Skip to navigation

Skip to main content


[CGES-CIIP April 5, 1995]

The Comparative Immigration and Integration Program Spring Workshop will be held Wednesday, April 5, 1995 at the Alumni House at University of California at Berkeley. Persons attending the PAA in San Francisco, and others interested in learning about the activities of the CIIP are invited to participate.

Alumni house is located centrally on the UCB campus, just northwest of Zellerbach Hall and Sproul Plaza (i.e. the corner of Bancroft and Telegraph). If you arrive by car, park in the Student Union Garage, at Bancroft and Dana; if you arrive by BART,

exit at the Berkeley stop and walk east on Center Street to the campus.

Take the Cross Campus path through the eucalyptus trees. You will find

Alumni House on the right hand side.

If you would like to participate, please contact Patricia LaHay at, tel 510 642-4508 or fax 510 643-5996 by 5 pm on Monday April 3, 1995. There is no charge to participate, and lunch will be provided.

9:00 AM Update on CIIP purposes and goals, Philip Martin, UCD and Richard Buxbaum/Gerry Feldman, UCB

9:15AM Introductions and 2 minute presentations on each participant's current comparative immigration and integration research.

10:00 AM Roger Brubaker, UCLA, Ethnic Unmixing in Eastern Europe and the ex-USSR

Discussant: Susan Larson, UCB

10:45 AM Break

11:00 AM Philip Martin, UCD, Mexican-US Migration after Prop 187 and the Peso Devaluation

Discussant: Ed Taylor, UCD

11:45 AM Jack Citrin, UCB, Public Opinion and Immigration Reform

Discussant: Andres Jimenez, Ca Policy Seminar

12:30 Lunch

2:00 PM Nancy Bolton, UCLA, What Do CA Income Tax Returns tell us about Immigrant Integration?

3:30 PM Adjourn

Announcements 1Minutes 1Student RFP 3

The CGES Comparative Immigration and Integration Program held its Spring Workshop on Wednesday, April 5, 1995 at the Alumni House at University of California at Berkeley. Four papers were presented and discussed by the 18 faculty and students who participated.

1. Faculty CIIP awards for 1995-96 will be announced by April 20, 1995. This year's grant letters will include an explicit statement that faculty receiving CGES-CIIP awards are expected to be active members of the workgroup.

Active members are expected to participate in the Fall and Spring workshops, to make at least one presentation to the group, and to submit at least one working paper to Patricia LaHay based on their CIIP-funded research, each year that they receive a CIIP award.

2. These minutes include the announcement of a Graduate Student RFP for up to $2000 to be spent between June 15, 1995 and July 1, 1996. Applications from UC graduate students are due by May 7, 1995; awards will be announced by May 25, 1995.

3. There will be a special one-day "invitation only" workshop on recent developments in German immigration and integration policy on Thursday, August 31, 1995. CIIP faculty and students who wish to participate should contact Patricia LaHay.

4. The CIIP program will expand to include immigration and integration issues in Asia. The executive committee (Martin, Cornelius, Waldinger) will be expanded to include a UCB specialist interested in Asian labor migration.

Rogers Brubaker (UCLA) discussed "ethnic unmixing" in Eastern Europe, and emphasized that people can move across borders (migration), and borders can move across people (various forms of "ethnic cleansing"). One of the world's major ethnic unmixings occurred after WWII, when 12 million Germans returned to shrunken Germany, and Brubaker is interested in how ethnic unmixing might occur in the former USSR, where 25 million Russians live outside Russia, and in Eastern Europe, as e.g., will ethnic Hungarians in Romania stay there?

There are many types of ethnic unmixing, so that the reasons for, costs of, speed, and volume of migration varies enormously. If an ethnic-dominated government falls violently in a multi-ethnic society, than those ethnics most associated with the old government are most likely to be pushed out quickly, especially if the ethnicity that causes them problems in one country gives them a welcome mat elsewhere.

Ethnicity can become an economically-valuable good, especially if a rich country such as Germany offers automatic citizenship to ethnic nationals who move "home." The number of "ethnic Germans" has been increasing in the ex-USSR in response to the opportunity to emigrate to Germany. However, it was noted that ethnic unmixing may result in a move from isolation to isolation--the ethnic Germans in Germany may be thought of there as Russians.

Ethnicity can also increase network access to emigration. Ethnic Hungarians in Romania, for example, may be better able to migrate seasonally for employment to Hungary than other Romanians.

Philip Martin (UCD) discussed the probable effects of the peso devaluation on Mexico-to-US migration. As with many US-Mexican relationships, there is an asymmetry in the migration relationship: the US accepts immigrants from many nations, but virtually all Mexican emigrants head for the US. Mexico is expected to send over 3 million immigrants to the United States over the 15 years between 1981 and 1995, equivalent to 20 percent of Mexicoís net population growth, and 25 percent of legal US immigration.

On January 1, 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect, laying the basis for an eventual free trade area encompassing 380 million people with a combined GDP of $7 trillion. The purpose of NAFTA is to reduce trade barriers and promote investment in the region, thereby stimulating economic and job growth throughout North America.

Mexico has had major devaluations at the end of each of the last 4 Presidencies: in 1976, in 1982, again in 1986-87, and in 1994-95. After each de-evaluation, illegal immigration increased, but there is no consistent relationship between economic troubles in Mexico and illegal immigration to the US, at least as measured by apprehensions. For example, after the 1982-83 peso devaluation, it took about 16 months for the US Border Patrol to notice a significant increase in illegal immigration. In 1987, apprehensions dropped despite a devaluation of the peso, largely because so many Mexicans were becoming legalized US immigrants.

