[Eight criticisms of the draft of the migration law]. / Ocho criticas al anteproyecto de ley de migracion.

PIP: The proposed migration law recently published in the Dominican Republic is of importance because of the volume of both immigration to and emigration from the country. This critique of the draft is intended to stimulate debate before the proposed law is approved by the legislature. The proposed law is more a means of control and coercion than a modern instrument of development based on socioeconomic reality. A tendency to confuse the legal dispositions of migration control with migration policy is evident throughout the draft. However, the massive exodus of Dominicans and the massive entry of Haitians will not be resolved with simple measures of control. Migration policy should be related to development policy and to a strategy of insertion into the world economy. The proposed law assumes an authoritarian political order in a closed and intolerant oligarchic world. It ignores the fact that migration in the contemporary world is not a simple matter of border or police control, but of international relations, and that the treatment of Haitians in the Dominican Republic is not totally without relevance to the treatment of Dominicans in the US. The new law would weaken the authority of the consul and would concentrate power in the National Office of Migration, which would control migration and also be the judge in cases of conflict. The mechanisms proposed by the law for control of seasonal migratory labor assume a collective contract, when in fact most such labor is now contracted individually and informally by small enterprises. In general, the law sets up unrealistic requirements for entry and taxation of the poorly educated migrants. The National Office of Migration would be responsible for gathering and publishing such statistics as it deemed of interest, suggesting an intent to impede the free flow of information.^ieng

Using INS border apprehension data to measure the flow of undocumented migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico frontier.

"This article examines how data on INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] border apprehensions are related to the flow of undocumented migrants crossing the southern U.S. border. Its centerpiece is a demographic model of the process of unauthorized migration across the Mexico-U.S. frontier. This model is both a conceptual framework that allows us to see theoretical linkages between apprehensions and illegal migrant flows, and a methodological device that yields estimates of the gross number of undocumented migrants. One implication of the model is that, for the first time, the relation between apprehensions and illegal flows can be examined empirically. We show that the ratio in each period between apprehensions and the undocumented flow is simply the odds of being located and arrested on any given attempt to enter the United States clandestinely."

[Antecedents of and reflections on immigration policy in the United States]. / Antecedentes y reflexiones en torno a la politica migratoria de Estados Unidos.

PIP: The background and determinants of US migration policy regarding Mexico are analyzed. Examination of migration policy through World War II demonstrates the coexistence of efforts to assure an adequate labor force by stimulating immigration with xenophobic fears and efforts to restrict immigration of specific groups. More recent policy measures--the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act prohibiting work in the US without migration documents, the 1954 "Operation Wetback" program to deport illegal immigrants, and the 1986 Simpson-Rodino law sanctioning employers who hire illegal immigrants--represented juridical and political responses to an essentially economic and social problem. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of the early 1990s largely ignored the difficult issue of illegal immigration, missing an opportunity for bilateral consideration of the problem. In early 1994, the US government increased the budget for border surveillance and initiated other actions to curb illegal immigration. Three states with large undocumented Mexican immigrant populations sued the Federal government for reimbursement of their expenditures, and California's Proposition 187 called for denying educational and medical services to family members of illegal immigrants. US migration policy has always attempted to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. The large numbers still present demonstrate that blockades, deportations, and other measures have been only partially successful.^ieng

[Legal international migration across the northern frontier of Mexico]. / Migracion internacional legal desde la frontera norte de Mexico.

The impact of the Simpson-Rodino Law of 1986, which increased legal commuting labor migration across the Mexican-U.S. border, is examined using data from surveys undertaken in 1986 and 1990. "Using these data and LOGIT regression models which include variables related to individuals as well as their household members and their context, statistical evidence is generated in support of the propositions that, i) an expansion occurred of the spectrum of social strata incurring in this type of migration; ii) the selectivity characteristics of new entrants into this migration group show a reproduction strategy oriented toward upward mobility; and iii) contextual factors led to a geographic redistribution of the commuter migrant group in the state of Baja California." (SUMMARY IN ENG)

The migratory impact of minimum wage legislation: Puerto Rico, 1970-1987.

