Beginning of the article "U.S. Migration Policy"
Nevertheless, in the long term, immigration will continue to play a very important role both as a factor of population growth and as a stimulator of economic activity. It provides the economy with both low-paid labor and highly skilled specialists (and this also represents a significant saving on their training). For example, in 1998, engineers of Chinese and Indian origin controlled approximately a quarter of high-tech businesses in California's Silicon Valley, with annual sales of $17.8 billion.
Overall, three main factors primarily determine the importance of immigration:
* the inflow of highly skilled specialists, easing the burden on the U.S. education system and reducing the cost of their training;
* the inflow of low-skilled and low-paid labor, filling jobs unattractive to Americans and allowing for lower production costs and prices, especially in construction, agriculture, and services;
* large-scale training of foreign students in American universities, enabling the selection of the best candidates for granting them residency and work in the United States and stimulating the formation of bearers of new political culture and ideology among those who then return home.
The last aspect of immigration is especially important as it ensures the expansion of American political, economic, and cultural influence in the countries of emigration.
Immigration is also important in terms of changing the demographic structure of the population. In particular, the American population is aging noticeably, though not as rapidly as in Europe and Russia. It is expected that the share of people over 65, which was 12% in 1990, could rise to 22% by 2030.
One must not overlook the fact that immigration from Latin America contributes to economic stabilization in the states south of the United States. It reduces pressure on the labor market in those countries and provides a flow of remittances – approximately $45 billion annually. In Mexico, for example, about 18% of the population receives remittances from the United States.
New Challenges of Migration Policy
Despite many positive aspects of immigration, it is causing increasing controversy in American society. By the beginning of the current century, the number of illegal migrants in the United States ranged from 5 to 20 million, depending on the counting methodology and political biases of the authors (the most commonly cited figure is 11-12 million).
40% of illegals are in California (most of them arriving via the shared border with Mexico), where this issue provokes heated debate and serious political divisions. It is expected that the white population here will make up less than half of the population within the current decade. Following in number of illegals are Texas, New York, and Florida. Overall, more than three-quarters of immigrants are concentrated in six American states, and more than half in just eight urbanized areas, primarily New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, Boston, and Miami.
At the same time, many regions have a certain ethnic 'specialization.' Thus, Los Angeles has become the main destination for people from Mexico and Asia, Miami for Cubans and some other migrants from Latin America. At the same time, there is a large-scale outflow of native (especially white) population from urban centers, leading to a rapid change in the racial, ethnic, and cultural makeup of America's leading cities. In the aforementioned urban centers, for every ten migrants, there are nine native residents who move to other cities and suburban areas. Among the large cities that still see an influx of white population are San Diego, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Seattle, Phoenix, Atlanta, and Las Vegas.
Overall, one of the obvious consequences of immigration is the growing division of the country into cosmopolitan coastal, border areas and large cities, on the one hand, and a more traditional 'heartland,' on the other. Although the influx of migrants is also increasing there: during 1980-2000, the Hispanic population in approximately 30 states grew by more than 200%.
A particular problem today is labor immigration, both legal and illegal. According to estimates, almost half of the illegals entered the country legally on tourist, student, or even work visas. They relatively easily find low-paid and low-skilled jobs both in the city and in rural areas (for example, as seasonal agricultural or construction workers). And although entrepreneurs in these sectors are interested in the influx of such immigrants, many Americans, including business representatives, are categorically opposed. Almost half of the population supports measures to restrict immigration.
Accordingly, opposition to both illegal and often legal immigration is growing on both ends of the political spectrum and has socio-economic as well as ethno-political underpinnings. Within the left opposition, the role of trade unions is particularly noticeable in those industries where workers face competition from immigrants willing to work for low wages without any social guarantees. Indeed, immigration not only intensifies competition in the labor market but also dampens wage growth for low-skilled workers (which in recent years has either not increased at all or even declined slightly in terms of purchasing power).
In addition to this, the large-scale influx of people belonging to ethnic and racial minorities is changing the internal structure in the United States. This leads to a redistribution of subsidized resources and jobs in the public sector (where the share of minorities is traditionally very high) and discontent among the "old" minorities. Many of the preferential programs were created to compensate African Americans for the era of slavery and segregation, but now they are extended to newly arriving migrants from non-European countries, as well as to other population groups, including women, the disabled, etc. Thus, immigration not only reduces the share of whites in the population but also "cuts off" benefits from "traditional" minorities.
Unsurprisingly, four-fifths of ordinary Americans surveyed (compared, by the way, to 45% among representatives of the elites) consider "protecting the jobs of American workers" as one of the most important tasks facing the country.
On the other hand, the right-wing opposition, without publicizing it, perceives immigration, especially from Mexico and Latin America in general, as a threat to the existing ethnic, racial, religious, and linguistic structure and unity of American society. Conservatives also point to the threat of competition from immigrants for small businesses – a crucial pillar of political conservatism in the United States.
