EpiCenter
EpiCenterProfessor Portes went on to note that when the two literatures come together, it is commonly in the form of comparisons that point to the progress of immigrants relative to native-born minorities despite initial disadvantages, such as lack of English knowledge and relative unfamiliarity with the host culture. These comparisons are notable because immigrants must often endure conditions every bit as harsh, if not worse, than the domestic poor. The difference, he suggested, is that immigrants' poverty is embedded in a social context that makes it appear less hopeless and more transitory than the kind afflicting the native born.
Portes went on to observe that the generous provisions of the 1990 Immigration Act, coupled with the failures of the 1986 IRCA legislation to deter the inflow of undocumented migrants, will make the 1990's this century's decade of immigration, with a number of cities slated to repeat the experiences of the 1910's when half or more of the of the urban population was foreign-born or of foreign parentage. This massive inflow will be diverse, but not along the national lines explicitly promoted by the diversity' provision of the 1990 Act. Mexico, Asia, and the Caribbean will continue to predominate among sources of immigration. Diversity, Portes suggests, will be rather in the modes of entry and incorporation.
In Portes' view the social and economic adoption of new and recent immigrants at the bottom of the labor market will not follow the linear path commonly portrayed in descriptions of the assimilation process, but will prove far more problematic. Fifty years ago, the dilemma of Italian-American youngsters, studied by Irvin Child, consisted of assimilating into American mainstream, sacrificing their parents' cultural heritage, or taking refuge in the community against the challenge of the outside world. In the contemporary context, the options have become less clear. Children of non-white, unskilled immigrants may not even have the option of gaining access to middle-class white society, no matter how acculturated they become. In concluding, Portes opined that joining those native circles to which they do have access may prove a ticket to permanent subordination and disadvantage.
In the lively discussion which followed his lecture Professor Portes responded to a question about competition among old and new immigrants by observing that "employers more likely give a job to non-citizens as they cost less." In response to a question about English-language acquisition among new and recent immigrants, he pointed out that recent studies have concluded that English is usually the preferred language among new (especially younger) immigrants. Though he pointed out that familiarity with two languages should be seen as a benefit for this country, Portes noted that studies also indicate that the children of immigrants often do not speak their parents' native language.
Parties interested in receiving
copies of two papers on which Dr. Portes' September 18 presentation was
based should contact the Center.
As reported in the previous issue of EpiCenter, the Pew project is intended to assist policy makers, international affairs/foreign policy generalists, journalists and the lay public gain a better understanding of the challenges the United States faces in the sphere of international migration. The first set of commissioned papers were meant to focus on various determinants -- demographic, economic, environmental and political -- of international migration, with specific attention to the likely implications of developments in these areas for immigration to the United States. While the Center's intention in undertaking this project was (and remains) to take seriously the challenges these developments pose, a unifying theme is to offer a "counter-catastrophic" view to some of the more draconian scenarios recently put forward by certain influential commentators.
The September 8 meeting began with a presentation by Mary M. Kritz of the Population & Development Program at Cornell University. In her paper, "Population Growth and International Migration: Is There A Link?", Kritz sets out to address the merits of the claim that rapid population growth in developing countries is "a key push factor" underlying migration to the U.S. and other industrialized democracies. Noting that "the debate on the linkage between population and migration has been largely polemical and short on the use of empirical data," Kritz proceeds to examine whether or to what extent the available evidence supports the inference that countries or regions experiencing higher population growth (or fertility) rates are also primary senders of migrants to the U.S.
Contrary to the alarmists' expectation, Kritz finds that rates of increase and fertility are not directly related to migration. Indeed, countries with low or moderate population growth rates send more migrants to the United States than countries that are growing more rapidly. The number of migrants a country sends to the United States is directly linked to its population size, however. Since previous research indicates that factors such as distance, social networks, economics and social welfare, and policy context determine migration, the author explores the relationship of fertility and population size to migrant change after controlling for distance, migrant stock in the U.S., and economic and social welfare in the sending country. Kritz's analysis indicates that migrant stock has the strongest relationship with migration, followed by population size. Fertility rates are not related to migration nor is economic and social welfare, although Kritz notes that the findings on welfare need to be interpreted cautiously since data did not permit an examination of that dimension for a full set of countries.
