M.A. Labor Studies thesis: US Immigration Law, The Evolution of Ethnic Economies, and Family and Class Relations

US Immigration Law, The Evolution of Ethnic Economies, and Family and Class Relations

Stephen Cheng

City University of New York – Joseph S. Murphy Institute

1

Introduction

Due to changes in the immigration policies of the United States government

during the later twentieth century, migratory social networks and ethnic economies took

shape as immigrant communities became established in urban environments such as the

one in New York City. The link between the migration networks on one hand and the

ethnic economies on the other hand is chain migration, in which fellow immigrants assist

one another with moving from the sending country into the host country. A process that is

somewhat akin to a relay race, it entails the ability of an immigrant who has already

settled into the host country to assist with the migration of subsequent newcomers.

Simultaneously and likewise, this pattern of migration, which constitutes the

networks of migration, allows for a form of economic integration in which newly arrived

immigrants work for employers who also have immigrant backgrounds, therefore

pointing to the basic relationships that form systems of ethnic economy. Concretely

speaking, the developments of such migration networks and these ethnic economies are

exemplified by Chinese, Indian, and Mexican immigration. All three immigration trends

also serve as case studies for the present paper. Additionally, the aforementioned

immigration policies affected these trends and thus the migratory networks and ethnic

economies that these same trends came to include.

Two laws, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1965 and the

Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, will be the focus of this

paper. The paper will begin with sections that focus on the INA and the IRCA. With

regard to the laws, their histories and provisions will come in for special attention.

Included as well is a discussion on migratory social networks, followed by discussions of

2

the case studies. Some concluding remarks and reflections round out this paper.

Chain migration and its relationship with the INA and the IRCA

A key feature of the migratory social networks is chain migration. It is a process

in which interpersonal ties such as family relationships allow an immigrant in the host

country to assist with the arrival of a fellow immigrant from the sending country

(Khandelwal, 2002, p. 32-33.). They serve as information conduits as to employment and

small business opportunities, thus producing and maintaining the ethnic economy, and

populate the enclaves. Although these networks can and have independently developed

due to the actions and relationships of immigrants, outside factors such as legal ones may

also play crucial roles.

Thus, in the cases of Chinese and Indian immigration since 1965, the INA played

no small role in contributing to chain migration and, accordingly, contributed to the

formation and evolution of Chinatown, Flushing, the Little Indias of Manhattan and

Queens boroughs, and other communities along with the formation of their systems of

ethnic economy. Indeed, the INA and its relationship to chain migration-based patterns

deeply influenced the way these communities presently exist.

As for Mexican immigration, such networks were established long before the

legislative changes of the 1980s. Since the early 20th century, labor recruitment efforts

transpired that were aimed at involving Mexican migrants in work such as farm labor

(Martinez, 2001, p. 7-13). The IRCA, through its offer of amnesty, reinforced those

networks. One may even say that the INA and the IRCA proved to be indispensable in

light of how the aforementioned communities began anew or remade themselves and how

New York City has changed in demographic and socioeconomic terms.

3

For instance, if not for the INA’s 1965 passage and the subsequent end of the

national origins preferences of the previous McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, preferences

which exclusively favored northwestern European immigrants, Asian immigration would

not have increased so considerably. The Chinatown of Manhattan borough would have

probably remained a community of male immigrants who are single and/or supporting

families back in China via remittances. Likewise, Indian immigration would have

amounted to a mere trickle, thus preventing the substantial arrival of graduate students

and professionals that specialize in science and engineering along with the subsequent

migration of their relatives, some who may have similar academic and work backgrounds

and some who do not. The Indian immigrant enclaves of New York City, then, would not

have existed. Additionally, without the IRCA of 1986, a significant number of

immigrants from Mexico and other countries would have remained undocumented and

thus stay confined to the “underground” or “shadow” sectors of the ethnic and/or

mainstream economies

In general and in short, then, the immigration trends that these laws made possible

have been of fundamental importance in an evolving urban environment such as that of

New York City. However, the legislative history goes beyond the INA, the IRCA, and the

second half of the twentieth century. That history is the focus of the following section.

