The proximity of the Caribbean to the U.S. market-and obviously this applies to Mexico and other Western Hemisphere sources as wellgreatly affects the region. There are important economic benefits from this proximity, such as tourism and extensive trade. However, the easy access to North American goods hampers Caribbean countries' efforts to achieve local self-sufficiency, and since development of the region ultimately depends on the ability to create export markets, this dependence on imports from the United States is detrimental to economic expansion.

Structural problems are important. For example, unemployment rates ranging up to 25 percent and higher come into play. In Jamaica, for example, there has been a decrease in real wages since the early part of this decade on the order of 19 percent. This is expected to increase a further 25 percent over the next year as a result of the economic stabilization measures recently announced by the Government of Jamaica.

Public policies frequently have favored capital intensive investments in both the urban and rural sectors, rather than maximizing the use of available labor.

The proximity of our labor market, where Caribbean workers can earn up to 10 times their local salaries, exerts a powerful draw on the region's laborers.

As I indicated earlier, in many parts of the hemisphere population grows at a faster rate than the local economy's expansion, and these are, may I emphasize, very small economies that even at present do not provide sufficient employment opportunities for their existing labor force.

One traditional Caribbean response to these problems has included large-scale emigration of workers to foreign labor markets. Workers move from the smaller islands to the larger ones and from the larger ones to the mainland. Remittances from these workers sustain many Caribbean families at or just above the poverty line, and they now represent a large part of the hard currency earnings of many Caribbean countries.

This pattern is duplicated within Mexico and other Western Hemisphere source countries as workers move from rural areas to the cities in search of greater opportunities, from the interior to the border towns, and eventually move on to the U.S. job market.

The emigration of workers to the United States and to other metropoles does carn substantial foreign currency income for the source countries, enabling them thereby to pay for imports.

Unfortunately, this short-term foreign exchange income has serious long-term costs. Often the imports it brings are consumer or consumerrelated products which do little to raise the productive capacity of the source country and, worse, migration depletes the stock of talented human capital. In many cases the illegal migrants are the very people who would be the cutting edge of economic development, who leave in search of greater professional advancement opportunities, thereby reducing the local potential for eventual self-sustaining economic growth.

One critical factor then. Mr. Chairman, for the people who come or stay here illegally is the disparity between the job advancement opportunities and wages in the United States and in less developed

nations. Their migration is the net result of the interaction of "push" factors in the countries of origin and the enormous "pull" factors exerted by the U.S. economy. The relationship between the sets of economic circumstances is not likely to change dramatically in the near future since they are rooted in the histories, the cultures, the societies and the natural resource supplies of our respective nations, and these are determinants that change only slowly in response to a great number of variables.

As we have seen, the outmigration of surplus labor has become traditional in many areas of the hemisphere and the economies of many countries are, to some degree, dependent on remittances from their nationals who work illegally in the United States.

In the case of Mexico, for example, it has been estimated that remittances from undocumented workers in the United States may reach as much as $3 billion a year. This is clearly an important contribution to Mexico's balance of payments, but many Mexicans recognize that Mexico is losing to the United States temporarily, or, in some cases permanently, large numbers of their most industrious and ambitious workers and in some cases, in occupations or skill categories that are in short supply in Mexico.

It has also been noted that Mexican society bears the cost of educating and training these workers in their formative years only to see them leave for the United States when they finally reach their most useful and productive stage.

President Lopez Portillo has said that Mexico wishes to export its products, not its people, to the United States, and the Mexican Government has been cooperating with us in efforts to break up the activities of smugglers of illegal aliens. Yet these best of intentions are up against some very sobering statistics on the unemployment rate in Mexico.

According to senior Mexican officials, last year nearly 50 percent of the Mexican work force, roughly 82 million Mexicans, were either unemployed or underemployed. To reduce this unemployment and to keep up with the regular expansion of the labor force, Mexican officials have estimated that Mexico must create at least 700,000 new jobs a year. They have not, however, been able to create new jobs at this rate as of yet, particularly during 1976 and 1977, when economic growth was unusually slow.

