This paper evaluates the strategy for controlling “unwanted” immigration that has been implemented by the U.S. government since 1993, and suggests explanations for the failure of that strategy to achieve its stated objectives thus far. Available evidence suggests that a strategy of immigration control that overwhelmingly emphasizes border enforcement and short-changes interior (especially workplace) enforcement has caused illegal entries to be redistributed along the Southwest border; the financial cost of illegal entry has more than quadrupled; undocumented migrants are staying longer in the United States; migrant deaths resulting from clandestine border crossings have risen sharply; and there has been a surge in anti-immigrant vigilante activity. Consequences predicted by advocates of the concentrated border enforcement strategy have not yet materialized: There is no evidence that unauthorized migration is being deterred at the point of origin; that would-be illegal entrants are being discouraged at the border after multiple apprehensions by the Border Patrol and returning home; that their employment prospects in the U.S. have been curtailed; and that the resident population of undocumented immigrants is shrinking. It is argued that a severely constrained employer sanctions enforcement effort that has left demand for unauthorized immigrant labor intact is the fundamental reason why steadily escalating spending on border enforcement during the last ten years has had such a weak deterrent effect on unauthorized immigration to the United States. Reasons for the persistence of a failed immigration control policy are discussed, and alternatives to the current policy are evaluated.

This paper will focus on the Mexico-origin component of the California immigrant population. Drawing on the results of field studies conducted throughout California and in west-central Mexico during the last ten years,the paper will describe how the profile of Mexican migration to California has changed since the 197Os, suggest explanations for these changes, and discuss their implications for public policy. Effects of the long-running economic crisis in Mexico and of the 1986 U.S. immigra-tion law will be highlighted.

The most commonly used model of labor market incorporation among immigrants in the United States analyzes their earnings largely as a function of human capital variables such as education, language competence, age, length of residence and employment experience in the receiving country. However, such a simple model is not necessarily cross-culturally applicable and may lose much of its explanatory power in other societies, where immigrants encounter different labor market conditions. This paper estimates multivariate models of wage determination among samples of foreign workers interviewed in 1996 in San Diego County, California, and the Japanese industrial city of Hamamatsu. In contrast to San Diego, the standard measures of achieved human capital do not significantly influence immigrant wages in Hamamatsu. Instead, ascribed human capital (e.g., gender, ethnicity) has a much greater impact on immigrant wages in Japan than in the United States. Although the use of social networks by immigrants to find jobs has a significant impact on wages in both countries, the effect is positive in Hamamatsu, whereas it is negative in San Diego. The paper draws on data from ethnographic studies in Japan and California to suggest explanations for these divergent results. More generally, the paper illustrates the importance of reception contexts (host societies) in determining labor market outcomes for immigrant workers.

Will the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) decrease Mexican migration?

With nearly one in ten residents of advanced industrialized states now an immigrant, international migration has become a fundamental driver of social, economic, and political change. We review alternative models of migratory behavior (which emphasize structural factors largely beyond states’ control) as well as models of immigration policy making that seek to explain the gaps between stated policy and actual outcomes. Some scholars attempt to explain the limited efficacy of control policies by focusing on domestic interest groups, political institutions, and the interaction among them; others approach the issue from an international or “intermestic” perspective. Despite the modest effects of control measures on unauthorized flows of economic migrants and asylum seekers, governments continue to determine the proportion of migrants who enjoy legal status, the specific membership rights associated with different legal (and undocumented) migrant classes, and how policies are implemented. These choices have important implications for how the costs and benefits of migration are distributed among different groups of migrants, native-born workers, employers, consumers, and taxpayers.