A peculiar exponent of these views became political commentator and journalist Patrick Buchanan, who proclaimed the threat of immigration as one of the main themes of his presidential election campaigns in 1992, 1996, and 2000. Along with demands for Washington's withdrawal from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and then from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), he insisted on a ban on all forms of immigration for five years and the construction of a permanent wall or at least a wire fence along the entire border with Mexico to prevent illegal immigration. It should be noted that the latter initiative began to be partially implemented in 2006. An even more aggressive position is taken by CNN commentator Lou Dobbs, who claims that illegal immigration contributes to the spread of infectious diseases, including such exotic ones as, for example, leprosy.
Meanwhile, intensive immigration (along with different rates of natural increase among individual ethnic, religious, and racial groups) leads to fairly rapid changes in the population structure of the United States. In particular, in 1996, whites made up 73.6% of the country's population. The share of African Americans was 12%, and the share of so-called "Hispanics" (primarily from Latin America) was 10.2%. According to estimates, the share of Latin Americans will increase to 24.5% by 2050, while the share of African Americans will be 13.6%. The share of Asians will also increase significantly, reaching 8.2%. Data from the 2001 census confirms the accuracy of these forecasts. Thus, "Hispanics" have already overtaken African Americans, becoming the largest minority. Also note that the number of "Hispanics" increased from 500,000 in 1900 to 41.3 million in July 2004. Currently, they account for about half of population growth.
Equally curious is the fact that the number of Muslims in the United States in 2001 exceeded the number of Jews for the first time. These changes are very important because they can lead to changes in voting results, redistribution of social benefits among different population groups, and a reorientation of foreign policy.
Particular concerns are raised by the predicted shift of American society from the traditional "melting pot" to a "mosaic" model. This creates a situation in which immigrants, who once quickly became Americans not only through formal change of citizenship but also in terms of their mentality, linguistic and cultural identity, will find themselves in a "multicultural" society fragmented into separate ethnic, religious, cultural, and linguistic groups. According to Forbs magazine expert Peter Brimelow (who, by the way, is also an immigrant from Britain), the United States can no longer afford to be a nation of immigrants: "What is unusual about the current American immigration debate is that Americans are being persuaded to completely abandon the bond based on common ethnicity and entrust themselves to ideology as the force binding their state."
Particular concern among many is caused by the reluctance of Hispanic immigrants to integrate into American society. According to famous political scientist from Harvard University Samuel Huntington, Hispanic immigration is "the most... serious challenge to traditional American identity... By ignoring this problem, Americans are pushing [their society] towards transformation into two cultures (English- and Spanish-speaking) and two languages." In his opinion, the danger is posed by six specific features of the new immigration wave: the existence of a common border with Mexico, the scale of immigration, its illegal nature, territorial concentration, persistence, and long-term character.
Opponents of this approach point to the growing importance of the market and the revolution in technology and communications as factors stimulating interest in learning English and the acceptance of the idea of assimilation by immigrants. For example, editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report Mortimer Zuckerman sees no "reasons for pessimism." He writes: "There is... evidence that we can absorb Hispanic [immigrants] – just as we absorbed previous generations of Europeans – into a dynamic American society... Each new wave of immigrants has taught our nation something new and enriched its culture. In other words, [the new immigration wave creates] opportunities, not problems."
According to data from the U.S. National Research Council, 60% of immigrants who arrived in the 1980s spoke English well. Overall, surveys show that modern migrants assimilate just as successfully as they did a hundred years ago. A recent survey of 2,500 Latin Americans showed that 90% of them considered it necessary to adapt to American culture as quickly and effectively as possible. But the same 90% of migrants also considered it necessary to maintain ties with their national culture.
The above review shows that the migration policy of the United States exhibits a number of features and problems similar to those currently facing Russia. Moreover, some of the political innovations create contradictions and raise concerns that are in a sense analogous to those voiced by Russian political forces. In particular, there is great concern about the possibility of losing national unity and the development of ethnic conflicts. At the same time, there is serious concern about the possibility of uncontrolled strengthening—under the pretext of fighting terrorism and illegal migration—of the power of the federal government. However, we should not forget that the American experience speaks primarily of the considerable benefits of immigration and the state's ability to accept and assimilate significant numbers of migrants without endangering the foundations of democratic governance.
It is necessary to seek new forms of immigration policy. On the one hand, immigration carries a huge positive charge; on the other hand, it is practically impossible to stop the flow of illegal immigrants by democratic means, especially when a relatively prosperous country borders much poorer and labor-surplus states. As the well-known political scientist Joseph Nye recently wrote, the modern world is characterized by a 'blurring of borders.' This process, driven by both market and technological factors, leads to the intensification of international movement not only of goods and services but also of labor. Along with changes in the international community's attitude toward issues of human rights and state sovereignty, this process forces many countries, including such as the United States and Russia, to reconsider their views on migration and methods of migration policy.
Andrei KOROBKOV,
Professor of Political Science
at the University of Tennessee (USA).