HOW THE GLOBALIZATION OF CAPITALISM HAS DRIVEN THE FLOWS OF IMMIGRATION
Transcript of HOW THE GLOBALIZATION OF CAPITALISM HAS DRIVEN THE FLOWS OF IMMIGRATION
How the Globalization of Capitalism Has Driven the Flows of Immigration Leandro Alcantara
2014
Introduction
The migration history of the United States through the 20th century and into the
21st century has spawned a substantial amount of research with regards to the factors for
immigration, responses to immigration, and considerations for the outlook and
implications of immigration. Immigration has held key interest in political debate in the
past and present, contending the issues of inclusion or exclusion of migrants. The
complexities of answering whether or not the United States should accept an inclusionary
or exclusionary policy, continues to cast uncertainty within the debate, however recent
literature suggests that immigration flows have been so far established and immigrants
have been functional members of society, that a policy of inclusion would be the most
logical answer (Rodriguez 234).
The flows of immigration and immigration policies can be attributed to a
globalization of the capitalist economy. Tracing the history of immigration, a demand for
labor spurred the need for the Western economies to find a suitable workforce to drive
the capitalist machine (Mei 493). Throughout much of the 20th century, immigration was
the critical component of driving the United State’s economy and of creating global
networks amongst immigrant population (Hu-Dehart 428). This essay will examine the
history of immigration including the early push and pull factors, the beginnings of the
restrictionist policies in the 20th century, and the conflict facing immigration in the late
20th and early 21st centuries. The evolution, development, and globalization of the
capitalist economy model has been the most critical factor in the history of immigration
in the United States and continues to serve as the impetus behind immigration, both
previously and today. Historical scholarship indicates the undeniable link between the
rise of globalized capitalism and the rise of immigration, and the exploitation of
immigrant and foreign workers that continues to ensue. With respect to immigration
history of the United States, the following three subthemes: factors of immigration,
responses to immigration, and the outlook and implications of immigration, will be
discussed and analyzed to frame this assertion.
I. Factors of Immigration
The specific factors of immigration in the era between the late 19th century and the
early 21st century have changed dramatically however, these factors can be attributed to
capitalism and economic necessity. The early landscape of immigration history of the
United States can be traced to the proliferation of the imperialist context in which factors
for immigration included not only so-called “push” factors, but “pull” factors as well
(Mei 494). Following the imperialist context, the United States underwent a trend
emphasizing increased restriction of immigration policies. In the United State’s most
recent immigration history, the policies and requirements have become increasingly
stringent, but push and pull factors have still led immigrants to the borders and beyond.
This section will examine and chronicle the development of the push and pull factors as
defined by June Mei. The globalization of capitalism will be discussed with regards to the
push and pull factors that catalyzed the drive of immigration to the United States.
Focusing upon Chinese immigration to the United States between 1850 and 1882,
June Mei, in her article, “Socioeconomic Origins of Emigration: Guangdong to
California, 1850-1882” provides insight to early “push” factors that contributed to a rise
in immigration of Chinese away from their homelands and to the United States. Push
factors within this context are understood as domestic factors which may serve as a
catalyst for pushing migrants away from their home country and seek settlement
elsewhere. Mei focuses her study upon Guangdong, an area of China “undergoing rapid
and drastic socioeconomic change…with a large impoverished population…near seaports
where foreign trade was well-established” (466). The socioeconomic change she
chronicles is revealed to have been a result of the development of a “proto-capitalistic”
economy that was emerging in the area, creating industries, such as textiles that
demanded the work of wage laborers (Mei 468). Occurring simultaneously with the
increase of large industrial establishments employing hundreds of workers, the
agricultural sector underwent significant change as well, with an “increase of acreage
devoted to cash crops rather than to subsistence crops” (Mei 468).
China’s “reluctance to accept extensive contact with the West” ended following
their defeat in the Opium War in 1842 (Mei 469). The opening of trade networks with the
West shattered the localized, domestic economies, rendering the fragile economy unable
to contend with the imposition of the global economy (Mei 471-72). Contact with the
West also led to the creation of a new industry dealing with the facilitation and
management of emigrant laborers, often by force (Mei 475-76). These so-called
“barracoon[s] functioned as a lodging house or inn where unwitting men were given free
food and shelter… [and] were then induced to go abroad by promises of high pay” (Mei
479). The administrators of these barracoons, the crimps and middlemen “often made
large sums of money” and reflected the profitability of the capitalist model through a
chain of brokering emigrant laborers (Mei 490-91).
