Immigrants who want to work in the US can be sponsored either by individuals -- usually family members -- or companies. Regional immigration is a proposed variation on this system, in which a region -- probably a city, but perhaps a county or state -- sponsors an immigrant for a green card or work visa. It’s an idea that’s been tossed around in policy circles as a way to revive “old industrial cities that have been hollowed out.”
I used to be against regional immigration. The reason is that if regions sponsored foreign workers for H-1B or other work visas -- or if regional green-card sponsorship was made conditional on not moving out of the sponsoring region for a certain period of time -- it would prevent those immigrants from moving to other places in the US. That also feels like a restriction on the basic human freedom of movement. I was worried as well that forcing immigrant workers to stay in one area, therefore preventing them from moving for better pay, would put pressure on the wages of nearby native-born workers.
I now believe that regional immigration sponsorship, if implemented responsibly, could provide an important boost for declining US regions while threatening neither American freedoms nor American wages.
The main reason the US needs regional immigration is to revitalize places that have suffered from economic calamities beyond their control.
When a town is hit hard by an economic shock, the damage gets amplified by the loss of tax revenue. Bad times cause people to move out of an area. Often, those who can afford it, or those with youth and energy, leave first. That shrinks the tax base, making it hard for the city to maintain roads, police forces and schools. The reduced availability of public services and quality of life push even more people to move away, intensifying the downward spiral.
Towns like Youngstown and Flint, as well as some larger cities like Detroit and Cleveland, have been losing population for decades, even as the country as a whole has grown.
Immigration could stem or even reverse that crippling outflow. In many regions, it already has. But as things stand, many immigrants are drawn to the high wages, established ethnic communities, and the glitzy reputation of big cities like New York and Los Angeles. Often, the only reason skilled immigrants have to move to a declining region is that there’s a well-funded university there.
Regional visa sponsorship could change this equation. If foreigners who are now kept out of the country by the US’ overly restrictive immigration laws had the option to move to Youngstown, not all would take it, but many would. That would provide the city with the tax revenue to start building better-quality infrastructure and providing more social services, which would in turn make it a more attractive place for native-born Americans or other immigrants to move.
As for the danger of wage suppression, that probably isn’t a big factor. First of all, being tied to a region would be much less restrictive than being tied to a company, as H-1B workers now are. Second, there’s evidence that even though they’re tied to particular employers, H-1B workers already tend to raise the wages of both college-educated and non-college-educated native-born workers.
There is the issue of freedom of movement. But again, this would be less of a problem under regional immigration sponsorship than with the current H-1B system. And a region-based immigration system wouldn’t replace the current system, either -- it would be a new, additional way for foreigners to come to the United States. As such, it would actually be improving the overall range of mobility options for people now stuck in China, India or other countries.
Finally, the tie between immigrant and sponsoring region wouldn’t be permanent -- after a period of years, they would be able to relocate if they so chose. But my guess is that many would stay and become rooted in their new communities, invested in the task of bringing declining regions back to life.
Noah Smith Noah Smith is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. -- Ed.
