Skip to navigation
Skip to main content
[CIIP UCSD February 19-20, 1998]
Comparative Immigration and Integration Program
Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation
University of California, San Diego
Thursday-Friday, February 19-20, 1998
Field Trip 1Migration Developments in 1997 2Mexico-US Migration 4France 4Integration 5Eastern Europe 6Agenda 7
The 11th conference of the UC Comparative Immigration and Integration Program was held at UCSD on February 19-20, 1998 in conjunction with the third meeting of the Managing Migration in the 21st Century program, which promotes comparative analysis of the migration patterns and integration issues in industrial democracies. An agenda and list of participants is attached. This report was not reviewed by speakers and participants.
The US has made an effort to expedite lawful entries, including developing a designated commuter lane through which drivers who provide information on themselves can enter the US without stopping. As the wait to enter the US has been reduced from hours to 20 minutes or less, more Mexicans and US residents are crossing the border for business and pleasure.
COLEF is a degree-granting Mexican college with 120 full-time faculty and affiliates stretched along the Mexico-US border. Tijuana, a city of 1.2 to 1.5 million that is growing by 85,000 per year through internal Mexican migration, is the major crossing point for Mexicans entering the US; there are 45 flights each day from the interior of Mexico to Tijuana, versus 7 or 8 from interior Mexico to Juarez. High housing costs prevent many Mexican maquiladora workers from bringing their families to Tijuana, so there are frequent visits to the interior.
Since 1993, COLEF has been interviewing Mexicans arriving border area bus stations and airports to determine if they are migrating to the US, and their migration behavior. COLEF data suggest that many Mexicans used to be circular migrants, meaning that they entered the US for six to nine months, and then returned to Mexico. Stepped-up border controls, as well as a restructuring of rural Mexico, has encouraged more Mexican migrants to remain in the US.
Sony is a maquiladora, a foreign-operated assembly plant that imports machinery and components duty free, adds value by assembling products, and then re-exports the finished goods to the US--duty is paid only on the value-added in Mexico, which is typically less than 10 percent of the value of the finished good. The maquiladora program was begun in 1965 to provide jobs for Mexican workers who had moved to the border area to work seasonally in US agriculture as Braceros--the Bracero program was ended by the US in 1964. The number of plants and employment grew sharply in the 1990s; there are almost 4000 plants and 1 million workers in Spring 1998. Maquiladora exports account for half of Mexico's manufactured exports.
Sony has three Mexican plants and 10,000 employees in Mexico, including 600 employees at the modern VCR/Playstation plant visited. There is a sharp contrast between assembly line workers, most of whom are young women who left school at age 15-16 and moved to Tijuana--over half of the assembly line workers were under 20--and engineering and accounting workers, most of whom are from Baja California, and many have technical degrees. Turnover is very high--8 to 10 percent per month--which means that Sony must typically hire two workers to keep one job slot filled for one year.
Workers are recruited by current employees, and by sending sound trucks through Tijuana neighborhoods announcing that jobs are available. Workers receive one or two days of training and then go to work; Sony is hiring 10 to 30 new workers each day.
Assembly-line labor costs Sony about $2 per hour, but workers receive about $0.60 per hour, largely because (1) Sony must pay a number of Mexican payroll taxes and (2) the maquiladora industry provides a number of in-kind benefits, including lunch, food coupons, and transportation to and from work.
Operation Gatekeeper was launched on October 1, 1994 with the goal of deterring the entry of unauthorized aliens rather than apprehending those who entered the US, processing them, and returning them to Mexico. Operation Gatekeeper began first on the five miles of border between the port of entry and the Pacific Ocean, the Imperial Beach section. A combination of more people, new technology to fingerprint those apprehended (and prosecute repeat offenders), and lights and other steps first increased apprehensions, but have since reduced them to very low levels--no one had been apprehended during the day February 19.