With the defeat of China in the Opium War, the imperialist Western economies
created the pull factors that drew upon the Chinese to migrate abroad. Pull factors within
this context are understood to be the factors created by foreign influence that drive
migrants to settle outside of their homelands. In order to understand the pull factors of the
West, it is necessary to understand the context of imperialism. Paul Kramer, in his article
“Power and Connection: Imperial Histories of the United States and the World” provides
a definition of imperialism as “a dimension of power in which asymmetries in the scale
of political action, regimes or spatial ordering, and modes of exceptionalizing difference
enable and produce relations of hierarchy, discipline, dispossession, extraction, and
exploitation” (1349). These histories can be traced in Mei’s exposition of the imperial
West and the extraction and exploitation that serve as the pull factors for Chinese
immigrants.
The opening of trade ports with the West disrupted the Chinese economy,
rendering the newly established proto-capitalist system, especially the textile industry,
unable to compete with foreign imports which were priced much lower, consequently
leading to the unemployment of a substantial number of new wage laborers (Mei 470-71).
“The development and exploitation of new colonies and territories around the world
required a fresh supply of labor [and the] socioeconomic conditions in Guangdong made
it a ready source of such labor” (Mei 474-75). The pull factors of the West included new
industries and prospects for which Chinese merchants could capitalize upon, Chinese
laborers could earn wages, and remittances could be sent to maintain the livelihoods of
families back home (Mei 475-90). Chinese merchants arriving in the United States as a
result of immigration “open[ed] restaurants… [or] established stores” a clear indication
of the driving capitalist nature of immigration from its onset in the mid 19th century (Mei
475). Similarly, the Chinese laborers that immigrated to the United States, as Mei
chronicles, “were hired hands, sharecroppers, or small landowners… [effected by]
economic pressures and war caus[ing] them to leave the land” (481). For many, “the
alternative to emigration was starvation” (Mei 487).
The Chinese immigrant experience exhibits an economic and financial need in the
aftermath of the imposition of the opening of China’s economy via foreign trade. The
emergence of a proto-capitalist economy within China, prior to defeat in the Opium War,
created the factors that would cause globalization to be especially devastative. The newly
created wage laborer class would be decimated when pitted against the marketability of
foreign imports. As a result of many workers turning to industry and forgoing agriculture,
the collapse of the Chinese industry would result in large numbers of unemployment, but
also serve as a prime source for fresh labor to be capitalized upon by Western economies.
The driving effects of the globalization of capitalism upon immigration is clear insofar
that both the push and pull factors discussed throughout the Chinese immigrant
experience in the mid 19th century have been directly or indirectly motivated by economic
forces. “Trade in fact had been one of the major goals of the foreign powers in China”
and it was the imposition of foreign trade with China that both economically displaced
Chinese and created outlets for potential migration (Mei 470). These outlets held the
promise of capitalist profit: the ability for migrants to work as contract laborers and earn
a wage, or establish a business and make a profit. Of course, this outcome was not typical
and often times immigrants were exploited as a resource of cheap labor (Misra, et. al
321).
Joya Misra, Jonathan Woodring, and Sabine N. Merz elaborate on this
exploitation in their article entitled “The Globalization of Care Work: Neoliberal
Economic Restructuring and Migration Policy.” Misra, et. al argue that a number of push
and pull factors influence flows of immigration, often illicitly. Pull factors are employed
in order to exploit the cheap cost of labor from abroad, whereas push factors such as
crumbling local economies, the detriments of neoliberalism, and lack of government
services domestically create the necessary environments for migrants to accept work
elsewhere. Misra, et. al present the industry of care work as an “international system
where poor women workers provide care work for more affluent families” (318). They
assert that economic restructuring has helped create both demand for and a supply of
immigrant care workers much in the same way that the globalization of the Chinese
economy in the mid 19th century contributed to the emergence of a new source of labor
(Misra, et. al 319). The global reach of capitalism is explicit in the case of care work in
which “replacing highly educated women’s caring tasks with low wage care helps
increase the households income for these families” (Misra, et. al 319). The impetus for
the use of immigrant workers is to satisfy the capitalistic ideal of maximizing of profits.
With regards to push factors, “neoliberal strategies have… encourage[ed] women
workers in poorer countries to emigrate in order to support their families” in light of
“additional cutbacks in health services, education, and childcare” in their home countries
(Misra, et. al 320). The hiring of immigrant workers to satisfy care worker roles
economically benefits families seeking affordable care, however as in the case of France,
“this work is highly exploitative, particularly when unregulated.” Unregulated work
occurs as a result of “under the table” agreements to bypass the requirements for
employers to “pay higher wages and taxes, reduce employee work hours, and provide
vacation leave (Misra, et. al 326). The “policies work in concert to create an inequitable
system from which wealthier families profit, but in which [immigrant] care workers and
lower income families lose” (Misra, et. al 327).
Shifting focus towards Mexican migrant workers, the US meat processing
industry plays host to the same issues involving the exploitation of immigrant labor.
