D=-
[i
1'r'ii h
n
i
lHAt ll
/
1ffi :G'.t-€4 ffi
,q!
6:\
Controlling lmmigration: The Limits of Government lntervention
I
w w
l,
"ld a ,N
SD
-_.,
,
Wayne A. Cornelius and Takeyuki Tsuda
first edition of Controlling Immigration, the total volume of international migration has risen impressively. In the 1990s, the estimated number of people living outside their country of birth or nationality grew from 154 million to 175 million.l Although this represents only about 3 percent of the world's populatiorL there are few countries today whose economies and societies are not being profoundly reshaped by immigration or emigration.2 Almost one out of every ten inhabitants of the world's economically developed regions is an international migrant. Since the
In the past fifteen years, even such countries as Japan and Korea, previ-
I See United Nations 2002. Migrants are defined as persons
living outside their country of birth or citizenship for twelve months or more. 2 Numerous countries are also experiencing large-scale internal migration, which can be much greater in volume than the international migration that a country experiences. For example, the number of internal migrants in China alone (130 million) is equivalent to 75 percent of the total volume of international migrants in the rest of the world ca. 2000. See Martin and Widgren 2002 24.
v Controlling tmmigration: The Limits to Government lntervention
Cornelius and Tsuda
ously untouched by global population movements, have become countries of immigration. The movement of peoples across national borders has accelerated because of a robust demand for immigrant labor in advanced industrial economies, wide and growing economic and demographic disparities between First and Third World countries, and the steadily expanding web of transnational social and economic processes linking sending and receiving countries (see Hannerz 1996; Levitt and Waters 2002; Levitt, DeWind, and Vertovec 2003). In response, governments have implemented a variety of measures to reduce "unwanted" immigration and refilgee flows and contain anti-immigrant public backlashes. Some receiving countries have also begun to move more proactively to accelerate immigrants' social integration and political incorporation. This book systematically compares immigration control policies and their outcomes in eleven advanced industrial countries. The country case studies that were part of the first edition (the United States, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Japan) have been extensively updated or replaced with new chapters, and case studies of Australia, the Netherlands, and Korea have been added. Greater attention has been devoted in this edition to immigrant integration policies (or the lack thereof) in each country and to aspects of international migration that have become more prominent in recent years, such as organized migrantsmuggling and the nexus between immigration control and antiterrorism efforts. We retain the two central theses used to organize the first edition. The first, which we call the " gap hypothesis," is that significant and persistent gaps exist between official immigration policies and actual policy outcomes. The second, the " conuergence hypothesis," claims that there is growing similarity among labor-importing countries in terms of: (1) the policies that their governments have adopted to control immigration; (2) policies designed to integrate immigrants into host societies by providing them with social services as well as political, economic, and social rights; and
(3) attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy
consequences' Some scholars have argued that retained considerable capacity to control "unwanted" have natron-states while others find that most laborrefugees, and immigrants flows of However, most of the counlosing the battle.3 are importing countries fies represented in this volume have experienced significant immigradon control problems in the last ten years, and the gap between stated policy objectives and outcomes in these countries seems to be growing
result
wider.a Serious policy gaps have resulted not only from immigration policies that seek to "stem flows" but also those that "solicit flows" (see Guiraudon and Joppke 200L:2; foppke, this volume). While advanced industrial
countries have had serious difficulty stemming immigration from Third World countries, when they have attempted to actively recruit certain fpes of immigrants they have also found it difficult to accomplish their objectives. This has been the case, for example, with West European and Japanese government programs designed to attract highly skilled and professional workers from newly industrialized countries like India and China (Cornelius, Espenshade, and Salehyan 2001). On the other hand,
government attempts to recruit lout-skilled immigrants have often been "too successful," resulting in much larger numbers of migrants than anticipated (for example, attempts by Germany and Japan to import ethnic return migrants).s Most policy gaps are of two kinds: (1) those caused by the unintended consequences of policy, and (2) those caused by inadequate implementation or enforcement of policy (cf. Joppke, this volume). Given that policy gaps are empirical facts, the important questions are: how do we measure them, and how do we explain them?
s
preferences
among general publics.
