Immigration Today Author(s): Barbara M. Watson Reviewed work(s): Source: International Migration Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, U.S.

Immigration, 1970: Policies, Proceedures, Problems (Summer, 1970), pp. 47-51 Published by: The Center for Migration Studies of New York, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3002323 . Accessed: 26/01/2012 11:57
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Center for Migration Studies of New York, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Migration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

Immigration by Barbara

Today M. Watson *

neighbors, to approximately half the former level. Looking more closely at each of these phenomena, we find first that there are at least two sources of the impetus toward more immi? Demand for gration from the East, both somewhat psychological. is stimulated the to immigration seemingly by opportunity immigrate. Thus when the former quotas of 10G (or so) per annum were abolished, the rate of petitioning to establish a preference status for relatives bounded upward. At the same time, the right extended to members of the professions to file petitions in their own behalf for third preference status, coupled with relatively limited professional oppor? tunities in their homelands, led to a torrent of third preference petitions As a by Asians, most particularly Filipinos, Chinese, and Indians. result, total immigration from the former Asia-Pacific Triangle rose from 15,186 in fiscal year 1965 to 80,971 in fiscal year 1969. It is noteworthy that this increase was not, in strictly numerical terms, at the expense of immigration from other parts of the Eastern Hemisphere. (Only the Western Hemisphere is defined in the Immi? gration and Nationality Act; we thus define administratively all the * Barbara M. Watson, Administrator, Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, Department of State, USA. 47

closest

in the second year after the first major change in immigration legislation and policy since 1924, and the experience of the first year may give us a glimpse of the shape of immigration of the future. Some of the changes wrought by the Act of October 3, 1965, come immediately to mindi Foremost, perhaps, is the sharp upsurge in immigration from Asia. The shift from northern Europe to southern Europe as a primary source of immigration has been equally significant. The increase in total volume of immigration is unmistakable and seemingly permanent, despite the recent imposition of a numerical limitation on immigration from the Western Hemisphere. Not least important among the changes is that the hemispheric limitation had the initial effect of cutting immigration from Canada, one of our two We are now

48

THE INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION REVIEW

rest of the world as the Eastern Hemisphere.) The level of immigration remained from the rest of the Hemisphere (Europe, Africa, Oceania) static or rose slightly. Under prior law, however, upwards of onethird of allowable quota numbers were unused each year. Now the maximum ceiling is being reached annually and the difference is in Asian immigration. is, however, room for debate as to whether in specific of categories (most particularly third preference) the predominance Asian applicants is deterring immigration by others. For the moment, " no." Despite the fact that 90% of the 17,000 at least, the answer is third preference visa numbers were allocated to natives of just five Asian nations in fiscal year 1969, over 12,000 members of the profes? sions, scientists and artists of exceptional ability, and kindred workers were admitted in that same year from Europe, Africa, and Oceania. These immigrants may have had a preference status based on relation? ship to a United States citizen or resident alien but it is likely that most were admitted in the nonpreference class. Because of a demand in excess of the 20,000 foreign state limitation by applicants in higher preferences, nonpreference visa numbers were not available for persons born in the Philippines (nor in China until the last month of the fiscal year). Therefore, although persons born in those foreign states were preempting most of the third preference visa numbers, they were contributing to the availability of nonpreference visa numbers for others. There

By contrast, the altered pattern of immigration from Europe stems more from technical changes in the law than from psychological impetus. Previously, certain relatives of United States citizens and resident aliens were entitled to 50% of each country's quota. Now they are entitled to 74% of the overall ceiling of 170,000 for the Eastern Hemisphere. This was and is of immediate and continuing benefit to applicants from those countries in which family associations are very close and in which there has been a tradition of emigrating in family groups. Primary among these have been Italy, Greece, and Portugal, from each of which the level of immigration has multiplied since 1965. Conversely, immi? grants from northern Europe have traditionally been those seeking

enlarged opportunities, a chance for a new life in a new environment. Such intending immigrants must now compete for the reduced amount of visa numbers available for the third and sixth preference and nonpreference classes. In addition, they must obtain a certification from the Secretary of Labor to the effect they will not displace nor otherwise adversely affect American labor. Since, in many instances, this means certification this labor employment, they must have pre-arranged if it does even such aliens, requirement at least delays immigration by not totally deter it.