Because of the large proportion of the population that is 15 years or younger, the number of new jobseekers entering the labor force each year is expected to remain high for a number of years to come.

With the recent discoveries of oil and gas in Mexico, the economic picture there has brightened somewhat. We understand the Mexican Government plans to use oil and gas revenues to meet foreign exchange needs and to stimulate needed economic development. Based on announced plans, oil exports, by 1982, would provide gross foreign exchange receipts of over $7 billion annually, at today's prices.

Export of natural gas could add as much as $2 billion annually, or more, depending on price. The government already has announced the formation of a national employment fund which would utilize excess revenues from oil and gas to create new jobs.

But all this lies very much in the future, with a pattern of illegal migration to the United States already established. And Mexico is al

1

most unique among the sending nations of the hemisphere in having located a potential economic bonanza within its borders.

In the majority of cases-and may I emphasize particularly in the Caribbean-there appears to be little prospects for timely improvement in the economic circumstances that underlie unauthorized migration to the United States.

Development assistance efforts, both bilateral and multilateral-and I understand the subcommittee will be looking at our aid programs during the next sessions of hearings-these assistance efforts can have some ameliorating effects, but the magnitude of the problem of poverty and underdevelopment has, to date, challenged all efforts to overcome it.

The subcommittee, I think, can play a very useful role in probing our relationship between the aid strategy and the unemployment problems during the course of these hearings.

For the present, I can certainly confirm that undocumented migration poses serious foreign policy questions for this country. As the subcommittee is undoubtedly aware, States, municipalities, and private groups have been acting separately on this issue. Some 13 States and a number of cities have passed statutes to penalize employers who hire undocumented workers. School districts are redefining the term "residence" and taking other measures to exclude the children of undocumented aliens from free public schooling, and some private vigilante groups have been attempting to police our borders.

In the absence of a strong and well-coordinated national effort, these local activities can greatly complicate our foreign relations and undermine the image of the United States abroad.

Most undocumented aliens live on the fringes of our society. There they fall easy prey to the employer who refuses to pay the minimum. wage: to the foreman who mistreats them and who knows they are afraid to seek legal recource; and to the smuggler who extorts a percentage of their wages on threats of turning them over to the authorities. Allegations of mistreatment and abuse of undocumented aliens are a continuing irritant between the United States and countries of origin. So long as undocumented aliens remain outside the law, it is extremely difficult to avoid their exploitation.

Undocumented migration is an issue in our bilateral relations with a number of countries in the hemisphere; most notably Mexico and several Caribbean countries. Last summer I made a trip through the Caribbean and parts of Latin America with Ambassador Young, and one of the two or three issues which was brought up in every single country in the Caribbean as an issue of great concern to the country in question was the problem of illegal migration and the concern over steps that the United States might take to restrict the flow of illegal migration.

Because of the social and political needs that are served by the present pattern of migration from the Caribbean, the governments of that region face some very difficult choices. Their sensitivity to the issue, which directly relates to economic and consequently to political stability, has made them reluctant to engage us in direct examination of the problem.

President Lopez Portillo has stated that Mexico recognizes the right of the United States to establish immigration laws and to punish those

who violate them, but not to implement them unduly in the case of those persons who are only looking for work.

Mexico has made very clear to us its deep concern that enactment of the illegal alien proposal might result in deportation of a large number of undocumented aliens, thus causing a massive disruption of the Mexican economy. We agree that this would be seriously disruptive as well as inhumane and, therefore, not in our own best interests. A general deportation of this kind is administratively impossible in any case, but Mexico's fears have not been totally quieted on that account. We are also sensitive to the Mexican Government's concerns that in the short run, a substantial reduction in the flow of undocumented workers will aggravate Mexico's economic and social problems. The elimination of remittances from undocumenteds would have an immediate effect on many rural areas of Mexico. We are currently discussing with the Mexican Government ways in which we can be helpful.