US immigration policies during the 19th and 20th centuries

Early US immigration policies, which is to say the policies of the late 19th and

early 20th centuries, became highly restrictive vis-à-vis the movement of migrants.

In the case of Asian immigration, some major examples include the Chinese Exclusion

Act (1882), the “gentleman’s agreement” with Japan (1907-1908), the policy of the

4

“barred zone” in relation to most of Asia (1917), the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act

(1924), and the McCarran-Walter Act (1952) (Light and Bonacich 1988, p. 129). All

these laws maintained a basic exclusionary stance. The Chinese Exclusion Act set a ban

on additional Chinese immigrants whereas the “gentleman’s agreement” between the

Japanese and US governments, the “barred zone” policy, and the Johnson-Reed

Immigration Act maintained ongoing restrictions on Asian immigration in general.

Furthermore, the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 gave official preference to northwestern

European immigration and thus consolidated the provisions and effects of the previous

laws. In a sense, one can say that these laws reflect a widely held consensus within

mainstream US society and government that was aimed at the exclusion of immigrants.

Examples include the various efforts by “native”-born citizens calling for the exclusion,

indeed expulsion, of immigrants of different Asian nationalities.

However, the general direction of US immigration policy changed after the

Second World War. Postwar public attitudes turned against the exclusionary nature of

the previous immigration legislation. Such perspectives, prominent during the 1950s and

early 1960s extended beyond the general public and into the legislative and executive

branches as then-US presidents such as Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon

B. Johnson inveighed against the immigration restrictions, restrictions which appeared in

their most recent form via the McCarran-Walter Act. Truman, for one, said,

At the present time, this quota system keeps out the very people we want to bring in. It is incredible to me that, in this year of 1952, we should again be enacting into law such a slur on patriotism, the capacity, and the decency of a large part of our citizenry. (Reimers, 1992, p. 61)

But although Truman publicly stated his dissatisfaction with the McCarran-Walter

Act, no actual move towards immigration reform took place until the early-to-mid 1960s.

In those years, Kennedy saw through the reform efforts that culminated in the

5

INA. In July 1963, he made a proposal for reform before the US Congress in which he

called for the end of the “discriminatory racial ancestry provisions” as well as the “small

Asian national quotas” over the span of five years and the introduction of the INA’s

provisions in due time (Reimers, 1992, p. 63). Within that five-year period, the national

quotas for Asian immigration would considerably increase. However, Kennedy did not

expand the quotas for immigration in the Western Hemisphere such as Latin America and

the Caribbean – in fact, the nonquota status for the Western Hemisphere remained

(Reimers, 1992, p. 63-64).

This dual aim of ending the ban on Asian immigration while blocking

immigration from the Western Hemisphere lasted into Johnson’s term, thus becoming

part of the final version of the INA (Reimers, 1992, p. 76). Also, coincidentally or not,

the bracero program ended in 1964 due to public outcry over its poor working

conditions. Nevertheless, Mexican immigration continued, but this time without

documentation. In this way, although US government leaders effectively set the stage for

increased Asian immigration, they also contributed to the limiting of Latin American

immigration. In terms of immigration from Latin America, the road was thus paved for

greater undocumented immigration. Certainly, immigration from Mexico was likely to be

of an undocumented nature, especially with the abolition of the bracero program.

The changing tide in public opinion, passionate legislative debate, and the openly

voiced stances of US officials thus culminated in the passage of the INA in 1965. This

law became a major turning point in the history of US immigration policy and, indeed,

the history of immigration to the country as the previously existing McCarran-Walter

Act’s preferences for northwestern European immigrants gave way to acceptance,

6

although limited, of Asian immigration, such as immigrants from China and India.

Essentially, one quota system replaced another. Nevertheless, the consequences

were profound. As Yang (2010) writes,

Asian immigration has been an integral part of immigration to theUnited States since the mid-nineteenth century and one of the two dominant sources of

post-1965 immigration to America. Before the 1965 immigration reform, more than one million Asians have immigrated to this land of opportunity. Since 1965, over nine million Asians have immigrated to this land of opportunity. (p. 1)

Mexican immigration remained excluded due to the end of the bracero program in 1964.

