with permission from Foreign
Policy, Winter 1997-98.
In the wake of the Cold War, as Soviet
missiles lay rusting in their cages, the fretful turned their worried gaze toward
international migration, one of a host of new "transnational" challenges.
For veteran students of immigration, this burst of attention brought some gratification.
But attention is one thing; alarm is another: The dispiriting legacy of this
sudden obsession with immigration has been the dangerous elevation of myths
and half-truths to the status of conventional wisdom.
Immigration to the western industrialized
countries is out of control.
False. The main thing
"out of control" about immigration to the industrialized countries
is the level of panic that the subject seems to trigger. The breakup of the
Soviet Union provoked Europe?s first immigration-induced anxiety in decades.
Although the Russians never came, mass exoduses from Yugoslavia to its immediate
neighbors; and, to a much lesser degree, from Albania to Italy; and from Haiti
and Cuba to the United States made for vivid television. Underemployed strategists
found ready audiences for threat assessments that treated such events as precedents
rather than exceptions, the first rocks in a crumbling avalanche.
chorus (namely, those eager to exploit the issue for electoral gain), quickly
took up the refrain of international migration as a security threat. Politicians
such as Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, Patrick Buchanan in the United States,
Umberto Bossi in Italy, and Jörg Haider in Austria thundered about barbarians
at the gates, growing ever more dependent on the politics of division and
intolerance for their popular support. Meanwhile, their more rational colleagues,
who might have defended immigration on the grounds that receiving nations
were "doing well by doing good," too often remained silent. Capitalizing
on the growing economic unease and social aimlessness worldwide, alarmist
books such as Peter Brimelow?s Alien Nation in the United States and Jean
Raspail?s The Camp of the Saints in France captured a frustrated public?s
willingness to believe.
Contrary to the shrill
alarmism that has distorted public debate on immigration in most rich countries
in the 1990s, immigration is not out of control. Consider the facts. Seven
out of eight immigrants who have settled in rich countries arrived through
highly regulated channels that serve the needs of the receiving countries
as much as the immigrants themselves?hardly a situation that could be called
out of control. Although it is true that in absolute numbers immigration levels
are at or near historic highs in many rich countries, the classic immigration
countries?Australia, Canada, and the United States?currently report much lower
relative proportions of immigrants in their populations than those recorded
at the turn of the century. But even nontypical immigration countries such
as France, Germany, and Japan have experienced significant levels of immigration
in the past. By the eve of the First World War, Germany was employing about
1.2 million foreigners, most of whom settled there permanently. (The number
of foreigners in Germany swelled to 7.8 million by 1944 with the forced labor
programs of the Second World War.) Similarly,
France accommodated roughly 2.5 to 3.5 million foreign-born persons in the
interwar period, and, beginning in 1910, Japan could count an increasing number
of Koreans in its midst?a number that grew to about 500,000 by 1935 and swelled
to 2.1 million in 1945.
Two significant differences
between current migration patterns and ones from earlier this century are
that today?s immigrants have fanned out and their source countries have
diversified enormously. Germany now hosts nearly as many foreign residents
on a per capita basis as Canada, and France roughly as many as the United
States. Germany started its transformation into a leading immigration country
in the late 1950s, when it began to receive large numbers of guest workers
from a handful of the Mediterranean Littoral countries. Today, Germany is
home to foreign-born persons from about 100 countries?many of whom have
used work programs and asylum as their routes of entry. (The United States
now includes immigrants from practically every country.) France, striving
until the 1970s to replenish massive population losses from two world wars
and fuel its economic growth, also attracted a diverse group of new arrivals
(although Francophones, regardless of their country of origin, have constituted
the bulk of its immigrants). Among the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) member states, Luxembourg and Switzerland?nations
that have traditionally relied on a substantial number of foreign workers?continue
to have among the highest proportions of long-staying noncitizens in their
populations, with 34 and 19 percent respectively.
Yet most of the estimated
100 to 120 million people who live outside their countries of origin at any
given time?about 2 percent of the world?s population and 10 percent of the
OECD?s?are found in the developing world. Even more remarkable, an astonishing
majority of the world?s refugees (who account for roughly one-third of that
total) settle in less developed countries, usually those neighboring their
own. So next time you hear that unwanted immigrants are overrunning Canada
or the United States, spare a thought for Malawi, where, according to the
1993 World Refugee Survey, refugees outnumbered local residents more than
two to one in some districts.