The Border Patrol credits Gatekeeper with pretty much stopping the "entry without inspection" form of illegal immigration in the Imperial Beach sector, and with a drop in associated auto theft and crime in nearby neighborhoods. However, the Border Patrol acknowledges that more Mexicans attempting illegal entry are using the services of professional smugglers, and that smuggling has moved eastward, into AZ. The policy issue is how expensive it will be to extend Gatekeeper type operations along the entire southwestern border, and then maintain them at a level that deters illegal entries.
Migration Developments in 1997
Legal immigration is expected to be about one million annually for the next several years; legal immigration was 10 million between 1987 and 1996, including three million persons legalized in 1987-88. Since the number of employment based immigrant visas is 140,000 per year, over 80 percent of US immigrants are selected for family and humanitarian reasons.
The US has over 50 types of nonimmigrant visas, including at least ten that permit US employment. Many of the visas that permit work are controversial, from the J-visa that admits, inter alia, au pairs to baby-sit in US homes to the H-1B visa that admits high-tech workers for up to six years on the basis of US employer assertions (attestations) that there are no US workers available.
Reerman emphasized that many of the major migration policy initiatives in Germany are occurring on an EU level. The EU in general and Germany in particular face immigration pressures from movement through--not from--Eastern Europe; the migrants are from the ex-USSR, from the ex-Yugoslavia, and from Turkey and Asia. In addition, people continue to move to Germany due to family unification among settled guest workers. Germany also receives ethnic German Aussiedler from the ex-USSR. The foreign students, foreign workers, rejected asylum seekers and foreign business people are expected to depart after one to five years.
Reerman believes that migration policy is properly moving from the national to the EU level, with the EU establishing minimum standards, and national governments implementing them uniformly. This is the spirit behind the Dublin and subsequent agreements dealing with asylum seekers--foreigners should apply for asylum in the first safe or EU country they reach. Reerman believes that EU policies such as the Dublin convention must be strengthened by e.g., fingerprinting asylum seekers and exchanging data on them, so that a foreigner cannot shop around for a preferred country to apply for asylum.
Most asylum seekers try to apply in countries in which they have friends or relatives, which explains why Kurds might enter Italy but apply for asylum in Germany, which has 500,000 to 600,000 Kurdish residents. However, benefits for asylum seekers vary within the EU, and benefits may play a role in where to apply. For example, it was noted that Greece provides no housing or payments for asylum applicants, Italy provides benefits for up to 45 days, and France provides 1300 FF per month for up to one year.
Germany's benefits are considered to be better than many others, so some asylum seekers destroy their documents and do not apply for asylum until they reach Germany, even if they entered the EU in Italy or France. Once in Germany, Iraqi Kurds cannot be returned, so that Germany feels it is carrying a disproportionate share of Europe's asylum burden.
Muenz emphasized that there are seven doors through which people may move into Germany, including the return of German citizens who previously emigrated, and the movement to Germany of ethnic Germans. Until 1985, entries and exits were linked closely to the German business cycle; since 1985, net migration--roughly 130,000 foreigners per year and another 150,000 ethnic Germans-- has been steady despite generally high unemployment.
There was considerable discussion of the most effective and humane way to control illegal Mexico-US migration, centering on (1) a more effective means of enforcing employer sanctions laws within the US versus (2) shifting some of the enforcement burden to Mexico. Gatekeeper has clearly raised smuggling fees, from $100-$300 to $600-$800, and encouraged the entry into the smuggling business of better capitalized and professional organizations.
It is easy to emphasize how much or how little EU cooperation and coordination on migration matters. On the one hand, Dublin, Schengen, and other agreements, as well as much more informal consultation, have led to more cooperation than ever before. However, Weil noted that there is still relatively cooperation on e.g. removals.
Hollifield stressed that France's history of republicanism included equal protection for all, and that the need for labor early in the 20th century encouraged France to think about immigration and naturalization before other European nations. As in Germany, France recruited or tolerated the entry of guest workers during the 1960s and until 1973-74, but permitted established guest workers to unify their families in France.