THE GAP HYPOTHESIS It is perhaps misleading to refer to the gap hypothesis as a true hypothesis since it is an empirical fact that few labor-importing countries have immigration control policies that are perfecfly implemented or do not
in unintended
The extent to which the modern nation-state remains capable of regulating international migration and refugee flows-indeed, whether capacity to control such flows still represents an essential element of national sovereignty-is the subject of considerable scholarly debate (see, for example, Freeman 1994,1995,1998; Guiraudon and Lahav 2000; Guiraudon and ]oppke 2001; Hollifield1992,2000a, 2000b; Joppke 1998; Joppke, ed.1998; Sassen 1996; Zolberg 1999). Joppke implies that the issue itself is misplaced because nation-states have never enjoyed strong national sover-
eignty, even before the current era of globalization and expanded international population rnovements. In contrast, Freeman (1994) argues that, despite considerable variation, the general capacity of states to regulate migration is growing. s Ethnic return migrants are diasporic peoples who "return" to their ancestral homeland aJter living outside their countries of ethnic origin for generations.
a
v Cornelius and Tsuda
MEASURING POTICY GAPS In
cases where immigration policy is based on numerical quotas or targets, the size of the policy gap is simply the discrepancy between the
officially mandated number and the actual number of immigrants who enter the country. Similarly, when governments clearly specify immigrants/ maximum length of stay, gaps can be measured by how long they actually remain in the country beyond the originally stipulated period (by renewing or overstaying visas). Even if the number of immigrants to be admitted or their length of stay is not clearly specified in the country's policy, it is usually quite apparent when governments receive more immigrants than expected or they remain longer than expected. In most cases, official policies also indicate the types of immigrants the government wishes to admit (based on skill level, job classification, national origin, or ethnicity), which are often quite different from the types of immigrants that actually arrive. Policy gaps can also be quantified by statistics on unauthorized immigrants (although they are always difficult to count).
Undoubtedly, gaps are more difficult to measure when governments do not have clearly defined or coherent immigration policies. Even most Western European countries did not have explici! officially promulgated immigration policies until the early 1970s (Hammar 1992: 256-57).In other cases, the actual goals and objectives of immigration policy are not directly specified or remain ambiguous. However, even if the officially declared immigration policy itself is quite clear, it may not be a good indication of true government intentions and objectives. As a result, the ensuing "unintended consequences" of immigration control policies may not be so unintended, or may in fact be fully intended. The extent of negative public opinion toward immigrants is another indicator of policy gaps. The assumption here is that the wider the policy gap, the stronger the public backlash. For example, if more immigrants enter the country than officially intended, the public may feel that the government has lost control over immigration and react negatively. In Western Europe, anti-immigrant backlashes have occurred when guestworkers who were supposed to be "temporary" settled permanently, brought their dependents, and began utilizing public services conspicuously at a time of high unemployment and reductions in government services. In the 1990s, the enfry of unexpectedly large numbers of asylum seekers-many of whom were suspected of being economic migrantscaused negative public reactions.
Controlling lmmigration: The Limits to Covernment lntervention
However, public opinion surveys are a problematic way to measure policy gaps, for several reasons. First, the general public frequently does not have sufficiently detailed nor accurate knowledge of the governmen/s immigration policy and its actual consequences, especially since the public frequently misperceives the economic and social situation of immigrants in their country. Second, the public may not agree with the government's immigration policy in the first place, so it may react negatively even if the policy is being perfectly implemented' Finally, the public itself is not monolithic but consists of many disparate groups with varying interests and concerns. For instance, if the government effecdvely en-forces a restrictive imrnigration policy, the average citizen may be quite safisfied, but it may cause a public "backlash" among employers and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) concerned with immigrants' rights. In this case, certain groups among the public may actually favor a wide policy gap (see the Korean case, this volume).
EXPLAINING POLICY GAPS Flawed Policies One of the major reasons why governments have been unable to effectively reduce the gap between policies and outcomes is because they have continued to rely on policy instruments with inherent flaws that fail to deter unauthorized immigrants and asylum seekers but produce serious unintended consequences. In some cases, these policies could be modified to increase their efficacy, or enforcement resources could be increased-assuming the political will to do so. In other cases, the nature
of the policy instrument itself (or the conditions under which it is implemented) makes it prone to failure. One of the clearest examples of a policy instrument that has not functioned effectively as an immigration control mechanisrn while yielding large-scale unintended consequences is the temporary foreign worker (guestworker) program. Numerous "guestworkers" have become permanent additions to the host society's labor force, and subsequent unauthorized migration flows have been augmented by the offspring of participants in the temporary worker program. The best-documented cases are Germany's guestworker program of the 1950s and 1960s and the U.S. "Bracere" program of 1942-1964 (Freeman 1994: 25-27; Martin, Lowell, and Taylor 2000; Massey and Liang 1989). Such programs typically have multiple flaws that cause guestworkers not to refurn home as expected.
