Mr. PORTES. It is based on questionable data. What has happened is that the bulk of studies of illegal immigration have been based on data either from apprehended illegals, or from would-be immigrants in rural areas of Mexico. In addition, there is the literature of the 1930's and 1940's on Mexican immigration to the United States that depicted the process as a fundamental rural-to-rural one. That is, as peasants coming to do agricultural labor in the United States. Now, I certainly agree with Mr. Shaffer-Corona that there will be a substantial proportion of Mexican immigration coming from rural areas, but that this represents the majority or the overwhelming proportion as this policy seems to imply is not warranted. The approach taken in my study, which by the way was not initially a study of illegal immigrants but of comparative legal migration shows that the bulk of the illegals who managed to regularize their situation are more urbanized, more educated, and come from more skilled occupations relative to the Mexican population as a whole. I have no basis and to my knowledge no one has any basis to say what is the relative size within the illegal population of the urban contingent as opposed to the rural one. My hunch, however, is that policies directed solely at providing employment in the rural sectors will leave open a very strong and increasing source of pressures toward immigration in the future. Mr. SHAFFER-CORONA. I would like to add something in terms of my analysis of the professor's data. His data was taken of legal immigrants, and I would think that urbanized people would be the ones that would have access to the processes and of the patience and the understanding to go through the time-consuming and even humiliating process that is involved in getting here legally, whereas the rural person will just pick up and go. Mr. PORTES. Well, I must say that if you read the paper carefully, you will see that the reason it bears on the question of illegal immigration is that 70 percent of the sample of legal immigrants had resided as undocumented immigrants in the United States before. So this is the group that is relevant for our purposes. I will agree that the other 30 percent, the people who pass through the regular immigration screen, certainly are a distinct universe. But this 70 percent of people who were in the United States and managed to regularize their situation are very, very significant. Mr. YATRON. Professor, would you like to comment on testimony previously given to the subcommittee that persons travel from rural to urban areas as a staging area before moving on to the United States? Mr. PORTES. I have no basis to comment on this. On the basis of this data, one could make an analysis, but I prefer to pass on that. Mr. SHAFFER-CORONA. I might add, Congressman, that this phenomena, the whole fact that the issue is before the public the way that it is has created sort of a cottage industry in Mexico, people involved in the moving of people, to the point where there are now even criminals in that business. I know of one particular story of a busload of people that was taken from rural Mexico into Mexico City and left there. After the busdriver had collected money from all of them ostensibly to take them to the United States, he actually abandoned them in Mexico City, and the police discovered very quickly what the situation was because the bus itself was stolen. Mr. YATRON. The Chair would like to suggest a recess of about 10 or 15 minutes to answer another rollcall. It is a vote on a substitute amendment by Congressman Udall, an amendment concerning the Deep Seabed Minerals Act. We will come back in about 10 to 15 minutes and resume the hearing. [A brief recess was taken.] Mr. YATRON. We will resume the hearing. Professor, how do you account for the difference between your figures and commonly accepted notions about the nature of illegal immigration from Mexico? Mr. PORTES. I think that the basic thrust of my presentation and the message that I would like to leave is that we need to take a more cautious attitude toward the "rurality" of illegal immigration, be it from Mexico or other places. That is, I object to policies that may have unwanted results in the future. Again, the answer is similar to the one to your earlier question. The thrust of scholarly research in the past has been based upon two particular research strategies: Studies of apprehended illegals and studies of illegals in rural areas; that is, of persons in Mexico that had gone to the United States or were going to do so. Obviously, if you study illegals in rural areas, they are going to be rural, and their situation, their orientations, et cetera, will deeply color the findings. Now, the basic, the important thing to realize is that outside the rural flow that has been detected in the past there is a flow that comes from another sector: the urban population. This is a second "tier” of illegal Mexican migration: people who are already in cities, but confront the contradictions of modernization without equality, which is what I have referred to in my statement. These groups also know about the United States. As a matter of fact, they know better about it than those in rural areas. They often have the means to come and the pressures which they suffer will not fade away with the elimination of rural poverty or unemployment in Mexico. So, I think it is extremely important for us to clarify what is the size of the two flows and what is the strength of the urban flow before meaningful policies can be formulated. Mr. YATRON. On page 21 of your prepared statement, you say you can expect more border pressures if present Mexican development patterns continue. Do you see the administration's proposals for Mexican development increasing or decreasing border pressures? Mr. PORTES. This also relates to the question that Mr. Lagomarsino had asked before. The