"This study examines the impact of minimum wage setting on labor migration. A multiple time series framework is applied to monthly data for Puerto Rico from 1970-1987. The results show that net emigration from Puerto Rico to the United States fell in response to significant changes in the manner in which minimum wage policy was conducted, particularly after 1974. The extent of commuter type labor migration between Puerto Rico and the United States is influenced by minimum wage policy, with potentially important consequences for human capital investment and long-term standards of living."

The effect of maquiladora employment on the monthly flow of Mexican undocumented immigration to the U.S., 1978-1982.

"Some controversy has surrounded the extent to which employment in maquiladoras (assembly plants located along the Mexican border) has stimulated undocumented immigration to the United States. This study uses monthly data of maquiladora employment and INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] apprehensions in a 'push-pull' migration framework to study the association between these two variables during the April 1978 to January 1982 period. The findings suggest that there is a significantly negative relationship between the one month lag of maquiladora employment and INS apprehensions. Employment growth in the maquiladora sector tends to be followed by a reduction of apprehensions one month later. The study also finds that male and female apprehensions appear to respond to relatively similar economic factors."

The evolution of the international refugee system.

This article examines the evolution of the current international system for responding to refugee problems and the climate within which the legal and institutional framework has developed. It reviews the background and handling of some of the key refugee movements since World War II and traces the legal and institutional adjustments that have been made to deal with new refugee movements that have occurred predominantly, but not exclusively, in the developing world. Finally, it assesses the adequacy of the present system to meet the challenges ahead.

[Argentine migration policy and movements of the European population (1876-1925)]. / Politicas migratorias argentinas y flujo de poblacion europea (1876-1925).

PIP: This work examines changes in Argentine migration policy from 1876-1925 and the relationship between public policy and population movements. Promoting immigration from Europe as proposed in article 25 of the Argentine constitution of 1853 was 1 of the most enduring objectives of Argentina's leadership. When Law of Immigration and Colonization (Law 817) was passed by the Chamber of Senators in 1876, the flow of immigration was at its lowest point in 8 years. Many of the provisions of Law 817 had already been put into practice occasionally or systematically, but the intent to use the law to attract a far greater number of immigrants and to select qualities seen as desirable were novel elements and the principal motives of the legislation. The unstated aim of reducing the preponderance of Italian immigration from about 2/3 was not immediately achieved. Argentina's immigration policy and actions were in competition with those of other Latin American countries and with the US. Information offices for prospective immigrants were opened in the 1880s in Paris, London, Brussels, Berlin, Vienna, Bern, and New York, and in 1887 legislation was passed permitting subsidized passages on a large scale. The continued predominance of Italian immigration demonstrated the limits of government policy influence, even when large sums of money were invested. The informal network of Italian immigrants already in Argentina and the activities of interested shipping companies on the other hand played major roles in maintaining Italian immigration. The total number of immigrants and the diversity of national origins were increased by the subsidized passages, but in 1891 the combination of a financial crisis and an end to subsidized passages decisively reduced the total flow. Changes occurred in the 1890s in regional flows within countries and in the occupational composition of immigrants from agricultors to day laborers, unskilled workers, and artisans. By about 1910 the conservative elements in Argentina's ruling elite began to favor a more restrictive and more controlled immigration with Italians now viewed as desirable because of their affinity for Latin culture and their hard work. The growing influx of Russian Jews and of Syrians and Lebanese raised concerns about their eventual assimilation. After World War I, the trend toward greater restrictiveness was reflected in several legislative initiatives and in administrative changes. The main determinants appear to have been the desire to avoid social conflict and admission of agitators, economic crisis, and the example of other countries with increasingly restrictive immigration policies.^ieng

The political and socioeconomic context of legal and illegal Mexican migration to the United States (1942-1984).

