics and economics matter when it comes to political
outcomes.

Diverse as this literature is in theory and tone, the level of analysis is strictly bifurcated: scholars
either look at specific micro-locales and extrapolate from there, or analyze developments in
Washington. For example, Foner’s (2005) comparative study focuses on various immigrant
groups in New York City, while Brenner (2008) discusses immigrant integration strategies at
local communities. In a volume edited by Zuniga and Hernandez-Leon (2005), a number of
prominent sociologists explore migration into “new” destinations in America, that is
communities mostly in the Southeast of the country that had not experienced any immigration
inflows since prior to the Civil War, as well as in Midwestern and Northeastern small towns.
Similarly, the effects of Latino migration to new destinations- from small towns in Minnesota to
the rural South- has been discussed in another volume edited by Douglas Massey (2008). On a
different theme, but equally localized, Hazan’s (2008) work discusses Mexican incorporation in
four major U.S. cities.

On the other hand, political scientists and historians have typically privileged the national level,
preferring to look at various aspects of Congressional policymaking. Somehow, in this story of
immigration policy in the United States, the states themselves have disappeared from the picture
(Foner 2008). In contravention to all evidence, the scholarly community seems to be under the
impression that state governments have no authority over immigrant admissions policy. Since
the criteria of entry into the United States, as well as determination of the number of people
allowed to enter –what is known in legal parlance as “entry and abode” - are considered to be the
sole responsibility of the federal government, states have become invisible. For no good reason,
political science and other disciplines have assumed that immigration policy happens in the halls
of Congress and have not looked at state legislatures or voting booths across the country.

Only legal scholars have analyzed the role of states in immigration and immigrant policymaking.
The main contention within this literature is an important normative issue: which level of
government should have authority over immigrants and immigration, where does that authority
come from, what are its limitations, and what role does the Constitution play in protecting
immigrants’ rights (Wishnie 2001; Spiro 1996-1997). The contours of membership and
citizenship have explored greatly within this literature (Bosniak 1994, 2006; Schuck 1998) and
so has the legal history of state immigrant and immigration laws of earlier epochs (Neuman
1995; Motomura 2006; Aoki 1998).

The Role of States in Immigration Policymaking: The Perspective in Detail

In recent years, states have sometimes enthusiastically and other times reluctantly been involved
in certain aspects of immigration and immigrant policy, resulting in a true patchwork of
approaches. Theory too has led to a patchwork of approaches by insisting on a variety of
definitions. Fix and Passel (1994) were among the earliest to make a definitional distinction
between immigration policy which encompasses admissions and criteria of entry, and immigrant