William Kandel and Emilio A. Parrado present the issue in their article, “Restructuring of
the US Meat Processing Industry and the New Hispanic Migrant Destinations.” Kandel
and Parrado examine the unprecedented rise of Hispanic populations “liv[ing] outside the
traditional five Southwestern states of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and
Texas” (447). Kandel and Parrado attribute this trend to increasing labor demand for
particular types of jobs that… results from the industrial restructuring in key rural
industries, especially meat processing” (448). The same push and pull factors are relevant
in the case of the US meat processing industry illustrated through the evidence presented
by Kandel and Parrado. Push factors stem from the growing anti-immigrantion legislation
and posture that has emerged in the traditional Mexican immigrant receiving centers of
the American Southwest, notably the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)
“which provided…[funds] for US border enforcement policies at well established
crossing points caus[ing] new migrants to cross farther east along the…border” (Kandel
and Parrado 449). Additionally, anecdotal evidence suggests that immigrants “sought to
escape expensive and crowded housing, poor schools, and gang violence” prevalent in
traditional migration destinations including Los Angeles (Kandel and Parrado 450).
Pull factors which attract immigrants, often reflect economically motivated
influences, such as the availability of employment. Such employment is often considered
undesirable by native workers, however the availability of employment is attractive to
immigrant workers (Kandel and Parrado 450). Additionally, active recruitment
campaigns of the meat processing companies, which target immigrants specifically, act as
pull factors as well (Kandel and Parrado 450). Such recruitment, targets immigrants
directly for “employment [that] is generally not skilled, forcing employers…to contract
foreign workers, the majority of whom are likely to be undocumented” (Kandel and
Parrado 450). This situation places immigrant workers electing to work in the meat
processing industry at the same detriment as care workers who are not protected by state
and federal laws while being vulnerable to exploitation by employers. These “processing
plants are necessarily dark, wet, and noisy” and commutes are “longer, more expensive
and occasionally more hazardous,” conditions which native workers find undesirable
(Kandel and Parrado 458). However, employers are able to fill positions with immigrant
workers whose economic need to earn a wage outweighs their concern for desirable
working conditions; simultaneously their legal status often renders them unable to contest
unfair conditions. Industrial restructuring has led to the deliberate shift of the meat
processing industry from a formerly skilled profession “previously requir[ing] butchering
skills and some degree of craftsmanship [and has] be[come] routinized and repetitive” as
a result of specialization (Kandel and Parrado 458). The effects of globalized capitalism
is implicit in the case of the meat processing industry with particular emphasis upon the
pull factors utilized by employers in attracting immigrant workers and the need for
immigrant workers created through economic restructuring.
In review, the factors of immigration stem from push and pull factors from the
mid 19th century to the beginning of the 21st century. The push and pull factors embody
capitalist economic concern, evident in the exploitation of immigrant workers in the case
of China in the 1840s, immigrant care workers, and Mexican laborers migrating further
east for opportunities in the meat processing industry. These three cases provide evidence
of the systematic exploitation of immigrant workers for the sake of profit. Access to
cheap labor, through immigrant worker supply chains, ultimately increases profitability.
These economic demands for cheap labor, in turn drive the flows of immigration, often
illicitly. These illicit modes of immigration further endanger the immigrant worker who
is afforded no employment protection and may be exploited. The globalization of
capitalism, while perpetuating a vicious circle of cheap, exploitative labor, has created an
avenue for immigrants to arrive in the United States, which would otherwise be
impossible without the propagation of such economic demands.
II. Response to Immigration
The influx of foreign immigrants in the United States throughout the 20th century
has unsurprisingly created responses in support of immigration and opportunities for the
exploitation of immigrants within United States borders. While the globalization of the
economy has influenced flows of immigration, immigration has similarly influenced the
global economy—evident through bilateral trade agreements between the United States
and Mexico. This section will examine the trends of economic exploitation in response to
an influx of immigration in the United States and discuss the effects that immigration has
had upon the global economy. The creation of Chinatowns as a source of cheap labor and
the proliferation of bordertowns demonstrates responses to immigration that have created
both economically exploitative opportunities as well as economically diverse and
prosperous communities. Simultaneously, the growth of bordertowns has caused a
response in the increase of transnationalism. The following responses to immigration
reflect the influence that globalization trends and the capitalist economic model have had
over immigration.
Evelyn Hu-Dehart provides evidence of the relationship between immigration
responses and economic necessity in her article, “Chinatowns and Bordertowns: Inter-
Asian Encounters in the Diaspora.” Hu-Dehart examines the proliferation of Chinatowns
as “ethnic enclaves imposed and enforced by the dominant society” (425-26).