Controlling lmmigration: The Limits to Governrnent lntervention
Cornelius and Tsuda
For example, the duration of the visa or contract is too short, so employers
keep workers for longer periods than allowed; guestworkers have insufficient incentives for repatriation; limited family reunification is permitted, which promotes permanent settlement in the host country; andf or the programs limit participating workers to the lowest-wage jobs and do not allow them to switch employers, causing them to disappear into the
more lucrative, illegal immigrant labor market. Moreover, temporary worker programs typically do not dry up illegal immigration from major source countries, because their existence may encourage more workers to want to migrate, the programs usually are not large enough to accommodate the majority of migrant job-seekers, and many employers prefer to hire long-term workers for jobs that are nonseasonal. Numerous governments-most notably the United States and the countries on the borders of the European Union (EU)-invested heavily in border enforcement during the 1.990s to reduce the influx of illegal immigrants (Andreas and Snyder 2000; Andreas and Biersteker 2003). This effort has included deploying large numbers of border patrol agents, increasing air and coastal patrols, and installing elaborate fences and surveillance devices. Such measures have increased the probability of apprehension, at least in the most closely patrolled areas, but they have had no discernible deterrent effect on illegal entry attempts. Highly motivated migrants driven by powerful economic incentives have found ways to circumvent tougher border controls, notably by relying to a greater extent on professional people-smugglers and by crossing in border areas not yet heavily fortified. In the case of the U.S. border with Mexico, the principal effects of a massive buildup in border enforcement resources since 1993 have been to redistribute illegal entry attempts to more remote areas, increase the financial cost and physical risk of illegal entry (people smugglers' fees and migrant fatalities have risen sharply), and induce more unauthorized migrants to extend their stays or settle permanently in the United States because of the increased difficulty of reentry (see Cornelius 2001; Reyes, Johnson, and Van Swearingen 2002). In both the United States and Western Europe, the illegal immigrant stock has continued to grow rapidly, with net increases approximating 500,000 per year since the late 1990s.6
e
By early 2004 the stock of undocumented immigrants in the United States was estimated at 9.3 million, representing 26 percent of the foreign-born population, 5 percent of the total work{orce, and 10 percent of low-wage workers in the United States (Passel, Capp+ and Fix 2004).
Interior enforcement of immigration laws, especially in the workexternal border enforcement beolace, should be more effective than fundamental causes of internaof the reducing one at aimed is cause it for demand foreign labor among employers strong donal migration-the the 1970s, laws penalizing emSince in immigrant-receiving countries. ployers for hiring unauthorized foreign workels have been adopted and itrengthenea in Western Europe, East Asia, and the United States, but they have generally failed to reduce employment opportunities for illegal migrants. The reasons are similar in each case: worksite inspections Ire too sporadic to constitute a realistic risk to employers who continue to hire unauthorized workers; the fines imposed are so low that they can be treated as a cost of doing business; criminal penalties are rarely enforced; fraudulent documents have proliferated among illegal immigrant job-seekers; and employers are not required to verify the documents that workers present as proof of their eligibility for employment. Current European versions of employer sanctions have fewer policy flaws and are more effective than the U.S. version (Castles and Miller 2003:97),but there are notable exceptions (see the Spain and Italy cases, this volume). Macro-Structural ExPlanations Many labor-importing countries have had difficulty conholling immigration because the demand for foreign workers in their counhies has become "structurally embedded," that is, rooted in the receiving country's economy and society in ways that are largely impervious to the business cycle as well as to government interventions (Cornelius 1998a; Tsuda 1999a). Most advanced induskial countries are now experiencing persistent shortages of labor to fill low-skilled jobs in certain industries, stemming from long-declining fertility rates and aging populationsz (which
7
Based on the medium united Nations projection of fertility rates and an assumed annual number of 50O000 immigrants, the total European Union population is expected to shrink by 50 million (11 percent) by 2050 (Demeny 2003: 11). The situation is more dire in Japan: even at the current fertility rate (which continues to decline), Japan's population is expected to shrink by 21..6 million (17 percent) by 2050 (United Nations 2000). In both Western Europe and Japan, populations would be declinhg even faster il it were not for children being born to immigrants. In 2003, for example, the European Union's population grew by just 0.34 percent, and about threequarters of that increase was due to immigration (Fehr, Jokisch, and Kotlikoff 2003; Fertig and schmidt 2003; world Economic Forum 2004). The united states and Can-
10
Cornelius and Tsuda
*I
Controlling lmmigration: The Limits to Government lntervention
,
,t
11
i
produce absolute shortages of young, entry-level workers) as well as rising educational levels and increasingly negative attitudes toward manual labor arnong the native-born population (yielding relatiue shortages). In addition, in western Europe, generous social welfare systems (pensions, unemployment benefits, and so on) have encouraged people not to work (at least in the formal labor sector) or to retire early, creating a situation in which robust demand for immigrant labor is accompanied by persistently high "structural unemployment,, rates. At the same time, powerful labor unions have made it more difficult for businesses to reduce labor costs through benefits reductions and downsizing, further increasing the demand for casual, cheap, often nonunionized immigrant labor (see Money 1999:31). As long as there is a strong, stable demand for foreign labor in advanced industrial economies, resourceful immigrants in pursuit of abundant and high-paying jobs (and the people smugglers u'd lubo, brokers who assist them) will always find a way to circumvent a government,s immigration laws, border controls, and any other obstacle