Legal immigrants now impose net
costs on their rich hosts.
False. A nation?s interest in assessing
the costs and benefits of immigration typically coincides with periods of high
immigration, protracted economic downturns, and social, cultural, and political
introspection. The 1990s clearly meet all preconditions. But even in good economic
times, most analyses look at immigration through the prism of "adverse
effects" and use the lexicon of labor market competition and displacement.
Few countries invest as much in such assessments as the United States. Accordingly,
U.S. studies dominate the literature, with only a few studies emerging from
Australia, Canada, and Europe.
of immigration are notoriously hard to conduct. Authoritative conclusions
are rare. In the United States, for example, officials did not agree on an
accounting framework for such calculations until recently, when the issue
of fiscal costs imposed on states and localities by undocumented immigrants
began to dominate discussions about immigration. The cost of services to undocumented
immigrants, especially the education of their children, continues to cloud
the overall picture of expenditures associated with legal immigration.
Nonetheless, there is
widespread analytical agreement among the OECD countries that, at the aggregate
level, immigration benefits employers, consumers, and a country?s international
economic position and does not adversely affect (at least not in measurable
ways) either the job opportunities available or the wages of domestic workers
in complementary jobs. Studies done by the OECD, as well as in Australia,
Canada, France, Germany, and the United States are unequivocal on these counts.
In most instances, immigrants also appear to enjoy significant labor market
success?although the flexibility of a country?s labor market can have a substantial
impact on the ability of immigrants to succeed. A recent exhaustive report
by the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences echoes and ratifies these
assessments, concluding that "immigration produces net economic benefits
for domestic residents." But although no reputable study anywhere has
disagreed with this conclusion, the size of the net benefits that these studies
can measure tends to be small and is thought to vary with such factors as
the skill, age, and family composition of the immigrant stock; the economic
sector in which the immigrants enter; the overall economic conditions of their
areas of settlement; and the immigrants? legal status.
Of course, immigration
affects segments of the receiving country?s population in different ways.
Consumers, investors, and firms that employ immigrants typically benefit from
immigration. For workers, it is more of a mixed bag. The closest analogy here
may be to that of trade liberalization. Like workers in firms that are robust
enough to take advantage of trade openings, workers whose jobs complement
those of immigrants usually benefit from immigration. However, those who compete
with immigrants in uncompetitive industries and firms with low productivity
will face lower wages and, in some instances, restricted job opportunities.
Academic debates about
a country?s economic gains from immigrants aside, there is near universal
agreement that immigrants have played a major role in creating the prosperity
of most advanced industrial societies, through both their brawn and their
brains. In countries that have recognized the benefits of immigration and
tried to create legal and institutional "level playing fields" for
them, immigrants have been sources of energy and new ideas. They increase
the ranks of entrepreneurs, open up opportunities for culture and commerce,
and renew public institutions. In addition, immigrants typically exhibit values?including
family values and work habits?that most closely approximate those to which
many receiving societies aspire but no longer seem capable of consistently
Take the issue of crime
rates, for instance. U.S. immigrants are only one-third to two-thirds as likely
to be incarcerated as the native-born?even though, as presumed "flight
risks," they are more likely to be detained and jailed upon apprehension.
Although the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences? study settles the issue of the economic benefits of immigration,
it does so without factoring in the benefits that host nations receive from
immigrants whose upbringing and education have been paid for by other, usually
poorer, countries. For example, according to the 1990 U.S. Census, about 63
percent of immigrants to the United States had at least a high school education
and nearly 21 percent of all immigrants had a college degree or better. At
the primary school level, the native-born are one-and-a-half times more likely
to have graduated from high school. The numbers level out at the college level,
with an equal percentage of native- and foreign-born receiving college degrees.
However, immigrants are one-and-a-half times more likely to have a graduate
degree than their native-born counterparts. Since 1990, several changes in
U.S. law have opened the door to more immigrants with college and postgraduate
degrees; these same individuals receive explicitly preferential treatment
in Australia and Canada and de facto preference throughout the OECD countries.