William B. Wood, Director of the Office of the Geographer and Global Issues of the U.S. State Department, presented a paper on "Ecomigration: Linkages Between Environmental Change and Migration." His paper begins by pointing out that environmental influences on migration until recently have been largely ignored or oversimplified. In this light, Wood discusses a range of environmental factors, both positive and negative, that can push or pull migrants and contrasts these factors for different groups of migrants; he argues that ecomigration 'more accurately describes the range of these migration-influencing ecological variables than the popular term environmental refugees.' The paper uses the analogy of a frayed environment and society umbrella' to explain how socioeconomic, political, and environmental factors are part of a single interrelated structure that influences migrant decision-making, rather than independent categories. Examples of implicit and explicit policies affecting natural resource exploitation are used to examine the entwined processes of environmental and societal change that shape migration patterns and flows.
Philip Martin, professor of agricultural economics at the University of California-Davis, discussed the role of economic policies in managing migration. His paper (co-authored with UC-Davis colleague Edward Taylor) summarizes recent international migration patterns, explains why people cross borders for economic reasons, and reviews the likely effects of trade, investment, and aid policies adopted by immigration countries to reduce what is termed 'unwanted immigration'. The major message of Martin's paper is that there is no quick fix for unwanted immigration. Trade and investment policies which reduce immigration pressures must be maintained even in the face of perverse short-term effects. Martin argues that the policy with the best track record to accelerate so-called stay-at-home growth is free trade, followed by policies to promote private foreign investment in emigration countries. However, these policies may also temporarily increase migration. Nevertheless, countries should avoid the temptation to abandon the trade and investment policies that work because it sometimes takes so long for their migration-reducing effects to be felt.
Susanne Schmeidl, currently a visiting scholar at the Centre for Refugee Studies at York University in Toronto, presented the first portion of a paper on "Political Turmoil and Forced Migration" being co-authored with Astri Suhrke (Chair, Michelsen Institute, Norway). Schmeidl's portion of this paper focuses primarily on the pre-1990 period, drawing on case studies and empirical analysis in an effort to elucidate the factors underlying refugee migrations during the two decades preceding the collapse of the Soviet Union. Among her key findings: there is a strong correlation between human rights violations and refugee movements; genocides/politicides were the best predictor of refugee exodus between 1971-1990; civil wars involving foreign military interventions were more likely to lead to refugee migrations than civil wars in which such interventions were absent; ethnic conflicts during the cold war period were correlated primarily with small and medium-sized refugee migrations, but not large-scale population displacements; poverty and population pressures had no significant direct impact on refugee migrations; refugee migrations exhibit a strong "self-feeding" effect, i.e., once a refugee exodus has begun it is very difficult to stop and may continue even if the factors which gave rise to the original flight are no longer present. This suggests that new solutions are needed to the management of refugee migration, focused on efforts to prevent exodus from occurring by mediating conflict.
In his more regionally-oriented paper examining immigration from Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America to the U.S., Robert C. Smith of Barnard College, Columbia University argues (as against contemporary "catastrophes") that immigration from this region represents a serious but manageable policy issue for the U.S. In offering this 'counter-catastrophic' view of immigration, Smith argues that the 'catastrophic' view often rest on unstable assumptions about the nature, cost and benefits of immigration to the U.S. Moreover, the author points out, such a view assumes that population growth in the south 'osmotically converts' into increased migration to the north, while the actual relationship is more complex. Smith concludes that immigration to the U.S. is best understood and managed as part of a larger system of relations between the U.S. and Latin America, and between particular places in the U.S. and Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America.
The papers presented at the
September 8 meeting are currently being revised in response to the working
group's feedback and should be available for distribution by mid-to-late
December. In the interim the Center is moving ahead with plans for the
second phase of the project, which will involve commissioning another set
of papers examining the implications of the developments and relationships
identified in the initial papers for U.S. policy in a number of distinctive
spheres. We will be providing additional updates in subsequent issues of
this newsletter.
