Gender Differences in Native Preferences toward Undocumented and Legal Immigration: Evidence from San Diego

I. INTRODUCTION Public views about immigration in the United States appear sharply divided--about half of respondents in a variety of U.S. surveys indicate they would prefer that the number of legal immigrants allowed to come to live in the United States decreased. (1) Likewise, the public is also divided in their views toward undocumented immigration. For instance, using data for San Diego County, we find that over 50% of natives believe that undocumented migrants should be required to go home, whereas slightly below 50% of natives believe that undocumented migrants should be granted some kind of legal status. These are all differences noted in the literature by studies that focus on native opinions regarding either legal or undocumented immigration, (2) as most surveys do not inquire natives about their preferences toward the two distinct types of immigrants. As such, lacking from the literature is an analysis for the same group of natives of the opinions they may hold with regard to legal as opposed to undocumented immigration, and of the factors driving their views. Using data for San Diego County we find that, while slightly more than half of natives in our sample oppose a generalized amnesty for undocumented immigrants, less than 30% of them want the number of legal immigrants admitted into the United States to be reduced. Therefore, it is crucial to distinguish between native opinions toward legal as opposed to undocumented immigration, avoiding any extrapolations of native views toward one group to the other group given that the factors shaping native opinions on legal and undocumented migrants are likely to differ. In this paper, we distinguish between individual attitudes toward legal as opposed to undocumented immigration into the United States by using data on: (1) native views toward legal immigration and (2) native preferences toward the passage of a generalized amnesty similar to the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). In particular, we are interested in finding out whether there are differences in how native men and women feel about legal as opposed to undocumented migrants and, if so, why. In line with the existing literature on native attitudes toward immigration, we examine the role played by a variety of economic and social factors in shaping native distinct preferences over legal and undocumented immigration. In particular, we focus on three broad explanations for differences in native male and female preferences over the two types of immigration; (1) fears of labor market competition, (2) the alleged economic burden imposed by undocumented migrants, and (3) prejudice toward immigrant groups. In sum, we ask ourselves the following questions: Are there differences in native views toward legal as opposed to undocumented immigration? Are these differences found in both native men and native women? And, if so, what explains such differences in native male and female opinions with regard to legal and undocumented immigration? A number of empirical studies have used survey data to assess the relevance of economic and social factors in explaining individual attitudes toward immigration. Some of the literature focuses on Great Britain, (3) some on the United States, (4) and, yet others, on a cross-section of countries. (5) Our study differs from the previous literature with regards to the questions being asked and the data being used. Indeed, owing to survey design, the past literature on native attitudes toward immigration has primarily centered on native preferences for legal immigration. (6) Only a few studies have focused on native attitudes toward undocumented immigration (Binder, Polinard, and Wrinkle 1997; Espenshade 1995; Espenshade and Calhoun 1993) and, to our knowledge, none has compared native preferences toward legal as opposed to undocumented immigration from the same group of male and female respondents. In this study, owing to the information on preferences over legal immigration as well as over an amnesty for undocumented immigrants collected from the same individuals, we are able to contrast and compare respondents' answers to both questions and learn about the factors driving their distinct opinions. …