placed in their path. Indeed, the more restrictive the immigration policy, the greater the number of immigrants who will simply find ways to enter the country illegally in response to employer demand, and the rarger the immigration control gap (see, for example, Morawska 2001). Cross-national disparities and the transnational economic and social ties that span these divides play their part in reducing the efficacy of immigration control measures. Huge demographic imbalances (overpopulation in developing countries, population decrine in developed countries) and differentials in wage levels and job availabilify between these countries propel migration across national borders, regardless of the strategies of nation-states (Massey et al. 1998; sassen 1996, lggg). Attempts to address such structural disparities by developed. countries through economic development assistance and foreign direct investment have done little to fundamentally rectify the imbarances (Ghosh 2000:17; Lim 1992:138). In western Europe, regional frade riberalization, combined with large flows of development aid from richer to poorer EU member countries, halved wage disparities and transformed labor exporters like Italy and spain into labor importers (Martin, Lowelf and Taylor 2000). But in North America, the u.s.-Mexico real wage differenLtalincreased by more than 10 percent during the first decade of the North
,t
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and it remains to be seen whether free trade can make an appreciable dent in unauthorized migration, except perhaps in the long run (Cornelius20A2; Audley et al. 2003). Transnational economic and social processes have become increasingly important in sustaining migration flows. Most importantly, such processes operate through migrant social networks that spur further migration by encouraging family reunification migration and by reducing the costs and risks of international migration for new, first-time migrants (Massey 1988; Fawcett 1989). in addition, transnational labor brokers and migrant-smuggling operations facilitate access to receivingcountry labor markets. A global migration industuy has developed, offering a wide array of services to migrants and their employers, including visa and travel arrangements; job, language, and cultural training; and job placement and housing in the receiving country. Some labor brokerage operations are "legitimate" businesses; others are at best semi-legal and exploit immigrants by charging exorbitant fees (Tsuda 1999b,2003). Still others are criminal organizations that engage in coercive trafficking
of women and even children for the thriving global sex industry (see Kyle and Koslowski 2001; Kyle and Liang 2001; Salt and Stein 1997). Entire flows of clandestine migrants are now organized professionally (for example, the heavy flow frorn Fujian province in southern China to Western Europe; see Pieke et al. 2004). By adopting more reskictive immigration policies, receiving-country governments have unwittingly increased the demand for people smugglers, whose services raise the probability of evading border controls. Domestic and lnternational Political Constraints The gap between immigration control policies and outcomes is also widened by domestic political constraints that make it difficult for governments of labor-importing countries to implemenf their control measures
effectively. According to the "client politics" model developed by Gary Freeman (Freeman 1995,2002), in liberal democracies immigration policymaking is frequently "captured" by special interest groups. Lobbying by powerful employer groups, religious groups, ethnic and immigrant advocacy groups, and even labor unions8 leads governments to adopt more
e
ada are not yet experiencing a fertility crisis, partly because immigration levels remain high in both countries and new immigrants have above-averale fertility rates.
For most of the twentieth century, U.S. labor unions were firmly in the imrnigrationrestriction camp. In recent years, however, unions in both the United States and Western Europe have weicomed immigrants into their ranks and have ioined the
12
Cornelius and Tsuda
expansionary immigration policies, even when the economy goes bad and general public opinion turns hostile to immigrants. Restrictive immigration legislation gets watered down before passage, and implementation of whatever legislation gets approved is half-hearted (Freeman 1995, 2002). The governments of migrant-sending counhies may also try to influence the policymaking process by allying themselves with domestic interest groups (Rosenblum 2004). in Western Europe, pro-immigrant groups-sometimes mobilizing transnationally-have become active in pressuring various European Union institutions to allow the free movement of third country nationals (non-European nationals) within EU countries and to grant them other social rights (Geddes 2000: chap. 6; Hansen and Weil2002; Kostakopoulou 2002). The interest-group politics model tends to explain more of the variation in immigration policymaking in the "classic countries of immigration" (the United States, Canada, and Australia) than in the "reluctant"
labor importers (Western Europe, ]apan), where the pro-immigration lobby is much less entrenched.e The influence of "client politics" also depends on the country's immigration policymaking regime. Governments in which policymaking is controlled by elected representatives in legislative bodies are undoubtedly more responsive to domestic interest groups. This is especially true in countries with very active civil societies (such as the United States) or where the relationship between government and business is especially close, making it difficult for governments to defy immigrant-hungry employers. In contrast, countries such as ]apan and Korea, where immigration policymaking is dominated by bureaucrats who are not publicly accountable, are less susceptible to pressures from special interest groups.10
struggle for immigrants' labor rights, "amnesty," and other pro-immigrant causes. The fundamental reason for this shift is easily discerned: unions have lost membership as manufacfuring jobs have been transferred overseas; immigrants are vital to
Controlling lmmigration: The Limits to Covernment lntervention
13