But by the mid-1980s, the IRCA played a role in alleviating that exclusion to some

extent. It did so, namely, through the offering of amnesty to at least three million

immigrants who lacked documentation. A discussion of the relevant technical details of

these laws follows in the section below.

The technical details of the INA and the IRCA

The INA did away with the institutionalized preference for immigrants from

northwestern Europe. It therefore opened the doors for immigrants from other European

regions as well as non-European ones. In terms of the latter, or more precisely countries

that lie outside of Europe, China and India became major sending countries. One sign of

the prominence of China and India as two key sources of immigration since the INA’s

passage is the quantitative increase of post-1965 Chinese and Indian immigration. But,

qualitatively, Chinese and Indian immigration also became, in terms of socioeconomic

class divisions, multi-tiered phenomena.

This differentiation in socioeconomic terms is attributable to provisions within the

INA. In point of fact, these provisions made the INA into a law of fundamental

importance in the history of immigration to the US. The provisions were the emphasis on

7

the promotion of family unity and the aim of attracting immigrants with professional-

level backgrounds as well as immigrants who may work as unskilled or skilled workers

as per the demands, needs, and conditions of the US labor market and therefore the

country’s economy. The INA outlines these provisions via seven preferences:

1st preference: Unmarried sons and daughters of US citizens (20% maximum).2nd preference: Spouse and unmarried sons and daughters of aliens admitted for legal residence

(20% along with those not required under the first preference).3rd preference: Professionals, scientists, and artists of exceptional abilities (10% maximum).

4th preference: Married sons and daughters of US citizens (10% along with those not required under the first, second, and third preferences).

5th preference: Brothers and sisters of US citizens (24% along with those not required for the first four preferences).

6th preference: Skilled and unskilled workers for which US labor is in short supply (10% maximum).

7th preference: Refugees (6% maximum).(Khandelwal 2002, p. 11; Varma, 2006, p. 20-21)

The INA’s prioritization of family unity was grounded in the first, second, fourth, and

fifth preferences. Immigrants who became permanent residents or citizens could sponsor

the arrival of children, spouses, and siblings. The official goal of promoting family

unification thus permitted the growing prevalence of chain migration. Additionally,

despite the INA’s allowance of a maximum amount of 20,000 visas for applicants from

any country in a year, family members were not included in this quota (Varma, 2006, p.

21). Theoretically and practically, then, the INA did not impose limits on chain

migration. Accordingly, Chinese and Indian immigrants incorporated chain migration

into the migratory social networks that they used to relocate to the US. In statistical terms,

80 percent of the total number of immigrants who have entered the US due to the INA’s

family unification provision count themselves as members of the immediate family

household or as relatives of those who are already in the country as permanent residents

or citizens (Zhou, 1992, p. 49). The provision on bringing in immigrants based on their

8

working backgrounds would also have significant effects.

As for the aim of bringing in immigrants with professional backgrounds, that goal

became clear in the third and sixth preferences. However, the sixth preference also

allowed for the entry of workers who may or will hold down “manual” or “blue collar”

employment positions, jobs that are generally classified as “working class.” In this way,

immigrants admitted under the INA came to have different socioeconomic backgrounds.

Depending on US economic conditions, immigrants could enter the country and work as

professionals, skilled workers, or unskilled workers. The results were the arrival of

immigrants with diverse socioeconomic backgrounds as well as the placement of these

immigrants in different positions within the US class system.

In practical terms, these preferences, all enshrined in the INA, greatly influenced

post-1965 Asian immigration processes. Indeed, the INA’s passage proved to be a

“significant milestone in the history of immigration to the United States” (Zhou, 1992, p.

41). This designation certainly applies to immigration from Asian countries such as

China and India to the US. However, immigration from countries in the Western

Hemisphere, or Latin America, such as Mexico turned out to be a different story.

In the case of Mexican immigration, at roughly the same time that the INA

became law, the bracero program came to an end. The program’s abolition contributed to

growing rates of undocumented immigration from Mexico to the US. By 1986, the IRCA

became a partial answer to the situation of immigrants who lacked documentation by

introducing a three-pronged approach. Those three core provisions were:

1) the stepping up of border control, 2) amnesty for around three million immigrants who lacked documentation, 3) the imposition of fines upon employers who knew that the immigrants they hired

were not documented.