New York Community Trust Project Gears Up
As noted in the last issue of
this newsletter, the Center has received a grant from The New York Community
Trust (NYCT) for a project on key immigrant policy issues facing New York.
As this issue of EpiCenter goes to press, the Center is making arrangements
for an initial meeting of government officials, local immigrant advocates
and scholar-researchers whom we hope to involve in this undertaking, tentatively
scheduled to take place at the New School on October 27. This will be followed
by a series of three roundtables (to take place at roughly two-month intervals
over the course of the winter and spring) focusing on salient employment,
education and health policy issues as they affect new immigrants to the
greater New York City metropolitan area. The Center will be commissioning
short position papers for each of these roundtables, wherein subject-area
specialists will be asked to summarize "what is known" about the key problems
and issues at hand, and to formulate preliminary policy recommendations
as well as recommendations regarding appropriate areas for future research
and analysis. The resulting findings and recommendations will be shared
with public officials, local nonprofit organizations and the media at a
concluding symposium in June 1996. Parties interested in learning more
about the NYCT project should feel free to contact the Center.
The principal objectives of
this summer institute are to expose twenty graduate students and recent
Ph.D.s (roughly an equal number from the U.S. and Canada and European Union-member
countries) to key policy issues bearing on immigration and the incorporation
of newcomers, with special attention to the U.S. and German experience,
and to critically assess the adequacy of prevailing social science approaches
to the study of immigration and its consequences. The Center will be working
with Rainer Munz and with SSRC staff to identify leading scholars and practitioners
from North America and Europe to serve as guest lecturers for each session
of the institute. Formal announcements about the institute will appear
in The Chronicle of Higher Education and other outlets this fall.
Interested parties are also invited to contact the Center for copies of
the announcement and application forms, which should be available for distribution
by mid-October. (We currently anticipate a February 1 deadline for the
submission of applications, with an April notification date.)
The Center wishes to express its gratitude to the German-American Academic
Council and the SSRC's Europe program for their support of this summer
institute.
NYU and New School to Participate in SPIMFAX Program
Professor Martin Schain, Director of the Center for European Studies (CES) at New York University, has taken the lead in arranging for the participation of selected undergraduate and graduate students at NYU and the New School for Social Research in a new exchange program with a group European universities, focusing on issues of immigration policy, the politics of the far right and xenophobia. Under this program, 5-10 NYU and New School undergraduates will be given the opportunity to study in Europe, and an equal number of European undergraduates will be hosted for a comparable period by NYU and/or the New School. There will also be opportunities for exchanges of graduate students. CES is currently endeavoring to secure agreements with relevant prospect institutional partners in order that the exchanges might begin in September 1996.
The SPIMFAX (State Policy, International Migration, Foreigners and Xenophobia) exchange program is being sponsored by a group of American universities including NYU, the New School, the University of Minnesota, the University of Colorado, the University of Southern California and Florida International University, and by the European Commission in Europe. Among the European universities already involved in this program, and which might serve as hosts for NYU or New School students wishing to study on the continent, are the University of Amsterdam and the University of Bonn.
Those interested in learning
more about the exchange opportunities potentially available to students
under the SPIMFAX program (and the terms governing these exchanges) are
encouraged to contact the Center for European Studies, New York University,
715 Broadway, New York, NY 10003. Telephone (212) 998-3838; fax (212) 995-4188.
We will also be providing updated information in future issues of this
newsletter.
New Resources for Researchers in New York
The Center, in cooperation with the New School's Fogelman Library, has begun a major effort to make its holdings available to students and faculty of the New School and other graduate consortium universities. The Center maintains an extensive collection of working papers, conference papers, public and private reports, and other hard-to-locate items on the subjects of U.S. and European immigration, global migration, citizenship and other related topics. As part of this effort, we are cataloguing all our holdings for easy reference, and we have incorporated our collection with the NYU/New School library catalog. In the near future we hope to establish a special reference room for research on migration, ethnicity and citizenship. While the process it still not entirely complete, a significant portion of the books and vertical files maintained by the Center are now available to researchers, faculty and students in the New York City consortium.