Chinatowns became a source of cheap labor, “created and occupied to meet the needs and
desires of the larger society” (Hu-Dehart 426). Chinatowns provided a source of labor for
“Asian immigrant women, whose docile character and ‘nimble fingers’ were perceived to
make them more adept” in garment industry work demanded domestically in the United
States (Hu-Dehart 427). The development of globalization networks for manufacturing
industries seeking cheap labor abroad provided the model for the development of
“subcontracting” manufacturing in the United States (Hu-Dehart 427). Subcontracting the
manufacturing process allowed for manufacturing companies to exploit cheap immigrant
labor providing subcontractors “with the cut fabric and detail specification to assemble
the finished product” without having to maintain the cost of factories or machinery (Hu-
Dehart 429). In return, subcontractors would be “paid a piece rate rather than by the
hour” (Hu-Dehart 429).
The subcontracting system “created an underground dimension of the garment
industry… hidden from view of industry monitors and state regulators” allowing for
exploitation of immigrant workers, exacerbating issues discussed in the cases of care
work and the meat processing industry (Hu-Dehart 429). These subcontracting systems
eventually led to the creation of the sweatshop industry, in which an enterprising
subcontractor could “rent space in a rundown building… cramped with workers and
machines” (Hu-Dehart 433). Subcontractors could thus maximize production and profits
by delegating production to sweatshop workers, ultimately benefitting manufacturers who
were able to capitalize upon the system as a whole. The subcontracting system and the
eventual degeneration into sweatshop conditions allowed for maximization of production
while providing “no health insurance, no paid holiday, no sick leave, nor any other kind
of benefits” for the immigrant workers employed in such fashion (Hu De-hart 432). The
proliferation of Chinatowns in the United States resulted undeniably from immigration
flows. The economic boon provided by this response fueled the growth of the garment
industry and perpetuated a system of immigrant exploitation with the American
immigration reforms in the 1960s (Hu-Dehart 427).
While economic responses to immigration were markedly negative with respect to
the proliferation of Chinatowns in the United States, positive effects of cross-border
interactions, namely between the United States and Mexico, provided eventual
immigration policy adjustments not inherently detrimental to immigrant communities
(Kang 248). “Implementation: How the Borderlands Redefined Federal Immigration Law
and Policy in California, Arizona, and Texas, 1917-1924” by S. Deborah Kang provides
evidence of the positive relationship developed between immigrant communities and
non-immigrant communities, created out of economic necessity. The passage of the
Immigration Act of 1917 and the Passport Act of 1918 sought to restrict immigrant
communities on both sides of the US-Mexico border, however
“southwestern immigration officials…were hampered by lack of money,
manpower, and material as well as enormous opposition from border residents
(whether Asian, European, Mexican, or American) who were accustomed to crossing
the international border without restriction.” (Kang 246)
Because of these limitations of enforcement, immigration rules were often waived or new
rules were created to provide convenience to the bordertown communities (Kang 246).
Creation of new rules included the border crossing card program, which benefitted
merchants and “sustained the transnational character of the borderlands” (Kang 247).
Those affected by the new policies “included laborers, tourists, local residents,
dignitaries, and businessmen who crossed and re-crossed the border on a regular basis”
(Kang 247). Under pressure from these communities of interest, immigration officials
effectively nullified provisions of the law in the Immigration Act and Passport Act.
Kang provides evidence that “until World War I, the economic and social needs
of the borderlands, rather than the immigration regulations, served as the forces driving
migration between Mexico and the United States” (250). The economic benefits of a fluid
border, “distinguished… by cultural diversity, transnational infrastructure, global trading
partners, world-renowned tourist industries, and multinational labor force” provided
impetus for the development of a symbiotic relationship between the United States and
Mexico (Kang 248-49). “Mexican immigration was inextricably linked with the growth
of American industrial capitalism” and as such, the economic benefits of a flourishing
bordertown could not be stymied by immigration restriction (Garcia qtd. in Kang 250).
Immigrant populations provided for the demand of the railroad, mining, ranching, and
agricultural industries that proliferated in the bordertown regions (Kang 250). While the
immigrant populations discussed by Hu-Dehart reflected an exploitative economic gain,
the relationship of the bordertowns, as argued by Kang, reflected a transnational nature,
in which immigrant workers and non-immigrant communities benefitted economically,
either through the obtaining of employment or the perpetuation of profitable industry
(254).
As I have asserted, the responses to immigration within the United States
reflected both economic necessity and the effects of globalization. The case of the
bordertowns supported by Kang is no different. The tourism industry thrived thus
creating a substantial amount of business on both sides of the border to cater to the needs
of tourists as well as the employees of the new businesses (Kang 255-56). The
development of a “cross-border demographic, economic, and social ties led residents to
construe the border as an ‘imaginary line’” (Kang 256).