9

(Donato, Aguilera, Wakabayashi, 2005, p. 7-8)

The law’s own provisions made clear a dual approach that simultaneously excluded and

included immigrants. The exclusionary aspects are clear in the first and third provisions.

However, the second provision allowed for limited inclusion.

Such regulation did not amount to a complete shutdown of the country’s borders.

Some undocumented immigrants had legal permission to stay whereas others were not

allowed to do so. Nevertheless, some writers hailed this simultaneous opening and

closing of the borders via the IRCA as “the most sweeping revision of U.S. immigration

policy since 1965 when the national origins quota system was abolished” (Sorensen and

Bean, 1994, p. 2). The immigrants who benefited the most from the amnesty provision

were those with roots in Mexico. Out of the more than 3 million applications that came

in, there were 2.3 million applications which Mexican immigrants submitted (Sorensen

and Bean, 1994, p. 13). Furthermore, the provision of amnesty allowed immigrants to

travel freely across borders, thus allowing them to help with the migration of family

members, friends, etc. Through a single provision, the IRCA reinforced chain migration

patterns between Mexico and the US. These networks also assisted Mexican immigrants

in terms of finding employment, thus making relevant the questions of ethnic economy.

Likewise, these issues became just as relevant for Chinese and Indian immigrants as well

as immigrants from other countries.

Migratory social networks and ethnic economies

Although the INA and the IRCA admitted more immigrants, persistent prejudice

and the changing nature of the economy, or in the words of Rumbaut (1994), the

development of an “hourglass economy” (p. 583), meant that these laws were only of so

10

much help to these immigrants. The laws provided entry but gave little in the way of

assistance for adjusting to the host society in general and finding employment within that

society in particular. Therefore, immigrants had to rely on means that lie within the

neighborhoods they have settled in.

Given the exclusion that immigrants face, the communities that they are likely to

be confined to can be considered “ethnic enclaves.” These enclaves provide a somewhat

friendlier and more suitable environment for immigrants to live and even thrive in,

especially in a host society that may not be particularly welcoming. One way is through

the availability of employment opportunities within the enclaves themselves, thus

pointing to the formation and existence of socioeconomic systems known as ethnic

economies in which immigrants work with and for immigrants. These enclaves also serve

as “gathering” and “receiving” points for recently arrived immigrants, thus working as

nodes and conduits for chain migration. Chain migration is, in turn, relevant to how the

ethnic economies operate.

One important way in which migratory social networks function in the ethnic

economies is through the exchange of information on employment and business

opportunities. The transmission of such information occurs through “word of mouth”

among colleagues, friends, relatives, and other people as well as through community

newspapers and posters and fliers on the walls of various local, enclave-based stores

(Khandelwal, 2002, p. 39-40). Indeed, this flow of information through informal,

personal networks has also translated into the use of connections so as to find work

and/or credit.

Beyond and aside from information, these networks thus provide a labor pool as

11

well as informal access to credit for starting small businesses (Light and Bonacich, 1988,

p. 243-272). Taking one example that illustrates both of these functions, an immigrant

who decides to open a restaurant, a grocery store, or a stationery store may borrow

money from a rotating credit association and recruit family members (and possibly

immigrants of the same heritage) to assist with day-by-day operations. As a result, the

immigrant communities serve in part as sites for ethnic economies which exist

alongside the mainstream economy of the greater society. All the above details

corroborate a key and general observation that Roger Waldinger (2003) makes,

“Networks tying veterans to newcomers allow for rapid transmission of information

about openings in workplaces or opportunities for new business start-ups” (p. 343). This

insight has held true in the past as well as the present. Likewise and therefore, these

networks have long been indispensable for the activeness of ethnic economies.

