Mr. Yatron: To what extent are the new middle classes in Latin
America sources of illegal migration to the U.S.?
Middle class illegal migration from Latin America to
the U.S. is minor compared with that of the unskilled
labor class. Quantitative comparisons are not
possible, given the lack of meaningful statistics.
However, qualified observers suggest that middle
class illegal migrants make up only a small percentage.
There are two basic types of middle class illegal migrants: (1) Those which might well be called refugees from their own politico economic system; and (2) those who come temporarily (for a number of years) for certain skillacquisition purposes.
The first of these types comprise the discontented from
societies such as Haiti, Guyana and Jamaica today
(and Cuba of the 1960's) who feel that they no longer
have sufficient opportunities or receive appropriate
rewards in their own country. Moreover, since those
persons, because of their middle class status tend to
have an easier time obtaining U.S. visas, illegal
migration of this group usually takes place via the
legitimate entry/visa abuse route.
The second type is akin to the unskilled labor
undocumented worker, in the sense that return to
the home-country is usually of definite intention,
at least at the time of entry. In this class we
find, for example, Colombian medical school graduates
coming to the U.S. for residency in a hospital,
where in addition to gaining experience in the latest
medical techniques they can save funds to set up a
practice after their return.
Finally, sociological/anthropological evidence indicates
that generally people of middle class status have little incentive to migrate to the U.S. For the middle class, urban life in Latin American cities bears considerable resemblance to that in the U.S.
with family and cultural ties of the Latin American middle class stronger than those evident in this country.
RESPONSES OF ROY S. BRYCE-LAPORTE TO ADDITIONAL WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CHAIRMAN YATRON
The impact of immigrant communities on our foreign
policy intrigues me. How do you see these groups
affecting our foreign policy in times of crises as
opposed to periods of normal political activity?
It must be remembered that the United States is a relatively
young country formed principally and continually by
immigrant groups and their descendents. No major foreign
policy decision, even in reference to war, is made without
serious concern and participation of its ethnic communities.
This is true even in contemporary times, illustrations are
found in such situations as the Middle East crisis, the
Cypriot crisis, the Cuban crisis, the Korean crisis,
recognition of China, etc.
The active participation by American-born traditionally
"visible" minorities now seems salient only to the extent
that formerly they were treated as invisible and their
status was inferior and more marginal than is the present
case. Hence, it is to be expected that as the United
States enters into decisions regarding Africa, Latin
America and Asia, these minorities will begin to join the
ranks of established minorities in trying to influence,
protest or support these decisions. This involvement
is part of the participatory democratization process.
is also an expansion to international issues of their civil
rights struggle which they have and continue to pursue since
the 1950's relative to domestic issues.
Members of the "new immigrant" groups are less likely to
be visible in the political arena in times of relative
tranquility as many focus their efforts towards achieving,
mobility, consolidation, and integration. This is often
done with a cautiousness and decorum. However, it may be
expected that, unless there is significant change in U.S. foreign/
domestic situation, the second and third generations of
these new immigrants will be progressively more active in
their demands of sympathetic policies toward their countries
of origin. And to the extent that they are able to enter
into the decision making structure, they will act in the
behalf of their homelands in a manner not unlike older
immigrant groups. Some may even dichotomize between the
United States and their homeland and in some cases, may
even adapt a pro-American position when a dichotomy is
necessary.
In times of crisis, especially in the case of legal
immigrants, salient political activities should be expected.
This may or may not take the form of consolidated action.
It may well surface as confrontation among segments of any
given national ethnic or overseas community located in
the United States. Due to size, dispersal and political
linkage and tradition, with the exception of perhaps the
Dominican Republic and Haitian populations especially in
New York City (and of course Puerto Ricans), there is
little likelihood of a significantly massive mobilization
of individual national groups from the Caribbean who may
effect the United States foreign policy comparable to
the Cubans. Obviously, specific urban centers, especially
in the East Coast, have the potential of being pressured
by their significant Caribbean populations either
singularly or as a coalition on the level of local policy.
Presently, by and large the circum-Caribbean is made up of a
number of countries and there is generally no inclination
for political cooperation among the various national groups
which could give any support to the belief that they could
effect by mass action, or even by way of accumulated wealth
or influence or by intrigue or terrorism, a telling impact
on U.S. foreign or national policy. Their potential for so
doing should really be perceived in terms of the trans-
national linkages they represent with the masses left at
home or with native-born visible minorities and poor,
working peoples for a smaller segment or middle or
professional classes in the United States; the other is an
issue of the future.
QUESTION: You have written that there have been shifts in the ethnic composition of certain job categories in the United States, which have implications in the diplomatic domain.
Would you care to elaborate on this idea?
I have addressed myself not so much to the change in the
ethnic composition of certain job categories, but to the
influence of the 1965 Immigration Act as a selector of the
categories in which immigrants may enter. Also, it is
generally believed, based on the arrests/apprehensions
made, that certain industries are high employers of
immigrants. In the cities this often includes private
and public service jobs, domestics, some of the trades
and lower echelons of those professions with public
service orientation. With reference to legals, they are
found in nursing, allied health, construction,
light and service industry, the professions, clerical,
and the military.
Nationality requirements reduce the entry of legal
immigrants into government services, which employ a
substantial number of native minorities. However, there
has been some news to the effect that illegals are now
entering the military; many legals do.
For reasons relating to union affiliations and nationality requirements the presence of immigrants is less visible in the unionized trades. While there have been a few isolated cases, in general immigrants have not effected the trades, government or federal jobs. This is particularly true of
newer immigrants from the Caribbean since the incidence
of naturalization of people from these areas tends to
be low (and of course the whole process is a drawn out
one beginning from the time of entry).
Despite the often raised issue that immigrants are dis-
placing Americans in jobs. the latter would normally take
place in times of low employment. It must be considered
that the lost of highly trained persons by the sending
Caribbean country and their displacement or frustration
due to employment of American or alien technical/administrative
personnel in foreign companies represent more critical
problems. Secondly, some percentage of the Caribbean
legals and illegals are really prepared for jobs requiring
much higher skills than those which they occupy.
being employed at lower rates and lower status jobs
represent the same kind of practices of exploitation
which marginal businesses would have been inclined to
attempt at a time of economic crisis with low status poor
Americans if there were no laws to protect them.
Moreover, their likelihood of displacing middle-income
Americans in the United States, even minorities, is not
really serious in number or probability, but is
exacerbated by the misplaced emphasis on the alien issue.
The possibility of exporting those industries which are
labor-intensive and employ large numbers of would be immigrants
in the source countries of these immigrants should be explored.
Importation of raw goods would not become so necessary; so too
the inducement, employment and exploitation of illegal and
legal immigrants. But this could result in higher consumption
prices and unemployment of U.S. nationals; it suggests frailty
and zero-sum nature of the United States economic economic
system and its contribution to the phenomenon of legal or
illegal immigration.
Would you provide the Subcommittee some details as to how Jamaica has sought to control outmigration? Heresay has it that in recent times the Manley government, in an attempt to reduce outflow of cash, has limited the amount of money which can be taken out by Jamaicans to something amounting to $50 per person per year. The consequences of this measure are not limited to curtailing the purchase of imported goods directly by mail or via tourist arrangements. Concomitantly, it resulted in a reduction in the number of people who would ordinarily seek to leave the country. Those who continue to leave, represent a sharpened selection including those persons already possessing adequate resources or opportunity outside the country, or others with nothing to lose--either resulting from the lack of personal resources or the decision to go disposing or abandoning whatever resources. Overall it has
|