suggestion of investment in rural industrialization a rural employment in Mexico are well intentioned, and they come from scholars that are progressive. They address one of the important issues; namely, the absence of jobs in rural areas. However, this will not alleviate the situation in urban areas, the large amount of underemployment in the cities. Second, I have serious doubts that in the present situation in Mexico that is within the present structure of Mexican development-those funds will make a dent in the rural situation of the country. Here I may move a bit away from the data, but we have witnessed repeatedly throughout Latin America that investment of funds (of which perhaps the Alliance for Progress is the best-known example) that promised to make major transformations and which fell very short of such promises. In this case, without a change in a class structure which increases the concentration of income, without a change in the power of Mexican landowners and industrialists which have effectively managed to block reform in the past, one cannot help but be skeptical that "throwing money" at this problem is going to transform the Mexican rural situation. Mr. YATRON. On page 25, you said, "The border enforcement clause will be difficult to maintain without a parallel program of regulated access to immigrant labor." Are you suggesting a bracero type of program? Mr. PORTES. A bracero? Mr. YATRON. Bracero? Mr. PORTES. No; I am not. It might be well to point out that the role of a scholar in hearings such as this is to point out alternatives and to analyze possible implications rather than to prescribe policies. I deliberately move away from making recommendations which might be rhetorical at this point. This I wanted to make clear. My argument is the following: It would be very difficult to enforce the border. It would be very difficult because the pressures on both sides are very strong and are there to stay, and because the opponents of the present situation are either in disarray, or might not be powerful enough to support borders enforcement effectively. What would probably happen if these proposals were implemented is that at the beginning, the amnestied illegal workers would provide an "instant' contract labor force, very similar to the ones that already exist in Western European countries. Now, these groups would be progressively absorbed by the larger enterprises into the mainstream of the U.S. economy. The same pressures the pressures on Mexico to export labor to alleviate her internal situation and the pressures from employers depending on low wage labor in the United States-will reassert themselves. In this situation, I am skeptical that effective prevention of the illegal flow will occur. Then what is the alternative? This relates also to why I say that, in principle, the administration's proposals are progressive, a position which I feel is in the minority. I think that they are progressive because at least they move in the direction of eliminating the illegal flow which guarantees greater levels of exploitation. The illegal worker will always be more exploited than the contract labor worker. Thus, in a world in which you cannot have everything, in a world in which Mexico is not going to be transformed and in which the U.S. economy is not going to change drastically in the immediate future, this would be a progressive alternative. It cannot be implemented, however, without a parallel program of contract labor immigration. Mr. YATRON. Thank you. I have no further questions. With that, I am going to say thank you very much for appearing here today and giving us the benefit of your expertise. Mr. PORTES. Thank you. Mr. YATRON. The subcommittee stands adjourned. UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. POLICY IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 1978 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 2:05 p.m., in room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gus Yatron (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding. Mr. YATRON. Good afternoon. The subcommittee will come to order. The House Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs today will conclude its series of hearings on undocumented workers: Implications for U.S. policy in the Western Hemisphere. Since the hearings began in May, we have focused on the root causes and dimensions of the problem and considering the foreign policy dimensions of illegal immigration. In the interest of objectivity we heard witnesses from various viewpoints. We welcome back our distinguished witnesses, Dr. David F. Ronfeldt of the Rand Corp., Santa Monica, Calif., and Dr. Caesar Sereseres, assistant professor of political science in the school of social sciences of the University of California at Irvine, Calif., Dr. Sereseres, would you like to begin your presentation first? 1 STATEMENT OF CAESAR SERESERES, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE Mr. SERESERES. Thank you very much, Chairman Yatron. What I would like to do is summarize some of the findings from the 2-year study that Dr. Ronfeldt and I have engaged in. Mr. YATRON. Without objection. Mr. SERESERES. Prior to examining some of these findings and recommendations, I would like to make a few clarifying comments. First, neither Dr. Ronfeldt nor I are by any means experts on the matter of immigration-legal or illegal. Nor have we focused our research efforts on the question of illegal immigration from Mexico to the United States. What we have done is basically the following: We have attempted to closely examine the complex and ever-expanding relationships between the United States and Mexico. Second, we have attempted to assess the implications of specific policy issues such as illegal immigration on the broader United States-Mexico relationship. 1 See appendix 1, p. 359, for prepared statement of Messrs. Sereseres and Ronfeldt. |