Before the President announced his undocumented alien program on August 4, 1977, officials from the White House, the Department of State, and other departments of the executive branch were in touch with officials of the various countries of origin concerning the proposed U.S. action. A very high level delegation from the United States visited Mexico last July to outline for the Mexican Government the main features of the President's proposed plan. We informed the Mexican Government that President Carter recognizes that the problems of Mexico's economy are directly related to the outflow of migrant labor. Mexico was assured that the United States would take this into account as we sought a solution to the problem of illegal migration.

We are continuing to work closely with the Mexican Government on this matter. In January, during his trip to Mexico, Vice President Mondale discussed the issues involved with President Lopez Portillo. The Vice President, at that time, expressed our willingness to support increased lending by the World Bank and by the Inter-American Development Bank for rural development in Mexico if the Government of Mexico would give it due priority.

And just 2 weeks ago, during Secretary Cyrus Vance's trip to Mexico for a session of the United States-Mexico consultative mechanism, the matter was again part of a series of wide-ranging discussions with Mexican officials.

I understand that the subcommittee does not intend to address possible solutions to the problem in today's session, but I would like to mention, just in passing, that we are engaged with several source countries in an exploration of cooperative ways in which to solve our mutual problem.

In keeping with our premise that the problem cannot be solved by unilateral U.S. measures, we are committed to helping the governments of countries of origins in their efforts to ameliorate the economic problems that contribute to illegal migration.

To encourage these governments to give special consideration to fostering labor-intensive industry in rural areas, we are funding programs toward this end in the English-speaking Caribbean countries, largely through the Caribbean Development Bank. Also, a number of interested countries have come together under the auspices

of the World Bank to form a Caribbean Group for Cooperation in Economic Development, which is devoted to accelerating the development of participant Caribbean countries.

The governments of the area are deeply concerned and have stated their commitment to undertake the structural reforms necessary to promote growth with equity.

Mr. Chairman, having outlined in brief some of the causes of undocumented migration to the United States and some of the foreign policy implications of the problem and of its possible solutions, I will stop now and address myself to any questions you might have, or perhaps you may want to have Ambassador Green continue.

Mr. YATRON. Thank you very much, Ms. Shelton, for an excellent and well-balanced presentation.

Now we will have Ambassador Green.

STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHALL GREEN, AMBASSADOR, COORDINATOR FOR POPULATION AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before your committee. As Coordinator of Population Affairs in the Department of State, I have been asked to testify today on the role of rapid population growth in generating pressures for migration.

I recognize this is but one particular aspect of a broad problem under discussion by this subcommittee and my views are to be seen within the context of the presentation just made by Deputy Assistant Secretary Shelton.

Unlike Ms. Shelton, I might add, I am not an authority on Latin America, having spent almost all of my 33 years in the Foreign Service in East Asia and the Pacific.

For a broader view of this problem, we must bear in mind that although people emigrate because of poor living conditions in their homeland, nobody emigrates without a perception of greater economic or political opportunities in the country of designation.

In view of the scantiness of hard information on causes of illegal migration to the United States, it is difficult to sort out all of the aspects of this complex problem in precise quantitative terms.

This fact, however, does not limit the validity of my conclusion that, generally speaking, high population growth rates in the developing world retard the rate of economic development and cause the number of entrants into the job market to soar beyond the number of jobs available. For these and other reasons, pressures for migration to the United States will increase.

The world's population passed the 4 billion mark in 1976, and is likely to hover about 6 billion by the year 2000. There are some hopeful signs that population growth in a number of rapidly growing developing countries is beginning to slow down. Because of the youthful age of developing countries' populations, however, it is virtually inevitable that the world's total will, at some point early in the next century, pass the 8 billion mark and may not stabilize before reaching 10 to 11 billion. Perhaps as much as 90 percent of the future increases in population over the present level will take place in the currently less developed nations, where population growth rates now average about 2.5 percent per year-excluding People's Republic of