The economic background and US immigration responses to the first two peso devaluations may provide clues about responses to the 1994-95 devaluation. The 70 percent peso devaluation of 1982-83 lowered real wages in urban areas and put Mexican farmers in a cost-price squeeze, but the fact that Mexican workers kept their jobs and saw their standard of living erode gradually helps to explain the delayed illegal migration response. The 1986-87 peso devaluation, by contrast, occurred when the US was offering an amnesty, while the INS was educating employers rather than enforcing sanctions, and during a period of rapid US job growth, all factors that encouraged a seemingly ìlegalî migration response.

The 50 percent peso devaluation of 1994-95 is occurring in a different climate in Mexico and the US. In Mexico, for the first time, it appears that there will be significant layoffs from formal sector jobs --the Mexican government projects that 1 million workers may be laid off from formal sector jobs, and that 400,000 were laid off since January 1, 1995.

With more urban workers facing unemployment without a safety net, and most of the relief programs apparently designed to help rural people--Mexico plans to employ 500,000 workers temporarily to build and repair rural roads- -poor farmers could be joined in the northward trek in 1995 by unemployed factory workers. INS Commissioner Doris Meissner, for example, noted that some of the Mexican aliens apprehended by INS agents said they crossed the border because of plant closings or other job losses related to the peso devaluation.

There are three broad options to deal with the increased emigration pressure in Mexico: develop better border and interior controls designed to deter Mexican and all other illegal immigrants, try to convert illegal Mexican migrants into legal guest workers, and induce Mexico to cooperate to reduce illegal immigration.

Jack Citrin (UCB) discussed the results of opinion polling that found widespread sentiment for reducing immigration. Elites--better educated and wealthier people--tend to favor current or higher levels of immigration; mass opinion favors less immigration.

There was a remarkable similarity of opinion on immigration regardless of micro economic circumstances--whether a person was employed or not, his or her feelings about the need for less immigration were similar.

It was noted that anti-immigrant sentiments seem to be rising in all aging industrial societies and that, in many countries with different groups of immigrants, one group--Turks in Germany, Algerians in France, or Mexicans in the US--seem to typify what those polled do not like about immigration.

Nancy Bolton (UCLA) reported on the results of an ongoing project that is using state income tax records to study demographic change in CA. Using returns filed in 1990 and 1993, Bolton and her colleagues matched via SSNs a sample of persons who filed returns in both years, and this matching suggests that migration out of CA was much greater than previously believed--perhaps a net 400,000 residents left CA in 1990.

Tax records overcount households because many individuals living together file separate tax returns, but they undercount the population because not all persons are required to file, especially the elderly with only social security income and those on welfare. However, there has been a significant increase in tax filings by poor people with children to obtain the Earned Income Tax Credit--a maximum $1300 in 1992 if no tax was owed.

One noteworthy trend was that non-Hispanics seemed to move out of CA between 1990 and 1993, while Hispanics moved in. CA's payroll employment in March 1995 was 12.2 million, up a net 54,000 in the first 3 months of 1995.

Student RFP
Call for Proposals - Deadline, June 1, 1995

The Center for German and European Studies announces a competition for a

limited amount of grants of up to $2,000 available to registered UC

graduate students. Grant recipients would be expected to become active

participants in the Comparative Immigration and Integration Program, a

study group which meets two times a year to discuss economic, political,

and socio cultural questions raised by immigration into North American

and Western Europe, and the integration of newcomers into these

industrial democracies. Funds may be used for research related travel,

supplies and expense, (excluding equipment).

This Comparative Immigration and Integration Program (CIIP) is interested

in the issues raised by migration from developing nations into the

industrial nations of North America and Western Europe, the adaptation of

newcomers to industrial societies, and the responses of industrial

country populations to third world immigration. The purpose of student

research grants is to permit students with comparative migration and

integration interests to do further research of this type, and to enable

those with expertise in one area of migration or integration to develop a

comparative perspective in their work.

Proposals should indicate whether the questions being addressed are

primarily economic, political, or socio cultural. The CIIP defines these

categories broadly, and does not expect, e.g., only economists to deal

with economic questions. Sociologists and anthropologists interested in

the impact of immigration on native born minority workers, or on how

immigrants fare in ethnic enclave economies, might for example, also be

dealing primarily with economic questions. The CIIP recognizes that

Migration Studies is an inchoate field, and has adopted this three-way

economic, political, and socio-cultural taxonomy only for administrative


Applications should consist of a short description of the proposed

research, a CV, a budget, and a statement listing the amounts and sources

of other funds that have been received or applied for to support the

proposed research. Berkeley students should submit their applications

directly to the Center for German and European Studies at the address

below. UC Students at campuses other than Berkeley or UCSD need to submit

their applications through the Contracts and Grants Office at their home

campus, allowing 2 weeks for processing. Please see your departmental

business officer for instructions and information. Applications should

be received at the following address by June 1, 1995; awards will be announced in mid-June.

Center for German and European Studies

254 Moses Hall #2316

University of California at Berkeley

Berkeley, CA 94720-2316

Direct questions to Gia White at, tel (510) 642-4555 or fax 510 643-5996.