How have state policies (sanctuary, employment laws, ID laws) influenced undocumented immigrant settlement patterns since 2020?
Executive summary
State-level policy signals — from sanctuary ordinances and driver's‑ID laws to employer sanctions and service‑access rules — have shaped where undocumented immigrants choose to live since 2020, but the pattern is complex: stronger enforcement at the federal and state levels coincided with an overall slowdown in net unauthorized migration, while local protections and long‑standing economic and network factors continued to anchor populations in particular states and counties [1] [2] [3].
1. Enforcement and the macro shift: restrictive policies coincided with lower net migration
A sharp turn toward more restrictive federal enforcement in 2025 is associated in expert analysis with a pronounced slowdown in net migration to the U.S., and researchers expect restrictive policy and intensified enforcement to continue influencing flows in 2026 — an environment that reduces new settlement opportunities and likely pushes some moves or departures from prior destination states [1].
2. Local variations belie a single narrative: declines overall, big differences by place
National estimates show the unauthorized population rising in recent years and then shifting through 2023–2025, but local trends vary substantially: analysts note a sudden reversal in net unauthorized immigration with large local variations, meaning some states and counties saw sharper declines while others remained destinations because of local labor demand or existing communities [2] [4].
3. Sanctuary and protective laws: retention and attraction, but causal proof is thin
Advocacy and policy groups argue states can protect and thereby retain immigrant families by limiting cooperation with federal enforcement and expanding access to services, and some states enacted protective measures to blunt aggressive enforcement pressures in 2025–2026; however, systematic causal studies linking these post‑2020 sanctuary or protection statutes to new settlement inflows are scarce in the provided reporting, so the claim that sanctuary status directly redirected large new flows cannot be proven from these sources alone [5].
4. Enforcement programs alter behavior and settlement through chilling effects
Past interior enforcement programs that automated data sharing — for example Secure Communities after 2008 — produced measurable rises in removals and reductions in safety‑net participation among immigrant families; by analogy, heightened enforcement since 2020 appears to produce deterrence and system‑avoidance that can discourage settlement in jurisdictions perceived as enforcement‑heavy [6].
5. Employment laws and labor demand still pull where jobs and networks exist
Longstanding economic pull factors remain central: undocumented immigrants historically gravitate toward states with higher median incomes, established co‑ethnic networks, and warmer climates, and evidence suggests economic opportunity, union density and labor market structure continue to influence destination choices even as policy climates shift [3].
6. ID laws and access to services shape day‑to‑day decisions more than headline politics
State rules that grant or block access to driver's licenses, state IDs, and public services change the calculus of daily life — affecting mobility, safety‑net access, and labor market participation — and these practical constraints or enablers contribute to whether families stay put or relocate within the U.S.; the sources underscore the role of legal vulnerability in suppressing access to services and stability, but detailed post‑2020 measurement of ID laws’ settlement effects is not provided here [6] [5].
7. Competing dynamics: enforcement-driven declines versus entrenched settlement patterns
The picture since 2020 is one of countervailing forces: intensified enforcement and restrictive federal policy have helped produce an overall slowdown or reversal in net unauthorized immigration, yet long‑standing economic opportunities, social networks, and localized protections sustain and concentrate populations in particular states and counties — producing a geography of decline and resilience rather than a uniform exodus [1] [2] [3].
8. Limits of available reporting and what would settle the debate
The current reporting documents broad national shifts, historical mechanisms (like Secure Communities), and policy proposals for state action, but it lacks comprehensive, causal, state‑by‑state longitudinal studies published since 2020 that isolate the marginal effect of sanctuary ordinances, ID access, or employment restrictions on settlement flows; resolving that gap requires microdata linking policy changes, local labor demand, enforcement encounters, and population counts over time [1] [5] [6].