PIP: The US manpower shortage in industry and agriculture during World War II, combined with Mexico's burden of an excess number of unemployed laborers, provided the basis for serious labor negotiations between the US and Mexico. The result was the Bracero Agreement of 1942, a bilateral agreement involving annual quotas for the temporary hiring of Mexican braceros. On the surface the program worked well. However, there were points of contention between the 2 countries: 1) in opposition to Mexico's policy of placing recruitment centers in the interior of the country, US policy called for placing the centers near the border, to reduce transportation costs; 2) Texas, which received no braceros because of racial discrimination, relied upon illegal aliens for manual labor; 3) Texas flagrantly violated a 1948 agreement when the Border Patrol welcomed aliens across the river despite Mexican officials' threats to close the border; 4) legal braceros were confronted with competition from illegals who were willing to work for a lower wage; 5) in 1954, the Border patrol physically helped aliens across the border, while Mexican policy were physically restraining them; 6) with the conclusion of a new Bracero agreement in March 1954, illegal aliens were no longer needed, so more than 1 million were apprehended and deported to Mexico's interior. The termination of the Bracero Program in 1964 gave new impetus to illegal trafficking and the number of illegals apprehended began to increase steadily in 1965. The migration flow after 1964 was influenced by the following socioeconomic conditions in Mexico: 1) unemployment, 2) very large disparities in income distribution, 3) a discrimination of the rural sector in favor of the urban in the allocation of government funds, and 4) a dependency on foreign capital and technology. Also, it was cheap labor for the US. Neither the US nor Mexico has adopted policies related to either economic development or immigration that would systematically curtail or regulate the flow of Mexican migrants to the US. However, conflicting pressures limit the policy-making process. President Carter was limited in his policy options by the needs of large-scale commercial agriculture. President Reagan's idea of a guest-worker program did not develop into legislation. Mexico's Lopez Portillo administration counted on migration to the US as a substitute for redistributive land reform in its handling of rural political pressures; the migratory flow functioned as an "escape valve" helping to dilute the effects of rapid demographic increase and preserving the status quo.^ieng

Rule on Mariel Cuban Parole Determination, 21 December 1987.

This Rule establishes a separate immigration parole review process for certain detained, excludable nationals of Cuba who came to the US during the 1980 Mariel Cuban boatlift. The effect of the Rule is to institute several levels of review to determine whether the Mariel Cubans should be paroled and to set forth procedures governing such parole decisions. It establishes a new Departmental Release Review Program under the general supervision of the Associate Attorney General which will provide eligible aliens, otherwise denied parole, with an additional review.

Resolution No. 2478/87-DM setting forth requirements to grant an entry permit or residency of a permanent or temporary nature, 15 September 1987.

This Resolution of Argentina sets forth the following categories of persons as those who may be granted an entry permit or residency of a permanent or temporary nature under Decree 1434/87: 1) professionals, technicians, or specialized personnel whose admission is required to undertake their specialized duties for businesses, or persons whose solvency or economic or social activity is publicly recognized; 2) business persons, artists, or athletes contracted by a person of known solvency to undertake their specialized duties; 3) scientists, professors, writers, journalists, or persons of special importance to the cultural, social, or political order; 4) students who, according to the laws of their own country, have reached the age of majority; 5) religious persons belonging to recognized religions; 6) foreigners who are of special interest to the country because of their talents or personal circumstances; 7) immigrants who have sufficient capital to undertake a commercial, industrial agricultural, mining, or fishing activity; persons who deposit US $30,000 for not less than 120 days are considered to have sufficient capital; 8) parents, unmarried children, or spouses of Argentine citizens, foreigners resident temporarily and permanently in Argentina, or persons mentioned in 1) to 7) above. Under Resolution 700/88-DNM (National Director of Migration) of 3 March 1988, foreigners of European origin are included within category 6) above. See Boletin Oficial de la Republica Argentina, No. 26.495, 27 October 1988, p. 95. Under Resolution 179/88-MI (Minister of the Interior) of 19 February 1988, Resolution No. 2479/87-DNM, which suspended temporarily the authorization of entry permits, settling, and visitation for foreigners of Taiwanese origin, is without effect and the National Directorate of Migration is instructed to establish a system of strict control of such persons. See Boletin Oficial de la Republica Argentina, No. 26.495, 27 October 1988, pp. 26-27. Resolution No. 2364 (National Director of Migration) of 2 September 1988 sets forth rules on the migration status of persons who entered Argentina before Decree No. 1434/87 came into effect. Those who entered the country in compliance with regulations applicable at the time are to be given permanent or temporary residency. Most of those who entered illegally will have to leave. See Boletin Official de la Republica Argentina, No. 26.304, 13 January 1988, p. 3.