In terms of US history, ethnic economies have existed since the late nineteenth

and twentieth centuries. During that time period, especially as the 1880s and 1890s

passed into the 1900s, 1910s, and 1920s, immigrants from southern and eastern Europe

moved to the country, settled into urban areas such as New York City’s Lower East Side,

and participated in an industrial capitalist society as wage laborers under sweatshop

conditions. The industries that they worked in included garment production. More often

than not, they worked under the supervision of immigrants from the same European

regions who ran the garment factories as well as other industrial worksites (Ewen, 1985,

p. 60-74 and p. 241-262; Takaki, 1993, p. 288-293). Similar patterns transpired in more

recent decades, during the later 20th century and early 21st century, on account of the

INA. This time, however, the US-bound immigration originated from other parts of the

12

world. The IRCA also aided the trend of non-European immigration in the 1980s.

But setting aside the changes over time in the geographic origins of immigration

from the late 19th century to the mid-to-late 20th century, the developmental trends of

actually existing ethnic economies also differed. Examples include the case studies for

this paper: Chinese, Indian, and Mexican immigration. Before 1965, Chinese immigrants

established and managed hand laundries and restaurants. Yet soon after that year, they

also expanded into garment production. In fact, within New York City’s Chinatown,

garment making eclipsed the laundries. Real estate and finance became prominent as

well. As for Indian immigration, before 1965, the majority of the Indian immigrant

population in the country consisted of unskilled laborers and a small number of

professionals. After 1965, more professionals with specialties in science and engineering

arrived to the country, although there were also Indian newcomers who became small-

time entrepreneurs or “blue collar” workers. This process of a “sorting out” of the Indian

immigrant population certainly played out in New York City. Finally, as for Mexican

workers, they found work in industries such as garment manufacturing, restaurants, and

landscaping. In New York City, they worked in the first two industrial sectors among

others. Detailed discussion of these three case studies follows, beginning with Chinese

immigration.

Chinese immigration

Before 1965: A general historical overview

Substantial Chinese immigration to the US dates back to the 1840s and 1850s.

During those decades, Chinese immigrants from Guangzhou in the Guangdong Province

arrived upon the country’s shores. With the state of California as a key example, these

13

immigrants worked in mining, railroad and building construction, farming, and

manufacturing (Kwong, 2001, p. 30-36). In light of the industries where they found

employment opportunities, 19th century Chinese immigrants occupied the lower rungs of

the country’s socioeconomic ladder and thus became part of the working class. They soon

also became targets of racial prejudice as US politicians, trade unionists, and other

individuals across the political spectrum treated them as economic scapegoats (Kwong,

2001, p. 22-26).

Such discrimination gave way to outright exclusion via legislation such as the

Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 along with the general expulsion of Chinese immigrant

workers from the mainstream economy. As Saxton (1995) writes, “The numerous

expulsions of Chinese from mine camps and the anti-Chinese ordinances written into the

codes of local mining districts duplicated actions already taken against blacks” (p. 19).

These immigrants, forced out of “respectable” US society, had no other choice but to

establish their own settlements within an unfriendly host country. As a result, this

socioeconomic reality contributed to the rise of “Chinatown” communities. The Chinese

immigrant ethnic economies arose within these Chinatowns. Furthermore, the

populations of the Chinatown communities mainly consisted of single men who intended

to save up their incomes and return to China and men who supported families through

remittances (Zhou, 1992, p. 18-40; Kwong, 2001, p. 88-91). The Chinatown of New York

City was no exception.

In New York City’s Chinatown, some immigrants became new small-time

entrepreneurs by founding ethnically owned and operated businesses such as hand

laundries and restaurants (Kwong, 2001, p. 45-91; Lin, 1998, p. 24-32; Zhou, 1992, p.

14

33-36). Those immigrants who did not establish such businesses worked for those who

did. Thus, the Chinatown of New York City had its own small class of small business

owners and a working class, both bound by commonly held ethnic ties and existing

outside of the mainstream US economy and socioeconomic class system.

This state of affairs remained fairly consistent over the course of the first half of

the twentieth century, although in 1949 and shortly afterward there were cases of

additional Chinese immigration. A second wave of immigration transpired during the late

1940s and early 1950s when Chinese nationals from professional middle-class

backgrounds fled the nascent People’s Republic of China (acronym: PRC) because of

political problems such as repression by the government (Zhou, 1992, p. 36-37). Also, by

the mid-1960s, a third wave occurred due to the INA’s passage. The result was a drastic

change in the demographics of Chinatown.