National political culture can also contribute to policy gaps by politithe state's ability to pursue cally (and sometimes legally) constraining roundups and deportalike mass measures control harsh immigration lePresellted in this book are counkies labor-importing dons. All of the immigrants significant economic fiberal democracies that have granted political representation. in some cases even They and rights, and social judicial systems that and independent further societies civil have active consfrain the state's capacity to control immigration (Hollifield 1992, 2000b:1,46-51). Draconian control measures are iikely to be challenged and may be overfurned by the courts as unconstifutional or as a violation of civil rights. Examples include government attempts to roll back immigrant rights such as Proposition 187 in California (Ono and Sloop 2002) and various measures denying social support to asylum seekers in Europe (ioppke, ed' 1998: 18-20; Statham 2003:1'66). International political pressures can also contribute to gaps between national immigration control policies and outcomes. The United Nations, the International Labour Organization, and regional organizations like the European Union have produced numerous international conventions on migrant worker rights. The most significant of these are the United Nations International Convention on lfte Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and the Members of their Families, the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees, the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the (non-EU) European Convention on F1uman Rights. However, there is no global en{orcement mechanism that can guarantee the rights conferred upon migrant workers by international conventions; the European Union, for example, relies on individual member states to implement its policies (Geddes 2000: 31).11 While nation-states remain the only political actors that can enforce international migrants'
rights conventions, the major countries of immigration usually are not to these agreements.l2 Even states that ratify such conven-
signatories
the survival and growth of unions in most labor-intensive industries. Instead of viewing immigrants as competitors who invariably depress wages and working conditions, today's union leaders increasingly recognize the collective benefit of improving conditions for all workers, domestic and foreign, regardless of legal status (see Watts 2002). e See
Joppke, ed. 1998: 17-18; Joppke 1998: 282; Statham 2003:170. For some notable exceptions to this generalization, in the context of Italy and Spain, see Della Porta 2000 and the Spain chapter, this volume.
10
However, bureaucrary-dominated immigration policymaking regimes are not always insensitive to public pressures/ especially if they actively consult closely with various interest and advocacy groups before making policy (as is the case in Australia
and to a more limited extent in Canada) or where the influence of pro-business government ministries is strong (as in Korea). tr Only the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights has a supranational judicial enforcement mechanism (the European Court of Human Rights), which has had some limited impact on national immigration control policies (Guiraudon and Lahav 2000; Hammar 1992:259). 12 For example, by the end of 2003 only thirty out of the world's two hundred coun-
tries had ratiJied the United Nations convention on migrant rights, and they included none of the major countries of immigration. The small number of ratifica-
"14
Controlling lmmigration: The Limits to Covernment lntervention
Cornelius and Tsuda
15
may do so in ways that partly undermine its goals, because they do not policymakers or face different pressures share the same objectives as the
tions often exclude certain occupations dominated by immigrants, such as farmworkers and household maids. Moreover, few countries have overhauled their domestic laws to bring them into compliance with the international conventions they have ratified. International human rights regimes sometimes have affected the ability of nation-states to control immigration through the activities of domestic NGOs, advocacy groups, and legal practitioners. These groups fight for immigrants' rights through the courts, appealing to international conventions that governments have ratified but not sufficiently enforced (Guiraudon and Lahav 200A 171-75; Gurowitz L999; Hansen 1999: 427-28; Sassen 1998:51-71). In some cases, the courts have challenged, limited, and even overturned national immigration laws that are incompatible with international norms.
for the relationship between national and local national governments make most immigration Although sovernments. iolicy (often without consulting local governments), subnational agencies are responsible for implementing many of its specific provisions, especially given the increasing tendency of national governments to adopt ,,remote control" strategies by delegating immigration control functions to local and regional governments, officials, and employers (Guiraudon 2001). If local authorities do not share the same policy objectives and interests as the national government (or if they are not given sufficient resources), they may become lax in enforcement or simply not comply.ra
Ambiguous Policy lntentions
THE CONVERGENCE HYPOTHESIS
Policy gaps also occur because officially declared immigration policy is often quite different from actual intentions. In addition to turning a blind eye to immigration law violations (especially at worksites), governments sometimes enact secondary measures that tacitly undermine official policy. One does not have to subscribe to a theory of conspiratorial political elites in order to explain such contradictions. Moreover, states themselves are fragmentary and do not speak in a uniform voice. This is especially true when immigration policymaking involves a large number of government agencies with different (if not conflicting) agendas and constituencies. The extreme case is japan, whose immigration policymaking regime consists of a grand total of seventeen ministries and agencies, but in many other labor-importing countries there is, at minimum, tension
In contrast to the indisputable reality of policy gaps, it is arguable whether
between the justice ministry (concerned with crime and security) and the economic ministries (concerned with meeting labor requirements) (see
the Spain case, this volume). Additional problems result from the fact that the government agencies that make policy are frequently different from those who implement it. Those responsible for enforcing an immigration control measure may be less willing to carry out its provisions, or
tions is generally attributed to conflicts with national legislation. Although a much larger number of countries have ratified UN conventions prohibiting racial discrimination and on the status of refugees, few governments have seriousiy enforced the provisions of these conventions (see Castles and Davidson 2000:18-L9; Loescher 1993; Guiraudon and Lahav 2000:1,67-68).
