Spring 1999, Volume XIV Number 2
Immigration: A Dialogue on Policy, Law, and Values
The Future of Immigration
EDITORS: What is the future face of immigration -- from where will the next
generation of immigrants to America likely come? What immigration issues do you think
might surface in the next few years? How should America’s policies and laws respond,
if at all, to these new circumstances?
SUSAN MARTIN: There are a range of new global contexts that will affect how we
think about immigration and how we regulate movements of people. First, economic
globalization and trends in information technology will affect economic migration. For
example, multinational corporations are already developing internal labor markets that
come into conflict with immigration policies and procedures; trade negotiations, such as
the General Agreement on Trade in Services, raise new immigration issues (i.e., can one
have freer trade in services within existing immigration regimes); and increased reliance
on contingent labor appears to be increasing interest in temporary migration categories,
raising questions about whether we will increasingly have a two-tiered system with some
immigrants having few labor rights and tied to specific employers while others are
eligible to become citizens.
Second, the new transportation and communications developments permit a level of
transnationalism never before experienced. Although some migrants have always been
"birds of passage," going back and forth between the U.S. and their home
countries, the process was generally sequential. Now people can literally live in two
places at the same time and maintain close ties in both locations. What this level of
transnationalism means for the future of immigrants and their children is still to be
determined.
This is not the first time our immigration system needed to deal with changing
contexts. We have gone through prior periods in which immigration accompanied sea-changes
in economic and foreign policy, and other contexts. At the turn of the last century, the
U.S. was undergoing the industrial revolution, urbanization, and the end of the frontier,
as well as progressive political reforms and the emergence of the U.S. as a world power.
PAUL ONG: The ethnic/national composition of our foreign-born population will
continue to change. Of 9.7 million foreign-born residents of the U.S. in 1960, 74% came
from Europe, 5% from Asia, 6% from Mexico, 3% from the Americas (excluding Mexico and
Canada), and 11% from Canada and other places. In 1990, the ethnic/national composition of
the 19.8 million foreign-born residents of the U.S. shifted away from Europe (only 22%)
toward Asia (25%), Mexico (22%), and the Americas (21%); 10% came from other countries. If
recent trends continue, the 2020 foreign-born U.S. population of 38.1 million will be 16%
European, 28% Asian, 26% Mexican, 23% from the Americas, and 7% from elsewhere. But I see
some possible changes.
The diversity program, originally an implicit "Irish" program, now opens the
door to many other countries, including Africa. If this program continues and the
"diversity" immigrants start sponsoring their families, then the ethnic/national
composition will change significantly. While I disliked the original diversity program, I
now see it in a much more positive light. There is no reason to give overwhelming
preference to those who by historical chance or luck have relatives in the U.S. The door
needs to be open to others.
I also foresee a possible increase in the use of economic-based quotas. I think that
economic interest is a legitimate national interest as it relates to immigration, though
it should not displace family unification or refugee programs. Congressional actions that
increase the number of "temporary" skilled workers may be a signal of change in
policy that will increase the number of skilled immigrants. Many of these temporary
workers eventually become permanent immigrants. They will also sponsor family members,
thus setting up a chain migration. While the relatives may not be as educated as the
sponsors, this process certainly will favor the more educated. (This process can be seen
in the post-1965 immigration patterns of Filipinos and Chinese from Taiwan.) Consequently,
the class composition may also change over time.
Finally, there is great uncertainty. It is difficult to project from where future waves
of refugees will come. Moreover, the political events in California may be a harbinger of
a period of immigration restrictions. I fear that we are just one recession away from the
anti-immigrant movement going national. If that happens, then the flow of legal
immigration, at least, will decrease.
KITTY CALAVITA: Recently, the INS has announced that it will begin substituting
workplace raids of undocumented workers with employer audits as the major enforcement tool
for illegal immigration. This was recently put into effect in the state of Washington,
where employers in the fruit processing industry were told they should terminate the
employment of 1,700 workers that the INS considered undocumented. This created havoc in
both the industry and the immigrant community. If this strategy of the INS is fully
implemented, it may contribute to increased calls for a new guestworker program. In recent
years, agricultural and other employers have stepped up political lobbying for a new
Bracero-like program of imported workers, and this year it has reached a crescendo. If
enforcement actions against employers are increased, no doubt the pressure for temporary
legal workers will also increase. I hope that any return to such a policy will be preceded
by extensive public debate. Immigration policies (even, or especially, those involving
temporary workers) should be part of broader economic policies. The debate about temporary
agricultural workers should not take place separate from a larger discussion of
agricultural wages and working conditions and the nature of any "labor
shortage."
MARK KRIKORIAN: Over the next few years, several immigration issues are likely
to be salient: (1) More amnesties: once you’ve said yes to one amnesty, it’s
hard to say no to the next one. President Clinton has already signaled that he will grant
amnesty to about a quarter of a million Salvadorans and Guatemalans, and other such
proposals will follow; (2) "Temporary" workers: the computer industry is
obviously not going to be satisfied with the increase in H-1B visas passed last year, and
they will push for the complete removal of the cap on these indentured-servant visas; (3)
Asylum: the culture war will continue to spill over into asylum policy; there will be
ongoing controversies over asylum for homosexuals, women in traditional societies,
opponents of population control measures, Christians from Muslim countries, etc.