While the responses to immigration have proven to be economically exploitative
and mutually beneficial for immigrants and non-immigrant communities, the responses to
immigration outside US borders are important in understanding the definitive role of
capitalism and globalization in the immigration narrative. Anjali Browning, in her article
“Corn, Tomatoes, and a Dead Dog: Mexican Agricultural Restructuring after NAFTA
and Rural Responses to Declining Maize Production in Oaxaca, Mexico” critically
examines the effects of globalization and the creation of a global capitalist economy. She
shows that the effects of globalization have a profound effect upon driving migration
from Mexico to the United States and reveals that recent neoliberalist developments and
policies have seriously threatened the local economies in Mexico. Browning refers to
these destructive effects as the depeasantization, disrupting and contributing to the loss of
rural livelihoods particularly in Mexico’s southern states (87).
Browning’s article reflects a case study in Guelavia, home to some of “Mexico’s
two million subsistence and small farmers who have been hit hard by the agricultural
restructuring policies of NAFTA” (87). Guelavia provides evidence of the unintended
consequences that the North American Free Trade Agreement sought to mitigate,
however instead, has resulted in competition between giant US agro-business and
Mexico’s small farmers (Browning 87). The logic behind NAFTA sought to create
production efficiencies on both sides of the border, shifting “capital- and land- intensive
farming to the United States…and shifting labor-intensive crops to Mexico” in order to
capitalize upon the machinery and land in the US and the availability in Mexico
(Browning 90). NAFTA thus required Mexican farmers to forgo the production of staple
crops they had been familiar with for centuries, such as corn, and begin production of
other crops that require greater labor demands (Browning 91). However, the crops
demanded in NAFTA lack the diversity of commercial application and the ability to be
stored for when prices are high, enjoyed by crops such as corn (Browning 91).
Consequentially, the factors of NAFTA have led farmers in Mexico to continue
attempting to grow corn to compete with American agriculture. The economic
disadvantages and the perpetuation of low prices in return for Mexican grown corn has
resulted in new waves of migration away from Mexico towards the United States
(Browning 96).
The joining of the Mexican agricultural industry with that of the United States’
under NAFTA can be compared to the situation in mid 19th century China as discussed by
Mei. The forcefully opening of the Chinese economy contributed to the destruction of the
local economy and catalyzed migration away from the failing Chinese economy towards
the United States and other Western destinations. Similarly, the opening of the Mexican
economy as a result of NAFTA threatens the local agriculture industry of Mexico and has
also spurred new migration to the United States as chronicled by Browning. The
globalization and drive towards more profitable and efficient economic structure
(utilization of the country’s most abundant resources: capital and land for the US and
labor for Mexico) as a result of NAFTA, directly contributes to increased flows of
immigration.
While the case provided in Browning serves as an example of the attempts of
globalization to provide benefits on both sides of the border, the economic benefit of
exploiting immigrant labor has also served as a model for the outsourcing of jobs for
industries with high labor demands. Such outsourcing provides an advantage to Western
manufacturing companies at the expense of minority populations abroad. The outsourcing
of jobs to regions abundant with cheap labor echoes the argument of US imperialism as
defined by Kramer. Dídimo Castillo Fernandez and Adrián Sotelo Valencia, in their
article, “Outsourcing of the New Labor Precariousness in Latin America,” provide
evidence of the effects that the global capitalist economy has had in introducing “a model
of high labor turnover and transience” (14). Fernandez and Valencia assert that the
subcontracting and delocalization of productive activities inherent of a global capitalist
economy “creates fragmentation and precarious employment in the working class”, and
effectively exploits the labor rich countries of Latin America (14).
The subcontracting of labor can be compared to the domestic subcontracting of
Chinatowns and sweatshops discussed by Hu-Dehart, however in the case of Latin
America, off-shoring serves as the equivalent of the sweatshop conditions. The weak and
flexible labor laws in Latin America, “often permit long work hours, few limitations on
the length of shifts, short vacations, easy labor turnover, and substandard safety
[regulations],” conditions that further exacerbate the exploitation of offshore labor (16).
Fernandez and Valencia attribute the rise of offshore exploitation and the weakening of
labor protections and laws to the emergence of the neoliberal economic model. Whereas
NAFTA sought to create equilibrium bilaterally between the United States and Mexico,
the neoliberalism model—in keeping with the spirit of imperialism—sought “to reverse
the decline in capital accumulation rates creat[ing] a crisis for labor unions and the
working class” particularly in Latin America, will providing a benefit to the Western
economies including the United States. Specifically, the “outsourcing… represents an
additional competitive advantage for business. It allows companies to avoid investing in
infrastructure and reduce operating costs to benefit from a less expensive labor force”
much to the same degree that the subcontracting in Chinatowns enabled manufacturers to
have a plentiful source of inexpensive labor (Fernandez and Valencia 17).
