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.