Farther into the future, additional issues are likely to affect the nature of
immigration. First, consider Africa. Immigration from Africa is likely to increase
numerically and as a share of overall immigration to the United States. There are at least
two reasons for this. Ongoing urbanization and modernization in Africa, however fitful and
incomplete, is creating an increasingly large pool of people with the potential to
emigrate. And more of them will be coming here, as opposed to the traditional destinations
in Europe (and South Africa) because of the visa lottery, which was created as a vehicle
to legalize Irish illegal aliens but acquired a significant African component (in FY 1996,
Africa accounted for 35% of diversity visas; Ireland accounted for 1.6%).
Next, consider China. Doug Massey has speculated that China might soon overtake Mexico
as the largest source of immigrants to our country. Though that’s unlikely (almost
30% of all foreign born people here are from Mexico, whereas China/Hong Kong/Taiwan
account for 5%; of the fy 1997 legal flow, 18% was from Mexico, 5% from China), the point
is valid. China is undergoing titanic internal changes, with rapid economic modernization
and widespread social dislocation, one of the results of which is the presence of perhaps
100 million people living outside their home villages -- the so-called "floating
population." Also, there will inevitably be a crisis of the regime sometime in the
next generation, which could result in some kind of political upheaval, perhaps a return
to the warlordism of the 1930s or a more organized civil war. In any case, the result is
likely to be an enormous outpouring of people from China, creating what may well be the
mother of all refugee crises. This will have a significant impact on immigration to the
United States, though obviously neighboring countries will bear most of the burden.
SUSAN MARTIN: Post-Cold War geopolitical developments are already changing
refugee policy. The U.S. resettlement program was an instrument of the Cold War, giving
priority to people fleeing Communism. What will be the new priorities? The end of the Cold
War has had both positive and negative ramifications for international refugee policy. On
the one hand, some of the foreign policy impetus to support a generous refugee assistance
program has lessened at the same time that new and increasingly disturbing outbreaks of
violence and human rights violations affect civilian populations. More of those needing
assistance are trapped in their own countries unable to gain asylum. On the other hand,
the international community can and has intervened to save lives in a number of situations
that would have been off-limits during the Cold War, and millions of refugees have been
able to return home because Cold War-supported conflicts came to an end.
KAREN MUSALO: The end of the Cold War did not end the need for protection for
those fleeing human rights violations. In some respects it has allowed the unleashing of
forces that have caused tremendous suffering and bloodshed -- the upheavals in the former
Yugoslavia, for example. Notwithstanding the frightening proliferation of war and
repression in numerous countries around the world (witness the contemporary situations in
Sierra Leone and Kosovo to name just two that have been in the news in 1999), "first
world" countries have become more restrictive and less generous in procedural as well
as substantive aspects of refugee policy. Countries have erected barriers that make it
even more difficult for asylum seekers to access their protection systems -- the
interdiction and forcible repatriation policy initiated by President Bush and continued by
President Clinton for Haitian refugees after Aristide’s ouster, for example. There
was no doubt that many of the Haitians who were fleeing would have been eligible for
refugee protection under U.S. law. In upholding the interdiction policy, the U.S. Supreme
Court acknowledged as an uncontested fact that "hundreds of Haitians" had been
"killed, tortured, detained without a warrant, or subjected to violence and the
destruction of their property because of their political beliefs." They were
prevented from arriving on U.S. soil to assert a claim for protection under the 1980
Refugee Act. I do not see an end anytime soon to the fortress mentality of
refugee-receiving countries.
MARK KRIKORIAN: The very elements of modernity that make migration easier also
make it more problematic -- advanced communications and transportation technology -- and a
weakened sense of community at the local and national levels. Eventually, the U.S. will
enact substantial reductions in legal immigration. The longer it takes for immigration to
be reduced, the more likely reduction will be accompanied by draconian anti-immigrant
measures. Does anyone think that the welfare cutoff for non-citizens would have been
enacted if annual immigration were 250,000 per year instead of 900,000? Cuts in the level
of immigration are assured. Whether we adopt a policy that welcomes that smaller flow of
immigrants or demonizes them is yet to be decided.
RACHEL MORAN: Immigration between Mexico and the United States, according to one
study, represents the single most significant labor flow in the contemporary world. I
believe that this influx of workers will continue to be of critical importance to both
countries. Although immigration generally is conceived as a way station en route to
American citizenship, the Mexican flow of labor has always been different. Many workers
arrive from Mexico with little or no prospect of ever becoming citizens, even if they
establish recurring, long-term relations with the United States. The proximity of Mexico,
the seeming foreignness of its population, and the fear of being overrun by the needy and
uneducated -- all of these make it likely that barriers to citizenship will continue to
offer a sense of insularity to Americans that geography cannot give. At the same time,
though, if the flow of Mexican labor continues, the rapid growth of Latino immigrant
communities (whether they consist of undocumented immigrants, permanent resident aliens,
or citizens) will challenge traditional ways of American thinking about civil rights and
immigration. Latinos will displace Blacks as the single largest racial or ethnic minority
in the country. The concentration of Latinos in particular cities and regions will lead to
polarizing politics and culture clashes. The rising Latino population will force the U.S.
to consider the future of democracy and equality in a society divided not only by race and
ethnicity but also language, culture, and citizenship status. As we enter a new
millennium, the challenges posed by the interaction of immigration and the domestic
dilemmas of race and poverty are tremendous. A satisfactory solution will necessarily
require a return to the nation’s most fundamental understandings of individualism and
equality.
Spring 1999 Issue Home | American Values | Levels and Criteria
| Congress and Courts
Bilingual Education | The Future | The
ABA & Immigration | Resources
Contributors | Comments | Credits/Disclaimers
Focus on Law Studies Home | Subscribe to Focus | Questions/Ordering
Back Issues
|