The responses to immigration outside the United States have been profound and
are as much of a result of economic interests abroad, as they have been domestically. The
common theme emerging in the analysis of responses both aboard and domestically is the
recurrence of exploitation of the immigrant and foreign working class. The Chinatowns
in the United States, which proliferated as a result of the waves of immigrant workers
from Asia, provided stateside manufacturing with a substantial and cheap labor force. In
further considerations for capitalist profit, the immigrant workers arranged into
subcontracting systems and eventually sweatshop conditions, further exploiting the
workers in the interest of profitability. While some responses have been positive, such as
the early 20th century bordertowns between the United States and Mexico, most
international responses have been borne out of economic necessity at the expense and
exploitation of the immigrant or foreign worker. The case of NAFTA, which sought to
equalize trade agreements and maximize the economic systems of the United States and
Mexico, has had a devastating effect on the local farmers, while benefitting US
agriculture. While NAFTA had positive intentions, the unintended consequences that
befell the Mexican economy have been profound. In regards to responses outside of the
US and Mexico, the outsourcing of labor in regions such as Latin America has proven to
be detrimental to the foreign worker, much to the same degree that the subcontracting
systems in early Chinatowns exploited immigrant workers. While these economic
responses to immigration have allowed for the development of the capitalist machine in
the United States (growth of the garment industry, affordable care work, high supply of
labor for meat processing, etc.), these responses have allowed for the emergence of a
growing social network amongst immigrants. Chinatowns in the United States
contributed to the proliferation of immigrant social networks, effectively tying
prospective immigrants with other immigrants who had already made passage—often in
an effort to reunite families, secure better jobs, or serve as a sense of comfort (Hu-Dehart
439). Similar networks naturally emerged within the bordertowns between the
US/Mexico border.
These relationships are examined by Edna A. Viruell-Fuentes, in her article, “’My
Heart is Always There’: The Transnational Practices of First Generation Immigrant and
Second-Generation Mexican American Women,” in which she describes the social
networks between those who have immigrated and those who remained in Mexico. While
the personal anecdotes presented by Viruell-Fuentes do not directly correlate to economic
responses of immigration, the transnational relationships examined serve as a crucial
stimulus for immigration of Mexican migrants to the United States as well as provide
indications of the “otherness” status of Mexican immigrants.
Transnationalism is defined as the “process by which immigrants forge and
sustain multi-stranded social relations that link together their societies of origin and
settlement” (Basch, et. al qtd. in Viruell-Fuentes 335). Transnationalism “represents a
strategy… of action and belonging that enable immigrants to resist and cope with the
alienating and marginalizing social, political, and economic environment of the United
States” (Portes, et. al qtd. in Viruell-Fuentes 337). Effectively, transnationalism
represents the immigrants’ response to immigration, developed in such a way to provide
immigrants with “networks [that] would provide unconditional support…[and] a sense of
refuge …in the context of their continued isolation in the United States (Viruell-Fuentes
344). While native responses to immigration often reflected a sense of xenophobia,
immigrant responses took the form of “resisting ‘othering’…[drawing] upon resources
from transnational practices” (Viruel-Fuentes 348). The “racial structure” and the
“racialized stereotypes” of Mexicans in the United States provides concurrent evidence to
the discriminatory modes of labor exploitation discussed by Fernandez and Valencia in
the outsourcing of labor to Latin America. The marginalization of Mexican immigrants in
the examples provided by Viruell-Fuentes can be joined with the exploitative nature of
immigrant labor in an effort to realize the systematic perpetuation of exploitative systems
for economic gain.
The economic benefit of immigrant labor has been a profound result of the influx
of immigration and the rise of globalized capitalism. The responses on behalf of the
Western world, including the United States have historically revealed a trend of
immigrant and foreign labor exploitation, in exchange for driving production costs down,
increasing profits, and increasing capitalist gain. The bordertowns between the United
States and Mexico were proven to be successful in providing mutually beneficial results,
however most responses to immigration abroad have been negative as demonstrated in
the case of corn growing in Mexico after NAFTA and outsourcing of labor in Latin
America. Lastly, I discussed immigrants’ own responses to immigration—revealing the
creation of transnational networks to deal with racial stereotyping and exploitation
resultant of the discrimination social and economic trends in the United States.
III. Outlook and Implications
Having discussed both the factors and responses to immigration, it is imperative
to connect these concepts with scholarship related to the outlook and implications of
immigration into the 21st century. Economic considerations continue to prevail over the
debate of immigration policies in the United States. Such considerations reflect concerns
for the loss of the American middle class and the tenability of incorporating immigrant
populations into the citizenry of the United States. This section will discuss the economic
considerations in determining immigration policy and provide insight to the trends
emerging within the immigration debate of the 21st century.