The many long-term, temporary migrants not counted in immigration statistics?who,
for the most part, gain access to a country because of their skills and formal
qualifications?push these averages even higher. The
academy?s study also does not calculate the value of the upstream and downstream
economic effects of immigrant-led expansion in immigrant-dependent industries
(even in industries such as agriculture or garments); the trade openings created
or expanded by immigrants; or the dollar value of immigrants? personal industry,
innovation, and dynamism to the receiving society. Although hard to quantify,
these benefits are essential to a complete assessment of immigrant contributions.
The benefits that
legal immigrants bring do not imply either that all immigrants improve their
receiving country?s general welfare or that more immigration will prove
advantageous for these countries. Responsible governance and good management
require that immigration levels be flexible, that the impact of immigration
on the labor market be monitored (so that immigration policy remains broadly
in line with human resources policies), that its demographic effects be
clearly understood (and in line with the goals of the receiving country),
and that unanticipated and undesirable social effects (including unwarranted
access to a country?s welfare system) be addressed quickly though equitably.
Illegal immigration is a major
economic and social problem.
Half-true. About 10 to 15 percent of
the immigrants in rich countries are unauthorized?a bit more in the United States,
a bit less in Australia and Canada. Unauthorized immigrants typically enter
by illegal means, but large pluralities of them (about 40 percent in the United
States) enter legally and fail to depart when their visas expire. Another category
involves those who enter under a proper visa but violate its terms, usually
by working. No good estimates exist yet on the extent of this type of illegality,
but many of the Czechs and Poles who enter Germany on an automatic three-month
tourist visa, for example, are widely thought to be accessing the German labor
market. All three types of illegal immigrants tend to reflect roughly the same
skills and overall demographic composition as legal immigrants from their same
ethnic group. They arrive via similar pathways and tend to settle in the same
areas. In fact, they are often members of the same households. And in the United
States at least, many unauthorized immigrants actually have an approved legal
claim to immigrate but are waiting for visas to become available.
Furthermore, to anyone
familiar with the ground-floor realities of the labor markets in advanced
social democracies, many of the economic concerns frequently voiced about
illegal immigration can seem forced and even contrived. Most unauthorized
immigrants concentrate in jobs that have long been abandoned by the country?s
legal work force. In Japan, many of its approximately 400,000 illegal migrant
workers tend to be found in jobs characterized by the "three Ks":
kiken, kitsui, and kitanai, or "dangerous, difficult, and dirty."
Throughout the advanced industrial world, with its entrenched systems of generous
social welfare, one would be increasingly hard-pressed to find natives, or
even long-term legal immigrants, picking fruits and vegetables, doing "back-of-the-house"
restaurant and hotel work, sewing garments, or providing most household and
personal services. This is the peasant work of postindustrial society. Yet
many social reformers continue to argue that unauthorized immigrants cause
"adverse wage and labor market effects"?as though the language of
competition and displacement were the only appropriate lexicon in these circumstances.
Paradoxically, unauthorized immigrants may have the least adverse effect on
workers because their work most directly complements that of their domestic
counterparts. Moreover, undocumented immigrants also form the backbone of
the service industries that have sprouted to support middle-class, dual-income
Rather than bemoan a
problem that may be more imagined than real, governments would be far wiser
to experiment with changes that might make some of these jobs appealing to
legal workers, while devising a bundle of positive and negative incentives
to move some unemployed workers and welfare recipients into these?now somewhat
upgraded?jobs. If a society "chooses" not to do so, as most rich
countries continue to do, or if its experiments are only partly successful,
then its officials should negotiate proper mechanisms with sending countries
to ensure that the latter?s citizens have highly regulated, safe, and nonexploitative
access to those jobs that First World citizens no longer find palatable. The
labor market should then be allowed to determine who should become permanent
immigrants and who should remain temporary, perhaps on the basis of their
progress toward learning the language of the host country or their investments
in acquiring additional human capital. If a society finds the implications
of this route unappealing, it should consider gradually surrendering such
economic sectors to the developing world and protecting its economic interests
through appropriate trade agreements.