Decree No. 1991, Regulations to the Law on Foreigners, 30 June 1986.

Among other things, these Regulations set forth rules on requirements for visas established in the Ecuador Law on Foreigners. They list the amounts of income from abroad or investments in Ecuador required of foreigners entering Ecuador with immigrant visas, documents needed by persons working permanently in enterprises and institutions under immigrant visas, and methods of proof of dependency for persons entering on immigrant visas as dependents. In this context, they provide that persons with foreign income must receive at least $1,000 per month, with an increase of 80% Ecuadorian personnel; that persons entering as workers must inform authorities of changes in work status; and that persons entering as dependents may themselves work only if their sponsor dies or the means of subsistence of the sponsor decrease. The Regulations also set forth requirements for persons entering Ecuador on nonimmigrant visas, such as refugees, students, temporary workers, religious personnel, and those in transit. With respect to refugees, the rules provide that false statements made in an application will trigger an expulsion order; that foreign nationals coming from a country other than that where they suffered persecution will not be admitted unless they were in that country in direct transit; that refugees may not leave the country without express permission; and that, if the conditions justifying asylum change, a refugee will be required to leave the country. With respect to workers, the rules provide that an applicant must show a need for a foreign worker that cannot be fulfilled by an Ecuadorian worker and must show a work contract or appointment. With respect to those in transit, the rules provide that no visa is required and that entry will be denied to those lacking permission to enter the country of destination and transit through countries bordering Ecuador that are on their route. Persons in this category may stay in Ecuador for only a limited time--usually 10 days for persons en route and three months for visitors. The Regulations also contain provisions on the modification of immigration status, including the rule that the status of those in transit may not be modified. In addition, they set forth the functions of the Consultative Council on Migration Policy. Among these is the task of promoting internal migration to sparsely populated areas of the country.

Accord No. 8 of 19 August 1988.

The objective of this Accord is to facilitate the entry into Honduras of foreigners who desire to invest in agricultural, agro-industrial, industrial, tourism, and export projects. The Accord establishes an investment visa scheme for 1) foreign investors and business persons and their spouses and economic dependents and 2) technicians and specialist experts and workers and their spouses and economic dependents. The visas are free and are good 1) for three months' residence in Honduras with three-month extensions possible up to a period of one year and 2) for one month, renewable in one-month periods up to six months. Further provisions of the Accord set forth procedures, documentary requirements, and registration requirements, among other things.

Immigration measures, 1988.

In 1988, the Government of Norway undertook the following immigration measures: 1) it merged the Office of Immigration, which deals with asylum matters, and the Government Refugee Agency, which handles reception and settlement, into a new Directorate for Immigration under the Ministry of Local Government and Labour; 2) it instituted visa requirements for Chileans; and 3) it established a new reception program, under which five regional reception centers are to be created accommodating 200 to 300 people each, where asylum seekers will be placed until they have completed their police interview and a municipality has agreed to accept them.