In the past decade, state and local governments have produced a flurry of legislation related to immigrants and immigration.  From 2004 to 2012, much of this legislation was restrictive in nature, making it more difficult for immigrants to reside, work, and access certain benefits and services.  Recently, however, we have witnessed a growing number of states passing laws aimed at integrating immigrant residents and mitigating some of the disruptive consequences of immigration enforcement.

This study seeks to answer the following questions: why did we see a rise in state and local laws targeting immigrants between 2004 and 2012, why are we seeing a more rapid increase in pro-immigrant integration laws since 2012, and where are these changes occurring?

In brief, we find that demography-driven explanations do not account for when, where, and why these legislative efforts developed the ways they did.  We instead find greater explanatory value in a politically-based account that takes federalism seriously.  Importantly, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court set the conditions under which states may get involved in immigrant-related legislation.

After 2000, a networked set of issue entrepreneurs took advantage of the rise in party polarization and national security considerations to block comprehensive immigration reform at the national level, and to simultaneously proliferate new forms of restrictive legislation in politically receptive jurisdictions. Importantly, these jurisdictions were not notable for their disproportionate exposure to problems such as overcrowded housing and undocumented immigration. Rather, politically receptive contexts (those with many Republicans and few agricultural interests) and political support from restrictive issue entrepreneurs played more significant roles. 

These political and legal dynamics came under severe challenge in 2012, as the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts began to significantly limit the scope of state-level restrictive legislation, and the strong shift in immigrant votes away from Republicans in 2012 led many party leaders to move away from immigration restriction, and towards comprehensive immigration reform.

On the side of pro-immigrant integration, we find that the timeline of legislative action varies according to the relevant policy.  So-called “immigrant sanctuary” ordinances that limit local involvement in immigration enforcement had been in place since the late 1970s in some cities, and provisions for in-state tuition to all state residents were growing steadily after 2001.  Since 2012, however, there has been a significant shift in state-level momentum towards a greater array of pro-immigrant integration ordinances, ranging from expanded provision of driver licenses and professional licenses, to limits on state cooperation with new federal programs on immigration enforcement.  We find that partisanship plays a significant role in explaining the spread of these laws, but actions of the federal executive have also made a difference.  Finally, pro-immigrant integration advocates are now more engaged in state legislatures than ever before, going from belated reactions against restrictive legislation already enacted to pushing a greater number and variety of pro-immigrant integration bills in various jurisdictions.