Even though the economics
of unauthorized immigration are not as broadly negative as zealots and their
coterie of activist scholars would have us believe, many concerns about the
social (and political) consequences of illegal immigration are valid: The
presence of a large population of unauthorized immigrants undermines the principle
that successful societies are governed by the rule of law and thus provokes
considerable popular anxiety. Illegal immigration is also destructive in that
it helps to stoke xenophobic rhetoric. This rhetoric often seeks to blur the
line between legal and illegal immigration, in the deliberate hope that an
always ambivalent public will become disenchanted with all forms of immigration
(a good explanation for why defenders of generous levels of legal immigration
can often seem as keen as their philosophical adversaries to eliminate illegal
immigration). The lesson: The symbolism of demonstrating that someone is indeed
"minding the store" on the big aspects of immigration is critical
to ensuring popular support for generous policies.
Only drastic measures can stop
False. Declaring war on illegal immigration
is a good applause line, but wars, lest we forget, impose terrible sacrifices.
Such bellicose rhetoric reflects and reinforces an alarmism that does more harm
than good. Unintended but predictable border incidents, vigilantism, racially
motivated violence, and discrimination in the workplace are the types of consequences
that ethnically diverse societies can ill-afford?and all rich countries are
now ethnically diverse.
Furthermore, such rhetoric
effectively precludes a rational assessment of various policy options. The
actions it inspires?militarizing borders, requiring national I.D. cards, or
conducting highly intrusive workplace raids and indiscriminate street sweeps?sully
a state?s standing in the international community and raise serious concerns
about civil liberties. Witness the huge outcry in Mexico each time the United
States ups the enforcement ante on its southern border, or in civil rights
and ethnic communities when enforcement actions mistakenly violate the rights
of legal immigrants and citizens. Perhaps even more damaging in the long run
may be that such extremism conveys the message to less developed countries
that overreacting in matters of unwanted immigration should be tolerated?think
of South Africa, struggling to do the "right" thing about an unauthorized
immigrant population that is several times larger per capita than that of
any Western country, while also building a new society.
What to do instead?
Consider small tactical steps deployed in a comprehensive manner; they could
yield far better returns. For example, sustained border controls that seek
the gradual cooperation of neighbors and interior enforcement strategies that
engage those groups affected (e.g., employers or ethnic communities) can,
over time, diminish the number of people attempting to enter and/or remain
illegally. The simultaneous enforcement of other rules?such as workplace rules
and the apprehension and expulsion of criminal immigrants?could, in the long
term, substantially lower the number of people who, having arrived, elect
to stay and work illegally. In both instances, consistency counts more than
fitful bouts of concern followed by periods of neglect.
Those receiving countries
that consistently apply clear immigration rules, monitor the effectiveness
of experiments, and employ prudent management can stop problems before they
spin out of control. An example from the asylum system demonstrates this last
point. In the last few years, large numbers of asylum applications?many of
them frivolous?clogged the asylum determination systems of most rich democracies
and created powerful political backlashes against the institution of asylum.
There were various responses to this challenge?Germany amended its constitution,
most other European countries changed their processing and administrative
procedures, and the United States first clarified its rules, then beefed up
its processing capacity, and, this year, followed Europe?s example by making
it more difficult for certain asylum seekers to file a claim in the first
place. The merits of these actions have raised legitimate concerns among those
who care about the fate of people fleeing persecution of any kind. What is
not disputed is the effect of these actions: In each case, asylum applications
Open borders and free markets
are the best way to take care of migration.
False. Opening borders
to very large immigration flows, as many Libertarians argue, may hold some
appeal as an intellectual exercise, in that the market would than be allowed
to regulate flows; presumably, it could do so more "efficiently"
than any government might. The social and political costs of such an approach,
however, make it a nonstarter. But although few policymakers would publicly
subscribe to such a view, in practice, many have responded to the challenges
of immigration with a polite yawn (when they are not having one of their episodic
anxiety attacks about it). Indeed, could it be that once the current sense
of crisis in the rich countries subsides, their leaders may once again lapse
back into apathy?
Immigration is not an
unmitigated good. In addition to fueling severe social and political reactions,
large flows can seriously destabilize labor markets. As a result, immigration
requires close, effective management if a country is to maximize potential
benefits and minimize costs. Successful policy requires broad and intense
interagency coordination, particularly in the labor market and social services?
areas; consistent engagement by senior policymakers to promote the success
of major initiatives that may lack clear popular support; a willingness to
stay the course and to educate the public on the need for both enforcement
and services; and a readiness to experiment with nontraditional practices
(i.e., employing intelligence services to infiltrate and defeat organized
people-smuggling or expending diplomatic resources to secure the cooperation
of sending and transit countries). Above all, good immigration policy requires
countries to decide where they want to be in the future?and how immigration
can help them get there.
