Remittances and immigration enforcement

Table 2 Differences-in-differences in the probability to remit and the dollar amount remitted home

	Geographic areas that			Geographic areas that			DD
	Implemented these programs			Never implemented these programs
Panel A: Police-based initiatives (287(g) and secure communities)
	Pre-2002	Post-2002	DT	Pre-2002	Post-2002	DC	(DT-DC)
Remitting likelihood	0.624	0.751	0.127***	0.645	0.833	0.188***	−0.061*
Remitting likelihood	(0.485)	(0.433)	(0.021)	(0.479)	(0.374)	(0.034)	(0.040)
N	4119	486	4605	994	156	1150	5755
$ amount remitted	324.877	291.895	−32.983**	286.678	361.4	74.723*	−107.705**
$ amount remitted	(505.37)	(314.294)	(19.223)	(255.798)	(637.767)	(56.701)	(59.831)
N	2569	365	2934	641	130	771	3705
Panel B: Employment-based initiatives (E-Verify)
	Pre-2006	Post-2006	DT	Pre-2006	Post-2006	DC	(DT-DC)
Remitting likelihood	0.808	0.742	−0.066	0.665	0.778	0.113**	−0.178**
Remitting likelihood	(0.395)	(0.445)	(0.083)	(0.472)	(0.420)	(0.058)	(0.101)
N	265	31	296	1096	54	1150	1446
$ amount remitted	347.620	178.184	−169.44***	303.187	231.406	−71.781**	−97.654**
$ amount remitted	(361.366)	(130.653)	(36.448)	(356.273)	(238.938)	(38.791)	(53.191)
N	214	23	237	729	42	771	1008

Samples: To avoid the overlap of the two types of policies being examined, the sample in Panel A excludes migrants from the geographic areas that eventually adopt E-Verify, whereas the sample in Panel B excludes migrants from geographic areas that ultimately adopt 287(g) or Secure Communities.
Note: Standard deviations and standard errors (for the difference and difference-in-difference estimates) in parentheses. ***, **, *denote 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels at the corresponding one-tail and two-tail tests. DT stands for the difference in remitting patterns among migrants in treated localities –localities adopting the examined measures, whereas DC represents differences in remitting patterns among migrants in control localities –localities that do not adopt any of the policies.