Immigration as urban policy.

• Author: Su, Rick

ABSTRACT

Immigration has done more to shape the physical and social landscape of many of America's largest cities than almost any other economic or cultural force. Indeed, immigration is so central to urban development in the United States that it is a wonder why immigration is not explicitly discussed as an aspect of urban policy. Yet in the national conversation over immigration, one would strain to hear it described in this manner. This essay addresses this oversight by making the case for a reorientation of immigration toward urban policy; and it does so by advocating for an immigration regime that both explicitly recognizes the role of immigration as an instrument of urban development, and sees urban policy as a vital complement to our federal immigration regime. As this essay outlines, there are good reasons for such an urban policy reorientation from the perspective of both urban and immigration policymakers. At the same time, significant obstacles exist, not only in the structure of our immigration laws, but also the prevailing organization of our local governments. Thus, the essay concludes by proposing a reform to our immigration regime that advances the aims of reorienting immigration toward urban policy, addresses the structural obstacles that stand in the way, and suggests further avenues of reform going forward.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract Introduction I. The Reasons for Immigration as Urban Policy A. Why Immigration Should Matter to Urban Policymakers B. Why Urban Development Should Matter to Immigration Policymakers II. The Legal Limits to Immigration as Urban Policy A. Why Federal Preemption is No Obstacle B. The Legal Limits of Regional Considerations in Immigration Law C. Deficiencies in the Structure of Regional Decision-making III. Empowering Immigration as Urban Policy: A Modest Proposal A. The Proposal B. Room for Expansion C. Addressing Potential Concerns Conclusion INTRODUCTION

Immigration has done more to shape the physical and social landscape of many of America's largest cities than almost any other economic or cultural force. Its effect on established immigration gateways is clear: New York City, a traditional reception area for newcomers to the United States, continues to be an ever-shifting palette of immigrant neighborhoods and cross-ethnic interactions; (1) Los Angeles, with an Anglo population of more than seventy percent in the 1970s, (2) is now both derisively and admiringly called the "Capital of the Third World"; (3) Miami, with its large number of Latino residents and concentration of Cuban financiers, embraces its demographic makeup not only as a source of cultural pride, but also in its bid as the financial gateway to Latin America. (4) At the same time, interest in immigration is quickly spreading to other metropolitan regions as well. With the immigrant population soaring in "boomtown" cities like Las Vegas, Houston, Dallas, and others in the Sun Belt, (5) the impact of immigration on the newest wave of urban development seems to parallel the immigrant-driven urbanization of earlier eras. All the while, immigration is drawing attention in regions without significant immigration inflows at all; many Rust Belt cities like Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Detroit have raised the prospect of immigration as an urban revitalization strategy. (6)

Indeed, immigration appears to be so central to urban development in the United States that it is a wonder why immigration is not explicitly discussed as an aspect of urban policy. Yet in the national conversation over immigration, one would strain to hear it described in this manner. Despite the significant impact of immigration on our metropolitan regions and the importance of urban development to this nation's social and economic prosperity, there is still a distinct sense that urban interests are one step below the "national" concerns that guide the development of immigration laws. If there is any room for a local role, it is often discussed as an extension of the federal government's existing enforcement efforts. (7) If there is any consideration of local concerns, it is usually in the context of how they conflict with national interests. (8)

This essay addresses this oversight by making the case for a reorientation of immigration toward urban policy. (9) It does so by advocating for an immigration regime that both explicitly recognizes the role of immigration as an instrument of urban development, and sees urban policy as a vital complement to our federal immigration regime. In Part III, I lay out a preliminary proposal along these lines by calling for the geographic allocation of certain immigration visas according to regional needs, interests, and federal-local negotiations. This, I argue, would be a modest yet significant step toward integrating our national immigration regime with urban development in this country.

The discussion preceding Part III establishes the groundwork for why such a proposal, and other efforts along the same lines, are sensible and feasible. In Part I, I set forth the reasons why an urban policy reorientation makes sense both from the perspective of urban policymakers, for whom immigration is an important issue and a useful tool, and immigration policymakers, given the influence of urban policies on our nation's capacity to absorb immigrants and the long-term effect of immigration on our country. Part II then outlines two obstacles to treating immigration as urban policy under the existing legal structure: the absence of any direct means in existing immigration law to accommodate regional variations and interests, and the lack of any structure in current local government law to allow for urban policymaking at the regional level with respect to immigration. With this as background, the proposal in Part III aims to advance the goals set forth in Part I, while addressing the obstacles posed in Part II.

1. THE REASONS FOR IMMIGRATION AS URBAN POLICY

   1. Why Immigration Should Matter to Urban Policymakers

      Immigration matters to urban policymakers for the simple reason that immigration is, and has always been, a critical part of the growth and development of the American city. (10) This was true for the great cities of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, whose urbanization was disproportionately fueled by the first major waves of immigration. It is also true today, as cities and metropolitan regions work to manage the new immigrants they have received. Yet the significance of immigration to urban policy lies not only in its past and present impact, but also, more importantly, in how it affects a city's future prospects. Indeed, in an environment marked by increasing inter-local competition, it is worth noting that the ability to channel and manage immigration is central to many different urban development strategies.

      As a historical matter, immigration has always been a particularly urban phenomenon. Immigrants to the United States have long been drawn to urban centers in higher proportions than the native populations, and periods of rapid urbanization in the United States have tended to coincide with periods of mass immigration. (11) During the rise of the great American cities in the late-nineteenth century, two-thirds of immigrants were residents of a city as compared to only one-third of all Americans. (12) In cities like Boston, Baltimore, and Chicago, immigrants constituted anywhere from one-third to one-half of the total population. (13) Indeed, by the end of the nineteenth century, it is estimated that four out of five residents in the greater New York area were either foreign-born or had a foreign-born parent. (14) As laborers and entrepreneurs, immigrants have played a critical role in the development of the economic and physical infrastructure of the modem American city. (15) Moreover, as constituents and public servants, their involvement in local democracy has also shaped the political foundations of urban governance. (16) To be sure, this history is not one without controversy and conflict: tensions festered between unions and strikebreakers, (17) between "Yankee-controlled" state houses and immigrant-supported city halls, (18) and on the streets where the ills of urbanization and immigration were seen as mutually reinforcing and in need of reform. (19) Yet even this darker side reveals the deep historic interconnections between immigration and urbanization in the United States.

      Suburbanization, deindustrialization, and political fragmentation have radically altered the urban landscape of the early twentieth century. But with nearly eighty percent of the United States population living in "urbanized areas" in or around a central city, (20) and with metropolitan economies constituting the bulk of our nation's economic output, (21) urban development is arguably more important today than at any other time in American history. Since the liberalization of immigration in 1965, (22) immigration is also once again playing a role. Indeed, anecdotes abound of how immigration is fast-changing the physical and social fabric of the urban landscape. (23) As many cities began to emerge from decades of depopulation and decline in the 1990s, some began to attribute their near-miraculous recoveries to the massive growth of immigration taking place around the same time. (24) All the while, the immigrant population has been quickly increasing in almost all of America's fastest growing cities: the foreign-born population is almost 30% in Dallas and Houston, more than 25% in Phoenix, and 13% in Charlotte. (25) Indeed, population growth in the largest twenty-five cities has been disproportionately driven by foreign-born residents in recent years. (26)

      With these demographic trends, it is not surprising that metropolitan regions today are facing similar sets of immigration-related issues as those of American cities at the turn of the twentieth century, from educating immigrant children, to the...