Immigration is largely an internal
problem that governments can handle unilaterally.
False. Again, not the sort of attitude
many right-thinking policymakers would admit to, but one that many practice,
either by default or by implicitly equating bilateral or multilateral approaches
with the erosion of a nation?s ability to advance its own interests. In fact,
there are few issues as fraught with international complications and potential
for conflict as migration. Therefore, the more diplomatic capital that nations
invest in building a common bilateral and regional understanding about immigration,
the better they will be able to control unwanted migration in the longer run.
At some point the rich countries will have to negotiate the issues that they
have so far avoided because they have been unwilling to give up anything of
significance. But if the pressure imposed by unauthorized immigration is both
strong and growing, then the goals of such talks should be clear: to enlist
the support of source and transit countries against unregulated migration in
return for concessions by the rich countries on regulated temporary immigration,
investment, and assistance in areas such as training and education, and support
for the development of social and physical infrastructures.
relations in this regard with those between Germany and Poland. The history
of the former is an object lesson in the cost and, so far, apparent futility
of unilateral efforts at border control. In contrast, Germany, despite its
high unemployment rate, offers visa-free entry to Poles (and Czechs) and maintains
a variety of preferential policies for the temporary employment of large numbers
of them?200,000 people in each of the last few years; Germany is also investing
prodigiously in the Czech Republic and Poland. This policy is thought to have
substantially reduced illegal entries from these countries while supporting
Germany?s strategic economic aspirations and interests to its east. Generally,
offering such preferences to a neighbor not only diminishes the number of
unauthorized immigrants from that country but enlists it as an ally in efforts
to intercept third country migration and crack down on syndicates that engage
in organized people-smuggling and other illegal activities.
That we live in an interlinked
world is no less true for being a truism. Increasingly, we have come to understand
that, as neighbors, we share a common environment and an interdependent economic
destiny, and have factored that understanding into our trade and environmental
accords. Surely our immigration policies should be no different.
How to Manage Migration
Base immigration policy on the following core principles:
- 1) Immigration should enrich the
receiving country?s economic, scientific, and cultural life; respond to humanitarian
values; and fulfill international legal obligations. 2)
Immigration should balance the needs of the country?s employers with the interests
of its workers. 3) Immigration succeeds when immigrants
do. Therefore, a sound policy should enhance the prospects for immigrants
to prosper. 4) Immigration policy should respond
to changing conditions, with reforms undertaken with a scalpel rather than
a cleaver. Avoid swinging between extremes.
Countries should develop the political
and institutional capacity to identify problems, conduct carefully monitored
experiments, and implement well-fashioned solutions. When it comes to immigration,
most rich countries alternately act like ostriches with their heads in the ground
or like house-cats on a night-tear. This unstable behavior produces bad policy,
diminishes popular support for immigration, and undermines confidence in public
institutions?not just in the government of the day.
Do not get carried away with
Many rich countries have recently passed
punitive laws in a paroxysm of angst, only to see central elements of these
laws scrutinized or amended within months. In France and the United Kingdom,
new governments made the review of immigration laws a priority and quickly introduced
amending legislation. In the United States, a form of "buyer?s remorse"
seems to have set in soon after lawmakers saw the human costs involved with
their changes to immigration laws in 1996. States also need to avoid introducing
complex, inconsistent regulations that encourage opportunism by those seeking
to beat the system and arbitrary behavior by those charged with administering
Put one agency in charge of
immigration and give it the authority and resources to do its job.
In most industrialized nations, the
immigration service is often the stepchild of another ministry?or worse, responsibility
for immigration is divided among various governmental departments, creating
a predictable lack of accountability. Rich countries should emulate Australia
and Canada, whose governments have created cabinet-level agencies to coordinate
and execute their immigration policies. Because these agencies monitor all aspects
of immigration, they can spot and fix minor problems before they become large
ones, develop a constructive relationship with their legislative overseers (including
the ability to secure the resources they need), and adjust their policies regularly
to serve the changing priorities of the nation.
Engage with neighbors and build
solid regional relationships.
