Skip to navigation

Skip to main content


[CGES-CIIP January 26, 1995]

Center for German and European Studies

International and Area Studies


Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies

University of California

Comparative Immigration and Integration Program

Winter Workshop

January 26, 1995


Room 3343B, Public Policy Building

375 Circle Drive East


UC faculty and students interested in comparative immigration and integration issues are invited to participate in the Winter Workshop of the CGES-CIIP, scheduled for Room 3343B in the Public Policy Building, UCLA, from 9am to 3:30pm--the Public Policy Building is near corner of Hilgard and Wyton Aves., across from UCLA Guest House--tel (310) 206-4417 or 206-0753.

Please RSVP to Gia White at tel 510 642-4555 or fax 510 643-5996 by January 19, 1996.

Regular members of the CIIP can buy air tickets and send receipts to Gia White after the meeting, or contact Paulette Ianello of Miller Gove Northbrae Travel at 510-655-9113--note corrected number-- to have a prepaid ticket issued to you.

Please take Super Shuttle (213-775-6600) from the airport to the Public Policy Building at UCLA; the cost should be about $15. For reimbursement, please get a receipt. A taxi costs about $25, so if two or more people share a taxi, the cost is equivalent.

For those driving, park in Structure 3; UC campus parking permits combined with a UC identification campus parking will get you free parking at UCLA. If you have questions, please contact Margaret Johnson at (310) 206-0573 or

Others interested in participating and having their travel reimbursed should contact Gia White or Andrea Rapport, explaining their immigration and integration research and why they need travel funds to participate in the workshop.

Please remember that the 1996 CIIP RFP for $2500 faculty research grants will be distributed at the January 26, 1996 winter workshop, and requests for funding must be received at CGES by February 29, 1996. Contact Andrea Rapport at CGES at 510-643-2115 if you need an RFP announcement.

Comparative Immigration and Integration Program

Winter Workshop

January 26, 1995


Room 3343B, Public Policy Building

375 Circle Drive East


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 Ivan Light, UCLA, Anti-Immigrant Movements

Discussant: Andres Jimenez, Ca Policy Seminar

10:45 AM Break

11:00 AM Philip Martin, UCD, Prospects for a New Bracero Program

Discussant: Manuel Garcia y Griego, UCI

11:45 AM Lunch

12:15 Bill Frey, U-Michigan, Internal Migration Dynamics

in the United States

2 PM Programs for Research on Immigration to California--

Roger Waldinger, UCLA, Ethnic Los Angeles

Dowell Myers, USC, Immigration and Housing and Transporation in Southern California

Georges Vernez, Rand, Immigration and California

Hans Johnson, CA Public Policy Institute, Immigration and California

Linda Gage, CA Department of Finance, Immigration and California

4 PM Adjourn

Comparative Immigration and Integration Program

Winter Workshop

January 26, 1995


Room 3343B, Public Policy Building

375 Circle Drive East, UCLA

The CGES Comparative Immigration and Integration Program held its sixth Workshop on Friday, January 26, 1996 at the Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies at University of California at Los Angeles. Three papers were presented and discussed by the 40 faculty and students who participated, and an afternoon panel discussed programs of research on immigration's impacts on California.

The purpose of the CIIP is to promote interdisciplinary and comparative research on immigration and integration issues facing the industrial democracies. The CIIP each year funds 10 to 20 faculty researchers, and 10 to 20 graduate student projects, and holds two to three work shops. The CIIP supports the production of Migration News each month, which goes to 2000 readers around the world.

In 1996, the CIIP plans to inaugurate an annual research conference with German immigration and integration researchers.

Announcements. The RFP for faculty and graduate student CIIP awards for 1996 were announced; faculty proposals are due by February 29, 1996, and graduate student proposals are due March 8, 1996. Grant letters will include an explicit statement that faculty receiving CGES-CIIP awards are expected to be active members of the work group, which means participation in CIIP workshops, and submitting CIIP working papers. For a copy of the RFP, contact Gia White at 510 642-4555 or fax 510 643-5996

Past agendas and minutes can be accessed through the Migration News home page--


Minutes. Participants are working on a variety of comparative projects, ranging from whether some firms in industrial democracies are structurally dependent on immigrant workers to how the local effects of immigrants in turn influence a nation's immigration policies.

Ivan Light (UCLA) presented a paper on anti-immigrant movements, noting that many anti-immigrant groups argue that they are acting in the "national interest." Light emphasized that it is very hard to define the national interest, and that what may seem to be in the national interest in one period can be shown to have not been in the national interest in a later period. For example, Hitler's aim for racial and ethnic purity left Germany in ruins, while the 1960s decision to admit guest workers added both economic growth and diversity.

The discussion emphasized that it is very hard to define the "national interest," and that what is considered to be the national interest may simply reflect the relative strength of interest groups at a point in time. Immigration rose in all the industrial democracies over the past 30 years--does this reflect a consensus that it is in the national interest to open borders, or the operation of international pressure and domestic interest groups?