Caroline B. Brettell and Faith G. Nibbs provides insight to the invidious outcomes
of immigration as perceived by the white population of Farmer’s branch, a suburb in the
county of Dallas, Texas. In their article, “Immigrant Suburban Settlement and the
‘Threat’ to Middle Class Status and Identity: The Case of Farmers Branch, Texas,”
Brettell and Nibbs provide evidence of the rise of xenophobia against Mexican
immigrants and the perceived problems of the inclusive immigration policies in the
United States.
Brettell and Nibbs center their argument upon the perceived threat of the loss of
the American middle class, which immigration poses (1). Brettell and Nibbs provide
evidence of the anti-immigration legislation passed in Farmer’s Branch including
requirements of proof of legal residency and stringent renting contracts requiring legal
status (7-8). In adhering to restrictionist immigration policies, white residents and
municipal officials of Farmer’s Branch emphasized the detrimental effects of
immigration and immigrant settlers upon middle class America and their local economy
(Brettell and Nibbs 15). Brettell and Nibbs note that as “adjusted for 2008 dollars, home
values [in Farmer’s Branch] rose between 1970 and 1980 but since then have declined
such that in 2000 they are almost at the level where they were in 1960 (12). While such a
decline cannot be directly attributed to immigrant populations, other indicators of
economic decline exist, occurring simultaneously with the influx of immigrant settlement
in Farmer’s Branch (Brettell and Nibbs 5). Additionally, “what were once vibrant
shopping centres… are now empty and [the] remaining are ‘check-cashing enterprises,’
‘rent-a-centers,’ haircut places,’ and an Alcoholics Anonymous” indications of economic
decline in Farmer’s Branch concurrent with the rise of immigrant populations (Brettell
and Nibbs 15).
The implications offered in the case of Farmer’s Branch suggests that the influx
of immigrants who decide to settle and gain residency in the United States have
contributed to a decline in the American middle class and have effectively created
“ethnoburbs,” threatening “middle class suburban identity” (Brettell and Nibbs 2-15). As
I have asserted, the concerns for capitalism remains to be a driving factor in the system of
immigration. Scholarship chronicling recent trends indicates a growing economic concern
for excluding immigrant populations, whereas much of the scholarship chronicling the
19th, and 20th centuries realized immigration as a source of cheap and exploitable labor to
be used for the advantage of capitalist enterprise.
Alternatively, Cristina M. Rodriguez makes the case that incorporation of
immigrants into the polity through a grant of US citizenship should be considered on the
theoretical basis drawing upon the logic of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. Her
article, “Immigration, Civil Rights, and the Evolution of the People,” discusses the
understanding of immigrants to be protected by certain rights by merit of personhood, not
necessarily as a member of a specific constituency (Rodriguez 230). Rodriguez provides
evidence of a changing logic in favor of incorporating immigrant populations, citing a
court case in which an unauthorized alien challenged the applicability of a gun control
law; whereas the court found that the law applied to the immigrant by reason that he
“belonged to the national community, by virtue of having ‘been here for decades and
nowhere else” (233). The unauthorized immigrant has a unique status in the United States
with a “dual identity in American consciousness as both an outsider and a member of the
national community” (Rodriguez 234). As such, the unauthorized immigrant has become
recognized as “functional members of American society” under the Immigration Reform
Control Act of 1986, and in following this logic, the contributions of the unauthorized
immigrant to the American economy ought to be realized. Often these “non-white
immigrants perform essential but difficult labor,” a testament to a clear contribution to
economic concerns in the United States (Rodriguez 229). Rodriguez outlines the
tenability of granting citizenship to unauthorized immigrants following a course of logic
reflecting judicial decisions and focusing upon the reality that unauthorized immigrants
have become inextricable contributors and functional members to the American society.
Ultimately, Rodriguez believes in considerations beyond the traditional political,
economic, and legal scopes of immigration policy, and for a focus upon sociological
factors for determining an effective immigration policy.
The current debate behind immigration policy contains proponents and opponents
for and against exclusionist and inclusive ideals. The case of Farmer’s Branch can be
extrapolated to represent the growing concern amongst anti-immigration supporters
throughout the United States whose claims of the deterioration of the American middle
class as a result of the rise immigration can be partially supported by evidence in
declining economic centers and house values. Alternatively, Rodriguez’s theoretical look
at the logic behind the Civil Rights movement and judicial decisions involving
unauthorized immigrants provides hope for an eventual incorporation of immigrants as
citizens of the United States. Nonetheless, both views contain economic considerations in
reaching conclusions in support of, or against, open immigration policies. The economic
implications in the case of Farmer’s Branch are clear, such that immigration has led to a
decline in the local economy. On the other hand, Rodriguez contends with the idea that
unauthorized immigration contributes to the economy by taking jobs that are both
undesirable, but essential. In placing these considerations in the context of my greater
argument, the outlook and implications of the current immigration debate and policy will
continue to be driven by globalized capitalist factors and considerations.