Immigration may become a source of conflict
for those countries with long borders, complex histories, and vast economic
disparities. The United States and Mexico, Germany and Poland, South Africa
and its neighbors, and even France and Algeria come to mind. In each of these
cases, investing in the bilateral relationship can reduce problems and yield
benefits. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent, might not it be
time for nations to think about codifying acceptable guidelines on the treatment
of one another?s nationals?
Develop a proactive policy of
public education and leadership.
Immigration is not a self-evident good.
Bringing strangers into a society?even one as diverse as that of Canada or the
United States?is never easy. To prevent conflict and discrimination, governments
must demonstrate strong leadership in public education and awareness?an example
set by President Roman Herzog and former president Richard Von Weizsaecker in
Germany and New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Furthermore, governments must meet
the diversity challenge without denying its existence or attempting to accommodate
every particular interest at the expense of a common set of goals or principles.
Only states that meet this challenge will be the successful societies of the
A Migration Glossary
An alien present in the receiving country or at a port of entry who has been
granted protection because he or she is unable or unwilling to return to his
or her country of nationality, or to seek the protection of that country because
of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution.
- Asylum: Protection
from persecution, arrest, or extradition granted by a nation, embassy, or
- Displaced Person:
People forced to flee from their homes due to violence, conflict, or persecution
who have not crossed an international border (est. 24 million worldwide).
Trapped by conflict, many are potential refugees.
- Immigrant: An alien
admitted to a receiving country as a lawful permanent resident.
- Migrant: A person
who moves from one country, place, or locality to another.
- Refugee: The Geneva
Convention defines a refugee as any person living outside his or her country
of nationality who is unable or unwilling to return to that country because
of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution. Persecution or the fear
thereof may be based on the alien?s race, religion, nationality, political
opinion, or membership in a particular social group. People with no nationality
must be outside their country of last habitual residence to qualify as a refugee.
Other conventions, most notably those of the Organization of African Unity
and the Cartagena Convention, which is followed by many South American states,
have more expansive definitions.
- UNHCR (United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees): Established in 1951 as a humanitarian and
nonpolitical organization to protect refugees, the UNHCR seeks durable solutions
through the repatriation of refugees, their integration into the countries
where they first seek asylum, or their resettlement to third countries. The
UNHCR also provides assistance to those forced to live in refugee-like situations.
Along with its protective role, the UNHCR helps refugees by coordinating the
provision of shelter, food, water, sanitation, and medical care in emergencies.
It also assists and monitors the reintegration of refugees who have recently
returned to their home countries.
- Want to Know More?
The most recent revisiting of the topic
of immigration by policymakers is not a historical aberration but rather a constant.
In The Age of Migration (New York: The Guilford Press, 1993),
Stephen Castles and Mark J. Miller chronicle the history of migration, examining
its effects and the dilemmas they present for different countries. Heinz Fassman
and Rainier Münz take a more in-depth look at the impact of immigration,
providing detailed country studies in European Migration in the Late
Twentieth Century (Hants, England: Edward Elgar Publishing Company,
Although a majority
of migrants and refugees settle in less developed and underdeveloped parts
of the world, scant attention has been directed toward the impact of migration
on developing nations. Demetrios G. Papademetriou & Philip Martin?s The
Unsettled Relationship: Labor Migration and Economic Development
(Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1991) looks at the probable policy implications
of mass movements of people to these nations.
For more information
on the situation in the United States, consult John Isbister?s recent book
The Immigration Debate: Remaking America (West Hartford,
CT: Kumarian Press, 1996).In
its series of annual reports on Trends in International Migration
(Paris: OECD), the OECD?s Permanent System of Observation of Migration provides
a comprehensive review of the literature written since the mid-1970s on the
macroeconomic impact of immigration in the OECD countries. A more recent cost-benefit
analysis, The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects
of Immigration (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1997) was
conducted by the National Research Council on the impact of immigration on
the U.S. economy.
The latest round of
debates on immigration policy worldwide has focused on control and regulation.
These issues are examined in Wayne Cornelius & Philip Martin?s Controlling
Immigration: A Global Perspective (Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press, 1994) and Demetrios G. Papademetriou & Kimberly A. Hamilton?s Managing
Uncertainty: Regulating Immigration Flows in Advanced Industrial Countries
(Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Brookings
Institution Press, 1995). For a listing of related Web sites, consult Foreign
Policy's Web site at www.foreignpolicy.com.