Philip Martin (UCD) presented a paper entitled "Guest Workers for Agriculture: New Solution or New Problem?" The purpose of guest or foreign worker programs aim to add workers to the labor force without adding permanent residents to the population, but Martin noted that none of the world's 100-plus countries with guest worker programs has succeeded in having their programs adhere strictly to this goal.

The worldwide experience with guest workers is captured in the aphorism "There is nothing more permanent than temporary workers. " No where is this statement more true than in US agriculture. Martin contrasted past and current certification and contractual programs with the current push of US farmers for an attestation and free-agent program, concluding that it is unlikely Congress will approve a free agent program for unskilled seasonal workers, but that farmer pressure might lead to a further "streamlining of the certification and contractual H-2A program.

The discussion emphasized that many of the lessons from US experience with past guest worker programs are not well understood. For example, Operation Wetback in 1954 resulted in 1.1 million apprehensions during what was then a July-1953-June 1954 fiscal year. Most of these apprehensions occurred at the border--there were only 80,000 apprehensions during the height of the June-August interior sweeps.

In other words, most apprehensions have been and continue to be at the border, and it is very hard to judge the total size of the Mexican influx from apprehension data. However, most participants expressed skepticism of assertions that "tens of millions" of Mexicans have been employed illegally in the US--the source of such assertions appears to be a 1989 LA Times poll in Mexico in which about 30 percent of the Mexicans polled reported that they had a relative living in the US.

Bill Frey (U-Michigan) presented a paper on internal migration dynamics in the US. According to census data on where people lived in 1985 and in 1990, immigration has noticeable effects on internal US migration. The states and cities that get the most immigrants are those that saw native-born non-Hispanic persons with less than a high school education move out, and native-born non-Hispanic persons with college degrees or more move in. Since many immigrants are Hispanics with less than a high school education, the secondary or internal migration associated with immigration accentuate economic and other inequalities in states such as CA, and cities such as Los Angeles.

These results suggest that unskilled immigrants push unskilled natives out of immigration areas, while native "elites" are attracted to immigrant areas. If such patterns continues, Frey projects that there will be growing differences between the states that might manifest themselves as competition similar to central city-suburb tensions. For example, if current trends continue, by 2020 13 mostly northern Plains states such as the Dakotas will be at least 85 percent non-Hispanic white, while 11 states, including the Big 4 of CA, TX, NY, and FL, will be less than 60 percent non-Hispanic white.

The discussion emphasized that the same patterns--unskilled natives moving out of CA, and professionals moving in--may have occurred in the low-immigration 1960s. Second, some participants worried that the same model was being used to explain both leaving and entering a state--the depvar is net migration--but there may be different forces at work. Third, several participants noted that the model explained relatively little of the variance across states in migration patterns.

During the afternoon panel discussion of immigration research, Roger Waldinger (UCLA) noted that an analysis of Census data for Los Angles for 1970, 1980, and 1990 emphasizes that there are far more immigrants arriving at the bottom than at the top of the job ladder, and that especially Mexicans at the bottom are not enjoying rapid upward mobility. A fifteen chapter book on Ethnic Los Angeles will be published in 1996. Waldinger, Roger and Mehdi Bozorgmehr (Eds). 1996. Ethnic Los Angeles. New York: Russell Sage.

Dowell Myers (USC) reported on his double cohort method--by age and year of entry-- of analyzing what happened to immigrants arriving in the seven southern CA counties after 1980. His analysis shows that especially young immigrants make considerable economic progress after their arrival--as measured by their total incomes--and that some of their behavior converges rapidly to that of natives, e.g., they rapidly abandon buses and drive cars to work. In southern CA, one-third of all bus riders are recent immigrants.

Myers noted that immigration is raising other issues, including overcrowded housing. The US definition of acceptable housing was two or less persons per room until 1960, when the definition was change to one or less per room. However, as immigrants moved into southern CA, overcrowding jumped, raising questions about how aggressively cities should enforce housing codes developed during a non-immigrant era.

George Vernez (Rand) outlined an ambitious project that is dealing with the question of whether immigration is, on balance, a plus or minus for CA by examining the effects of immigration on internal migration, on wages, and on public sector finances since 1960. These studies show that immigrants from most countries do catch up to similar natives in average weekly earnings after 10 to 20 years, but not immigrants from the major country of origin--Mexico. Furthermore, immigrant children tend to follow in their parents' footsteps, meaning that the children of Asian immigrants tend to do well in school, etc., while the children of Mexican immigrants do not.

The Mexican lag may be even more severe if Mexicans tend to report a more recent arrival date than they actually arrived. For example, many Mexicans who may have arrived in the US before 1987 reported in the 1990 Census that they arrived in 1987, the year that they applied for legalization. It was also noted that, in the three major industrial democracies of France, Germany, and the US, the largest immigrant group--Algerians, Turks, and Mexicans--seem to do "worst" on most integration measures.

Hans Johnson (CA PPI) reported that the institute has a number of immigration projects underway, including an examination of internal migration patterns, Mexican return migration, and the effects of Prop 187 on prenatal care.