and constraints' The same holds true
true convergence is occurring across advanced industrial countries in their immigration control and immigrant integration policies. The consensus among the contributors to this volume is that the policies of the countries represented here are coming to resemble each other in important ways, to the extent that no truly deviant cases remain.la However, it is debatable whether these emerging sirnilarities are examples of true policy convergence, which in the narrowest sense refers to a group of labor-importing countries that are moving in more or less coordinated fashion toward a single type of immigration policy. Toward which immigration control and immigrant integration models are today's labor-importing countries converging? Although it may be useful to assess the extent to which the immigration policies of West European and Asian countries are moving toward those of the "classic countries of immigration" (the United States, Canada, and Australia), this exercise implicitly assumes an evolutionary model in which the traditional immigration countries represent the most advanced stage of policy development, which other immigration countries will eventually
13
Sometimes local governments-especially
in
areas
with large concentrations
immigrants-adopt harsher restrictive measures than national governments,
oI
be-
providing social services to immigrants and refugees (Money 1999: chap.3). 1a In some respects Canada appears to be a deviant case, as discussed below. cause they must shoulder most of the burden of
16
Cornelius and Tsuda
attain. Although this is consistent with modernization theory (from which the notion of ionvergence originated), we reject any unilinear theory as simplistic and ernpirically suspect. The immigration policies of the "clasif we sic" countries are tlemseives dissimilar in important ways, and even would States (the United focus on convergence toward a single country
be the most obvious case), the policies of that country do not remain stable. U.s. immigration policy has undergone several major transformations in the post-L940 period, lurching back and forth between expansionary and restrictionist modes (Tichenor 2002; Martin, this volume). I{.ather than try to assess policy convelgence at the global level, it may be more useful to analyze regional convergences' For example' there has been substantial convergence across the fifteen EU member states in terms of refugee and asylum policy, nationality law, relaxation of border controls between EU countries, and a more skills-based immigrant ad-
missionssystem(HansenandWeil200l;Koslowski2000).Increasingly restrictive immigration control policies have been coupled with more iiberal immigrant integration and citizenship policies, in an attempt to socially incorporate immigrants who have already become long-term residents and their offspring. similarly, it is possible to identify general policy similarities among East Asian labor importers-for example' a reluctance to accept permanent or unskilled foreign workers, a reliance on various types of de facto guesfworker programs, harsh (but ineffecmeasures, denial of family reunification' and a tive) internai "rrfot.e^"ttt general lack of social integration policies. In general, it makes sense to analyze convergence only at the level of "*orri' policies-general features of a country's immigration system such as the criteria for admitting legal permanent immigrants, use of temporary worker programs (or the ratio of temporary-to-permanent resiient visas), and emphasis on external border control (including visa control at airports) versus internal enforcement. In contrast,"micro" policies are the detailed regulations, procedures, and mechanisms through which macro immigration policies are carried oul These include numerical quotas of immigrants admitted, categories of admission (such as temporaiy visa holders), immigrant registration procedures, procedures for verifying employment eligibility, specific rights conferred upon immigrants and asylees, strategies for border enforcement, and procedures to lpprehend and deport unauthorized immigrants. Cross-national similurlties in micro policies may emerge, but significant and sustained immigration policy convergence usually occurs only at the macro level' BeJause micro policies change frequent$ (sometimes on a yearly basis),
The Limits to Covernment Controlling lmmigration:
lntervention
17
or twice in a generapolicies (which may change only once ^-tv macro convergence'1s true to assess
it"il "t" t,"Ole
enough
Convergence Exptaining PolicY
Immigration policies can converge simply beParallel path deaelopmerf' and constraints that
rL:*""tes face similar domestic pressures similar policy responses'16 Most ;;;; ;;"* to independently develop demographic and industriaf countries face the same kinds of policies' such as and "0"*.", challenges that shape immigration flows a structural demand for migrant "."""^n ;".ffi; fertility and population aging, (which reduces public tolerance for i"U"r, "iO economic urrcertainty also be-the product of similar political ill*ig.u6or,). Convergence can regimes' fubJlc opinion tuends' and patterns lr-,rrltJr,or-,t,'policymaking historical legacies (colonialism, li ***"_group politicr. c"rtuin shared countries) can also generate similar involvement in wars of rhird world
ii"*""
immigrationPfessures.Inadditiorusimilaritiesintheroleofimmigration inlead to similarly i" ,nJnation s history-its "founding myth"-can Canadaf ltr,onury or exclusionary immigration policies' ]apan/Korea' of examples good provide Australia, and Germany'the Nltherlands parallel-path policy convergence' study the immigration policies Policy emulatioru. Governments frequently