Conclusion
Evelyn Hu-Dehart frames the theme of my argument, stating that “it is now
undeniable that the process of late capitalist globalization and immigration are
inextricably linked” (426).
This essay has provided a review of immigration history scholarship to reveal the
undeniable influence that globalized capitalism has had over immigration—in the rise of
immigration, the exploitation of immigration, and the restriction of immigration. The
three subthemes: factors of immigration, responses to immigration, and outlook and
implications of immigration provide a framework for considering the interconnectedness
of global capitalism and immigration.
The factors of immigration have developed and changed between the 19th, 20th and
early 21st centuries, however as I have examined, these factors can be tied back to
economic necessity and capitalist gain—such as the push and pull factors in driving
Chinese migration in the mid 19th century. Similarly, responses to immigration have
proven to be borne out of economic considerations. The rise of Chinatowns and the
associated sweatshops, the migration trends sparked by the unintended outcomes of
NAFTA, and the deliberate exploitation of foreign workers in Latin America, all serve as
examples of the dominance of economic considerations in response to immigration.
Lastly, recent literature suggests that the current outlook and implications of immigration
will be decided upon the basis of economics as well.
While scholarship analyzing immigration history in the 19th and 20th centuries has
suggested a rise of immigration for economic growth and capitalist profitability,
scholarship focusing upon the immigration trends of the 21st century seems to suggest a
restriction of immigration in an effort to maintain economic stability. Nonetheless, it is
clear that the perpetuation of immigration flows and immigration policy will be decided
by economic considerations.
Works Cited
Brettell, Caroline B., and Faith G. Nibbs. "Immigrant Suburban Settlement and the
“Threat” to Middle Class Status and Identity: The Case of Farmers Branch,
Texas." International Migration 49.1 (2011): 1-30. Wiley Online Library. Web.
20 Mar. 2014.
Browning, Anjali. "Corn, Tomatoes, and a Dead Dog: Mexican Agricultural
Restructuring after NAFTA and Rural Responses to Declining Maize Production
in Oaxaca, Mexico." Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos 29.1 (2013): 85-119.
JSTOR. Web. 19 Mar. 2014.
Fernández, Dídimo C., and Adrián S. Valencia. "Outsourcing and the New Labor
Precariousness in Latin America." Latin American Perspectives 40.5 (2013): 14-
26. JSTOR. Web. 20 Mar. 2014.
Hu-Dehart, Evelyn. "Chinatowns and Borderlands: Inter-Asian Encounters in the
Diaspora." Modern Asian Studies 46.2 (2012): 425-51. JSTOR. Web. 19 Mar.
2014.
Kandel, William. "Restructuring of the US Meat Processing Industry and New Hispanic
Migrant Destinations." Population and Development Review 31.3 (2005): 447-71.
JSTOR. Web. 19 Mar. 2014.
Kang, S. Deborah. "Implementation: How the Borderlands Redefined Federal
Immigration Law and Policy in California, Arizona, and Texas, 1917-1924."
California Legal History 7.245 (2012): 245-86. HeinOnline. Web. 19 Mar. 2014.
Kramer, Paul A. "Power and Connection: Imperial Histories of the United States and the
World." American Historical Review 116.5 (2011): 1348-391. Oxford Journals.
Web. 19 Mar. 2014.
Mei, June. "Socioeconomic Origins of Emigration: Guangdong to California, 1850-
1882." Modern China 5.4 (1979): 463-501. JSTOR. Sage Publications, Inc. Web.
19 Mar. 2014.
Misra, Joya, Jonathan Woodring, and Sabine N. Merz. "The Globalization of Care Work:
Neoliberal Economic Restructuring and Migration Policy." Globalizations 3.3
(2006): 317-32. Taylor & Francis Online. Web. 20 Mar. 2014.
Rodríguez, Cristina M. "Immigration, Civil Rights & the Evolution of the People."
Daedalus 142.3 (2013): 228-41. JSTOR. The MIT Press. Web. 20 Mar. 2014.
Viruell-Fuentes, Edna A. "“My Heart Is Always There”: The Transnational Practices Of
First-Generation Mexican Immigrant And Second-Generation Mexican American
Women." Identities 13.3 (2006): 335-62. Taylor & Francis Online. Web. 20 Mar. 2014.