Chinese immigration since 1965: General effects of the INA

The INA’s passage greatly altered the character of Chinese immigration. Ever

since the mid-1960s, Chinese immigrants of different socioeconomic and regional

backgrounds relocated to the US. The varied class backgrounds show the multi-tiered

structure of post-1965 Chinese immigration while the expanded range of regional origins

illustrate the growing demographic diversity of the migrant population. In the case of

New York City’s Chinatown, once consisting mostly of Cantonese-speaking immigrants

from the Guangdong Province, it began to have immigrants from Fuzhou in Fujian

Province, Wenzhou in Zhejiang Province, and other regions in China.

Furthermore, immigrants of Chinese origin did not just come from the PRC, but

also Hong Kong (still a British colony prior to its 1997 reunification with the PRC) and

15

Taiwan (officially known as the Republic of China because of the aftermath and results

of the Chinese Civil War that concluded in the mid-to-late 1940s) (Zhou, 1992, p. 42-45).

However, Taiwanese immigrants tended to settle into Flushing, Queens (Zhou, 1992, p.

190-191; Chen, 1992, p. 41). The Flushing community developed independently of

Chinatown. However, Lin (1998) has referred to Flushing as a “satellite Chinatown” (p.

116-117). From one angle, then, Chinese immigration since the INA’s passage can be

thought of as a collection of trends in light of the various geographic origins of ethnically

Chinese newcomers. One way or the other, though, these trends share a common basis.

For instance, the post-1965 immigrants tended to come over with family members

and/or sponsored the later arrival of relatives. In this way, social networks of chain

migration vis-à-vis post-1965 Chinese immigration came into existence and operation

and helped with the increase of the number of immigrants in country. Such developments

occurred with the sanction of the INA and their efforts became felt in urban areas such as

New York City. According to Zhou (1992), the growth in the immigrant population was

considerable, “In New York City, the Chinese population grew from 33,000 in 1960 to

124,372 in 1980, by census count” (p. 45). There is little doubt that this population

increase affected the ethnic economy and the demographics of Chinatown.

Since the 1960s: Economic profiles of Chinatown and other Chinese immigrant communities along with a few observations on the geography of Chinese immigration

The INA affected the composition of the Chinatown population. Before 1965,

Chinatown was primarily a community of adult males who only planned on temporarily

staying in the US but after that year it began hosting more immigrant family households

(Zhou, 1992, p. 79-81). Furthermore, and not surprisingly, the post-1965 influx of

immigrants amounted to a burgeoning labor force and consumer base for Chinatown’s

16

entrepreneurs (Zhou, 1992, p. 98-99). The Chinatown ethnic economy thus evolved after

1965 because of the INA. In the course of this evolutionary process, many immigrants

became wage laborers in the Chinatown ethnic economy. They were likely to work under

sweatshop conditions and, depending on how they planned and financed their journeys,

some of them were also at the mercy of “snakehead” human smugglers (Kwong, 1997, p.

69-90). Still others started and ran businesses.

In the years since 1965, then, more people became available to staff the garment

factories and restaurants among other industries. The hand laundries of pre-1965

Chinatown faded in significance while the restaurant industry continued to grow.

Simultaneously, real estate, finance, banking, garment production, street vending, and

grocery and gift sales became prominent (Wong, 2002, p. 37-56). The existence of

finance and real estate alongside the restaurant, retail, and garment making operations

demonstrates the multi-tiered nature of post-1965 Chinese immigration as well as the

existence of a dual labor market within Chinatown’s ethnic economy. While

professionals became involved in the former group of economic operations, small ethnic

entrepreneurs and workers became associated with the latter. As for the dual labor market,

finance and real estate made up the primary sector and restaurants, garment making, and

retail constituted the secondary sector (Piore, 1979, p. 35-43, p. 44-45, p. 47). Lin (1998)

has referred to this division between primary and secondary sector economic enterprises

as an indicator of Chinatown’s position as a “nexus of transnational and local capital” (p.