and consequences' and of other countries, including theii effectiveness governments have been decide to borrow from or reject them' Numerous managing immigration levimpressed by Canada's apparent success at multicultural immigrant and els; and Canadian ,efugu", guestworker' 1o pedified Jorm' most integration policies ha,'e b"et' widely adopted U-S' border enforcenotJUty by iustralia and Germany' The post-1993 scale' by cer*ent rtruiegy has been imitated, albeit on a much reduced and GerFrance volume)' this tain EU .orintti", (see the Spain chapter' highly import to used many have borrowed from the U'S' visa system admissions the current u.s. family reunification-based immigrant 's For instance, indications that it will no are there and fSOOs, the since place in policy has been calls to :il;" drastically * t1l"-for",.table future (atthough,tL"l: u,tt^t:l:tant current Canada's policy) marlet-based skills/labor move to a somewhat more restrictive and 1967, Japan's ski,ls selection-uur"a m*lgration system began in admissions poliry dates back to 1951' in nationality law 16 (2001) use this model to explain convergence Hansen and weil among certain grouPs of European countries'
1B
Cornelius and Tsuda
Controlling lmmigration: The Limits to Covernment lntervention
skilled and professional workers. Perhaps the best example of such copying is Korea, which has studied and imported several Japanese immigration policies wholesale.lT Regionnl integration. Immigration policies are more
likety to converge when labor-importing countries are members of a supranational, regional organization like the European Union, This is especially true when such organizations are not simply regional free trade blocs but agree to pursue common immigration policies and require future entrants to adopt regional standards in this policy domain. However, even in the European Union, where regional cooperation on immigration and asylum policy is the most advanced, the "harmonization, of policies is limited not only by the reluctance of individual member states to relinquish sovereignty over immigration control but also by a decisionmaking process based on unanimify, which allows dissenting member states to block the adoption of common policies (Geddes ZA00:7). The harmonization process undoubtedly will be further complicated by the enlargement of the EU in May 2004 to include ten Central and Eastern European countries states that lack the judicial and administrative mechanisms to implement EU regulations and to enforce the EU,s external borders (Koslowski 2000:169-72, Lavenex 2002; Mitsilegas 2002).ts Despite expert forecasts that the number of new, east-to-west migrants resulting from enlargement would be relatively small (see, for example, Kupiszewski 2002), all of the fifteen current EU member states imposed restrictions on would-be migrants from the newcomer countries, ranging from exclusion from their labor markets for up to seven years (France, Germany) to making the new migrants ineligible for public benefits for several years (Britain, Spain). Global eaents and geopolitics. Certain economic and political events of international scope can also promote immigration policy convergence. For example, global economic downfurns can cause numerous governments
17
It is important to recognize that policy learning
can also lead to policy diaergence.
For instance, Japanese immigration policymakers have studied the "failures" of European immigration policy ("guestworkers" who do not go home, amnesty programs that have increased illegal immigration, refugee/asylum systems thal are easily abused and overburdened, public backlashes caused by permanent immi-
grant settlement) and have decided to avoid adopting these policies altogether. tt rhe enlargement countries are Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Cyprus, and Malta.
19
measures against immigrants (both those enterto adopt more reskictive
ins and those already residing in the country). The economic shock .u"ur"d by the Arab oil embargo n 1973 was the catalyst for ending Western Europe's large-scale guestworker programs. The Asian economic crisis of the late 1990s caused virtuaily all of that region's counfiies of immigration (South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore) to
significantly reduce legal immigration and attempt to expel illegal immigrants. Major geopolitical events can have similar effects. For example, in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. and West European governments implemented a variefy of immigration control measures in the name of national security/ such as increased border surveillance, tightened visa-issuance policies, and special registration and detention programs targeting immigrants from Muslim countries (Andreas and Biersteker 2003; Cole 2003:184-233; Rudolph 2003: 615-18). Public opinion. Governments of labor-importing countries around the world claim to be responding to mass public opinion that is increasingly hostile to expansionary immigration policies and the extension of immigrants' rights. In some cases (see the Spain chapter, this volume), it is not clear whether public opinion is driving the policy response or being led
by opportunistic politicians. In Britain, immigration policymakers seem trapped between their own liberal impulses and an illiberal public (Hansen 2000: 15-16). What is unarguable is that the percentage of respondents in national public opinion surveys conducted in major laborimporting countries who cite immigration as an important issue facing the nation has risen rapidly in recent yearc (Economist 2003), and farright, anti-immigrant political parties have emerged or gained vote share in all West European countries except Spain since the early 1990s (Boswell 2003: 15-28; Lloyd 2003). In Europe, public hostility has focused increasingly on "bogus" asylum seekers and their perceived abuse of the welfare state (Cohen, Humphries, and Mynott 2002). Governments have responded with various schemes to discourage asylum seekers, by restricting their access to social services, shortening the adjudication period and restricting appeals, detaining asylum seekers while their claims are being processed, and forcing them to apply in the first EU country that they reach (to prevent them from "shopping around" for asylum in other countries if their initial claim is denied). Similarly, the recent convergence of immigration policies in Germany, the Netherlands, and Britain toward Canada's economic needs/skills-based admissions system (cf. Favell and Hansen 2002 592) is premised partly on the assumption that it is more palatable to the public than a U.S.-style "humanitarian" system.