In 1981, the new socialist government combined stepped up border and interior enforcement with a limited amnesty, attracting 145,000 applications. In 1984, the National Front burst on the scene as an anti-immigrant party protesting too many foreigners, especially North Africans. In 1986, the government changed, and interior minister Pasqua adopted tough policies and rhetoric designed to reassert control over immigration, which was 100,000 to 200,000 per year during the 1980s. Pasqua also made the acquisition of French citizenship less automatic for those born of foreign parents in France, and stepped up controls again with 1993 laws.
Hollified developed the notion that countries that have weak internal controls, such as the US, tend to deal with fears of too many immigrants by reducing positive rights, or rights to welfare benefits. Countries with tight internal controls, including Germany, tend to reduce negative freedoms, i.e., restrict entry, but not exclude foreigners from the social welfare state. In France in 1996-97, some foreigners were caught between laws, unable to get legal residence, but also unable to be deported; their hunger strike attracted widespread public support.
For Hollifield, the Weil report harkens back to the 1981 socialist grand bargain, promising stepped up controls in exchange for an amnesty for some of those who had developed an equity stake in French society. Bills were introduced to reform both the French nationality law (Guigou) and French immigration law (ChevÃ‹nement), but not to repeal the control-oriented Pasqua-DebrÃˆ Laws enacted in 1993 and 1997. The Guigou Law, approved on a 267-246 vote, provides for practically automatic French citizenship at age 18 for persons born in France of foreign parents if they have lived in France for at least five years after age 11; those born in France are issued republican identity cards until age 18. The ChevÃ‹nement bill eased entry requirements for foreign students and for unifying families in France.
Haberland objected to the French assumption that there may be room in EU labor markets for more immigrants. He noted that, in Germany, about 20 percent of the foreign workers in Germany are unemployed, and the 500,000 unemployed foreign workers are about 10 percent of the five million unemployed workers in Germany. With the EU adding 50 to 55 million poorer residents via expansion, Haberland objects to providing easier access for foreign workers now. (Negotiations for the accession of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovenia are scheduled to begin March 30, 1998).
The Germans are also concerned about the Weil report's recommendation that France grant asylum to persons fleeing persecution by non-governmental organizations, as in Algeria.
Murswiek examined the evolution of minority rights in Europe and Germany after borders were redrawn after World War I, and asked whether rights that were granted to minorities then who found themselves in a new nation state should be extended to foreign minorities today. His answer is no; minority rights in Europe grew out of nation-state formation, not immigration, and cannot be extended to immigrants.
It was noted that both the US and EU nations are receiving immigrants at a time when basic institutions are being questioned, and social safety nets for all poor residents are being shrunk. There is thus a disconnect between the arrival of needy immigrants in economies that reward high skills, and societies that have decided to reduce benefits.
Cornelius compared dependence on immigrants in the San Diego and Hamamatsu Japan, and found that there is a structural dependence on foreign workers in both areas. There is an apparent paradox in both countries. In southern California, immigrants with little education are being hired in a high-tech economy, while in Japan, ethnic Japanese from South America, some of whom are very-well educated, are being employed in assembly line jobs.
Based on 1996 employer and worker interviews, Cornelius believes that the demand for "unskilled labor" is embedded in both countries: in San Diego, immigrant-dependent employers classified 83 percent of their average 30 workers as unskilled, versus 38 percent of 27 employees in Hamamatsu. Despite the high-tech sobriquet, training for new hires is minimal--8 days in San Diego, and 5 in Hamamatsu, and most employers in both areas reported that they could use immigrant workers in all production jobs. Cornelius concludes that demand-pull and network factors combine to create a migration infrastructure that permits migration to continue regardless of government policies.
Klos emphasized that the percentage of foreigners varies from occupation to occupation in Germany, ranging as high as 30 percent of the cooks and 23 percent of the unskilled workers in Germany (foreigners are about 9 percent of the German labor force). Klos emphasized that there are several types of foreign workers in Germany, and two distinct regulatory regimes--the residence permit system, which permits foreigners to live in Germany, and the work permit system, which permits foreigners to work in Germany.