IMMIGRATIO TODAY

49

Given present conditions, there is no reason to expect the overall volume of immigration to change markedly. With the removal of such artificial barriers to demand itself (as well as to the satisfaction of demand) as the national quotas were, reaching the annual limitation for each hemisphere should be almost automatic each year. (This could " " returns always be off by a few numbers, of course, due to unexpected of numbers at the end of June, such as happened in 1968 when " * the of visa numbers were 169,945 170,000 used.) The only only from the variants authorized total volume, however, would expectable be in the levels of immediate relatives and of certain special immigrants. The Western Hemisphere changes have been felt more sharply than some of the others, perhaps, because this is the first time in our history that immigration from our neighbors has been subject to a numerical limitation. There has thus been a certain element of shock (as distinct from surprise) from the results of the new system. A fact that might seem obvious but which is easily overlooked is that there is no need for a method of allocating visas when there is no numerical limitation. That is, no applicant will be unable to get a " if immigration is used the number" someone else visa because " " and other long-familiar trappings of the unrestricted. Priority dates Eastern Hemisphere system were strangers in the Western Hemisphere ... until July 1, 1968. Because they were foreign to such immigration, they suddenly loomed larger than life to those affected. The absence of a preference system with respect to Western Hemisphere immigration necessarily established a first-come, first-served basis for the allocation of the limited visa numbers, which is in keeping with the nonpreference (and the within-preference) system of the The family-unification concept that permeates Eastern Hemisphere. much of the law is also necessarily applied in the Western Hemisphere " " derivative with respect to priority dates as it is in the rest of the world. In the first year of operation this proved to favor immigrants from countries from which, traditionally, the principal alien entered the United States first and his family members followed later to join those remaining family members had earlier priority him, because " " dates than new principal applicants. Much, if not most, of this early demand has now been satisfied, but it was sufficient to cause the build? up of a nine-month backlog of new demand in fiscal year 1969. As new principal applicants are more evenly distributed, however, this advantage should be minimized with the passage of time.

There does not, on the other hand, appear to be any ready solution to the fact that demand substantially exceeds the maximum allowable immigration, which negates any prospect for eroding the backlog.

50

THE INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION REVIEW

One other new factor has been added to Western Hemisphere immigration, that of identifying the immediate relatives of United States citizens. Prior to the imposition of the annual ceiling, all natives of " " independent countries of the Western Hemisphere were nonquota and no distinctions as to category were necessary. Now those who can be exempt from the numerical limitation, both immediate relatives and other special immigrants, are being identified as such. Having no earlier figures for comparison, it is too early to say how much effect this will have on the total intra-hemisphere immigration level. It is worthy of note, however, that the natives of our nearest neighbors among the Western Hemisphere nations, Canada, Mexico, and Cuba, have had the highest naturalization rates for at least the past decade. That this may provide some cushion against the downward slope of overall immigration is shown by the fact that between 20-25% of Canadian and Mexican immigration in fiscal year 1969 was by imme? diate relatives. The weight of an animal does not tell us much about its anatomy, " " volume by the same token, mere reports ignore important aspects of the shape of immigration. It is significant, for example, that more than half of our immigrants are housewives, children, and other non-workers. That is, they are persons who will stimulate production without offsetting the of goods and services, as new consumers, creates this by adding themselves to the employment opportunities labor market. and, high proportion of spouses and children naturally tells us something of the ages of our immigrants, the majority (almost 60%) of whom are under the age of thirty; the under-forty group encompasses slightly more than 75% of all immigrants. Although the children are fairly evenly divided by sex, there are about half again as many women as men in the 20-39-year age span, the greatest disparity being in the 20-29-years-olds. This is largely attributable to the approximately 20,000 brides our servicemen bring home each year. This of the other immigrants suggest a occupations proposed as well as in the United in their homelands conditions of picture " States. (Despite the fact the majority of our immigrants are relatives/' a substantial proportion are drawn by the thought of greater economic The

or professional opportunities.) Their potential contribution to the United States can be inferred from the fact over twenty percent are in professional, technical, and kindred fields and almost 14% more are craftsmen. It certainly says something about the standard of living in

the United States that over ten percent are live-in domestics who were able to obtain labor certifications. It may be indicative of world-wide conditions that farmers and farmworkers are among the smallest of the

IMMIGRATIO TODAY

51

occupational groups, despite the combined facts that immigrants entering " " under a relative preference do not need a labor certification, that " " " most immigrants are relatives come relatives," and most such from predominantly agricultural areas. Although a number of legislative proposals have been made in the past year or two to smooth out a few rough edges that have appeared in these early days under a new law, it seems somewhat premature (in view of our limited experience with it) to determine yet whether... let alone how ... the immigration provisions should be altered further. The first chapter of this new book has been intriguing in many ways. We will need to read another one or two chapters before we can really tell whether or not we like the story it tells.

DEMOCRAPHY Volume 7, number 3, August 1970 Fertility and Economic Activity of Women in Guatemala City, 1964 Murray Gendell, Maria Nydia Maraviglia, and Philip C. Kreitner Interracial Marriage: Data for Philadelphia and Pennsylvania Thomas P. Monahan The Decline in Mortality in British Guiana, 1911-1960 Jay R. Mandle The Geometric Mean of the Age-Specific Death Rates 37 3 Summary Index of Mortality Robert Schoen The Effect of the Great Blackout of 1965 on Births in New York City J. Richard Udry Subjective Efficacy and Ideal Family Size as Predicators of Favorability Toward Birth Control John B. Williamson Stable Age by Region Distributions GriffthM. Feeney Estimators of a Type I Geometric Distribution From Observations on Conception Times H. Majumdar and Mindel C. Sheps Elementary Models for Population Growth and Distribution Analysis John C. Hudson The Per-Capita-Income Criterios and Natlity Policies in Poor Countries Julian L. Simon Summary of the Social Sciences and Populotion Policy: A Survey Edwin D. Driver For furtherinformation,please contact Population Association of America P. O. Box 14182 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D. C. 20044