20
Cornelius and Tsuda
In the remainder of this chapter, we review the empirical evidence ftom our eleven country case studies that bears on the emergence of immigration policy gaps and convergence in policymakers' choices.
CLASSIC COUNTRIES OF IMMICRATION: THE UNITED STATES, CANADA, AND AUSTRATIA We define as "classic countries of immigration" those that were founded, populated, and built by immigrants in modem times. As a resulf immigration is a fundamental part of the founding myth, historical consciousness, and national identity of these countries, and they anticipate and welcome large numbers of immigrants. This does not mean, however, that they have always been open to immigrants, nor that immigration is not currently a source of social tension and political conflict in these countries. Indeed, during the last ten years the United States and Australia have been nearly as prone as the "reluctant" labor importers discussed below to adopt restrictive measures and indulge anti-immigrant public opinion.
The United States: Conflict and Contradictions Of all the countries included in this study, the United States has by far the largest gap between the stated goal of controlling immigration and the actual results of policy: ever-increasing numbers of both legal and illegal immigrants. Recent efforts to reduce the influx of unauthorized migrants entering via Mexico through concentrated border enforcement operations and other control measures have not reduced the stock of such immigrants in the United States; instead, they have produced a more stable, settled population. By the begirming of the twenty-first century, 10 percent of low-wage workers in the United States were unauthorized immigrants; in agriculture, they were between 50 and 60 percent (Martin 2003: 188; Passel, Capps, and Fix 2004). The U.S. insistence on maintaining such ineffective immigration control policies prompts Phitip Martin to ask whether they are genuine efforts to reduce unauthorized immigration or primarily an attempt to manage public opinion by creating the illusion that illegal immigration is under control. Although enforcement of immigration laws in the workplace is potentially a much more effective means of immigration controf employer sanctions have also been ineffecfive because of the widespread availability of fraudulent documents among immigrant workers and grossly insufficient numbers of inspectors.
Controlling lmmigration: The Limits lo Government lntervention
21
in the United States is fueled numbers of unauthorized immigrants who find large the by not only but by the perceived impacts country of immigration the into their way of native-born workers life chances and by the alleged the in general on failure of recent immigrants (especially Mexicans) to assimilate into U.S, The political debate over immigration
society. The general public continues to assume that immigrants depress
wages, compete unfairly (and effectively) for jobs that would otherwise be taken by native workers, and become a huge drain on public services. Martin notes that most empirical research does not support such as-
sumPtions'
Martin describes the debate between integrationists (assimilationists) and pluralists (multiculturalists) over the extent and pace of immigrant incorporation into U.S. society. Previous attempts to incorporate immigrants through cultural assimilation have been replaced by a greater multicultural tolerance that enables immigrants to attain socioeconomic mobility while retaining their cultural differences to a certain extent. Although the United States does not have an official immigrant integration policy, it has provided differential access to rights, benefits, and social services to immigrants depending on their legal status. Martin argues, however, that there has not been a large difference between the rights granted to citizens versus noncitizens (especially legal permanent residents), which helps to explain why fewer than half of the immigrants in the United States today have naturalized. Martin observes that U.S. immigration policy has long followed a "zigzag" pattern, with expansionary periods followed by restrictionist ones. With the terrorist attacks of September 1'1",2001., the United States clearly has entered a new restrictionist period, as immigration control has become conflated with protecting national security. Tightened border conhols, much closer monitoring of foreign students, and ethnic/religious profiling of immigrants to identify and detain potential terrorists have become accepted practice in the post-9/11 era. Nevertheless, Martin notes that there has been no concerted effort to substantially reduce the number of immigrants admitted to the United States, thus demonstrating the resilience of the ideology that the United States is a nation of immigrants and the power of market forces driving contemporary immigration.
Canada: low-Conf
lict Expansionism
Among the countries represented in this book, Canada seems to be the most comfortable with its immigration policy. As ]effrey Reitz's chapter