Kessler examined the factors that shape attitudes toward immigrants. Using a two-by-two matrix, Kessler argued that the key variables were whether the immigrants arriving were substitutes or complements to domestic workers, and whether the government in power was labor or capital oriented. Immigrants who are substitutes for domestic workers when labor-oriented governments are in power tend to lead to restrictions, while immigrants who are complements when capital-oriented governments tend to permit or encourage immigration.
Straubhaar says that employers are the key actors in determining the level of illegal alien employment. To compensate for the risk of detection and fines, employers who knowingly hire illegal workers pay them less than the value of their contribution to production; output is higher than it would be without the illegals, and the wages of complementary workers rise. To reduce illegal alien employment, Straubhaar recommends (1) making labor markets more flexible, to reduce employer incentives to hire illegal workers in order to avoid payroll taxes and regulations and (2) increase penalties on employers who hire illegal workers.
Brubaker and Fox discussed the migration of some of the 1.5 million ethnic Hungarians in Romania to Hungary, a part of a larger "ethnic unmixing" in eastern Europe. In the case of ethnic Hungarians, fellow ethnics in Hungary saw them more as "Romanian guest workers" than fellow Hungarians.
Thursday, February 19, 1998
8AM Bus (San Diego Mini Tours) departs Best Western Inn by the Sea, 7830 Fay Ave and Prospect Ave, La Jolla, 619-459-4461
8:45AM Arrive at the Interstate 5 Port of Entry, tour and discuss immigration and customs entry procedures, Rudy Murrillo, INS and Karen Philis, Area Ports Director (Cindy), 619-662-7315--Bus to make U-Turn back into US and drop off
10AM Travel to Otay Mesa, cross border, and tour Tijuana
11AM Arrive El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, discuss estimation of cross border flows, Jorge Santibanez-Romellon, Colef
12:30PM Lunch at Colef
1:30PM Depart for Sony, Pacific Industrial Park, tour factory and research facilities, Diane Lindquist, San Diego Union Tribune
3PM Depart for US, enter US, and drive to Border state park, US side
4:30PM Arrive at Imperial Beach Border Patrol station, IDENT etc
5:30PM Depart Imperial Beach
6PM Arrive Best Western Inn by the Sea
7:30PM Dinner at Karl Strauss Brewpub, 1044 Wall Street, 619-551-2739
Friday, February 20, 1998, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies
Papers are posted at: //migration.ucdavis.edu/rs/ciip.php
8AM Continental breakfast
8:30AM CIIP purposes and goals, Philip Martin, UCD, Bev Crawford, UCB
8:35AM Introductions and 2-minute presentations on each participant's current comparative immigration and integration research.
9:15AM Overview of Migration Patterns and Trends in 1997. Chair, Philip Martin
US, Roger Kramer, US Department of Labor
Germany, Olaf Reermann, Federal Ministry of Interior
Discussant: Rainer Muenz, Humboldt University
10:30AM What next for US Immigration? Alan Bersin, US Attorney, San Diego
11:45AM Reforming Immigration Policy in France
Patrick Weil, C.E.P.I.C., Paris
Reactions: Jim Hollifield, SMU
Jürgen Haberland, German Ministry of Interior
2PM Immigrant Integration in US and German Cities. Chair, Kay Hailbronner, University of Konstanz
Roger Waldinger, UCLA
Dietrich Murswiek, University of Freiburg
Discussant: Dr. Günter Renner, Judge, Administrative Appeal Court of Hessen, Susan Martin, Institute for the Study of International Migration, Georgetown University
3:15PM Dependence on Immigrants: California and Japan, Wayne Cornelius,
Dependance on Immigrants: Germany, Christain Klos, University of Konstanz
Immigration Immigrants in the US Labor Market: An Historical Perspective, Alan Kessler, UCLA
Discussant: Ralf Ulrich, Humboldt University
4:30PM Integration, Democracy and Migration in Eastern Europe
Rogers Brubaker, UCLA
Thomas Straubhaar, Hamburg