Pardee-CFLP-Remittances-TF-Report

ties (Cornelius 2006). The routes of undocumented migration have also becomeincreasingly dangerous, as they have been pushed away from traditional urbancorridors into inhospitable desert terrains. Once in the U.S., undocumentedimmigrants continue to be subject to abuses in their workplaces, communities,and even in their homes, as the threat of deportation or loss of economic securityfor themselves and their families keeps many from exercising rights and/ordenouncing abuses (Kossoudji and Cobb-Clark 2002; Takash and Hinojosa-Ojedaforthcoming; Mazzucato and Schans 2011; Menjivar 2006). This situation hascreated a human rights crisis and is disconcerting, as such national policies thatput migrants at risk of death, violence, and other abuses challenge the gainsin human security and development made in the post-conflict era. In responseto this, the governments of El Salvador and throughout Central America andMexico, as well as international, regional, and U.S.-based migrant and humanrights organizations, have endeavored to document and protect against abusesalong the migration trajectory.While the debate over immigration reform in the U.S. demonstrates recognitionof the need to change the present cycle of immigration, both from a human aswell as an economic perspective, NAID Center and other research indicates thatlegalization of the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants andtheir full incorporation into the economic mainstream would generate dramaticpositive effects for the U.S. economy. This NAID Center computable generalequilibrium (CGE) modeling reveals that the U.S. economy would benefit throughcomprehensive immigration reform by approximately $1.5 trillion over the next10 years, while in comparison a mass deportation would result in a $2.6 trilliondecline to the U.S. economy over the same period (Hinojosa-Ojeda 2012, 2010).The positive impact of comprehensive immigration reform in the U.S. wouldexceed even traditional economic development agendas like trade and investmentliberalization; however, these additional benefits would go disproportionatelyto the U.S. rather than to the migrant-sending countries.Using the same CGE models for the sending countries, however, reveals that theconsequent impact of immigration reform in the U.S. would not be as positivefor El Salvador, Mexico, or other migration and remittance-dependent countries.The post-1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) experience showedthat as wages rose, the demand for immigration decreased, reducing thesecountries’ ability to export excess labor. This resulted in downward pressureupon local wages as an increasing share of working age individuals vied forlimited economic opportunities in their communities of origin. The impact upon104 A Pardee Center Task Force Report | October 2013