79).To set the above post-1965 economic developments in concrete terms,

garment production, one of the more prominent examples of local capital, has been

17

located in Chinatown, but also in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, which became a working class

Chinese immigrant neighborhood (Lin, 1998, p. 117-120). As for transnational capital,

which generally encompasses industries such as finance and real estate, professional-

background immigrants from Hong Kong and Taiwan came to be important. In the case

of immigrants from Hong Kong, their move to the US helped contribute to the growing

prominence of Chinese-managed banking and real estate ventures, especially within

Manhattan (Lin, 1992, p. 87-88). Likewise, Taiwanese immigrants also contributed to the

growing prominence of financial and real estate investments (in the case of latter, hotel

development counts as one example) in Flushing, Queens (Lin, 1992, p. 116-117).

Yet even with these changes in the population and ethnic economy of Chinatown

and other Chinese immigrant communities, some of the “basics” remained. One of the

essentials is, namely, the ongoing importance of personal networks for employment

searches and/or starting businesses. The use of migratory social networks for economic

purposes also speaks to issues of ethnic economy and socioeconomic class.

Socioeconomic class relations of post-1965 Chinese immigration and the relevance of ethnic and family ties

Concerning the political economy of the Chinatowns that developed across the

US since the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Lin (1998) concisely and aptly refers to

these communities as having been, historically and currently, “enclaves of petty

capitalism and proletarian labor” alike (p. 23). This insight is important because of the

pre-1965 history of Chinatown, in which the then-predominant small hand laundry

businesses represented just such a combination. The entrepreneurs who opened and ran

the hand laundries were small business owners who usually sent their incomes to the

18

home country as remittances (Kwong, 2001, p. 88-91). Furthermore, in his history of

Chinatown prior to 1965, Kwong (2001) observes that hand laundry owners tended to

work alongside their employees and in the process these employees were likely to

identify with their employers -- this collective self-identification stymied the organizing

efforts of left-wing political activists and trade unionists (p. 73-74). It also survived into

the later 20th century (Kwong, 1997, p. 113-124). But, at least in more recent decades,

despite immigrant employers’ appeals to cross-class ethnic solidarity, workers’ rebellions

still occurred due to issues such as abysmal wages, wage theft, enforcement (or lack

thereof) of labor laws, and poor working conditions (Lin, 1998, p. 57-78). Nevertheless,

working-class Chinatown residents were thus part of a socioeconomic structure defined

by socioeconomic divisions as well as ethnic, cultural, and national unity.

In light of Chinese immigrants’ positions within the ethnic economy, a

complicated set of socioeconomic class relationships developed. Such an evolution of

class relations is attributable in no small part to the fundamental link between family ties

and migratory networks. The connections that social networks based on chain migration

have proven to be highly useful, even invaluable, for landing a job within the Chinatown

ethnic economy. As Lin (1998) writes,

Strong ties of ethnicity, kinship, and paternalistic social relations nevertheless permeate workplace affairs in the garment and restaurant sweatshops. Immigrant Chinese workers obtain

employment largely through word of mouth and social connections. (p. 57)

Likewise, Kwong (1997) relates the importance of “kinship networks” to late 20th century

Chinese migration patterns, job seeking efforts among immigrants, and the establishment

of family-run immigrant businesses, all of which have come together in an interlocking

fashion (p. 13, p. 91-95). For instance, a Chinese immigrant entrepreneur may sponsor

the migration of relatives so as to help run a business. Wong (2002) sets this example in

19

concrete terms, citing cases of family members (e.g., spouses, siblings, children) assisting

owners with the management of a restaurant or a garment production plant (p. 52-55). All

these cases confirm Zhou’s (1992) observation of the tendency of Chinatown-based

businesses to be family owned and run (p. 101). The general result has been the shaping

of an alternate economic system with its own set of class relations, defined by ethnic and

family ties. Similar developments informed post-1965 Indian immigration.

Indian immigration

Pre-1965 Indian immigration: A general historical overview

Before the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, relatively few

Indian immigrants came to the US. The pre-1965 US-based Indian immigrant population

was thus miniscule. The “first phase” of Indian immigration began in the late 1700s and

lasted up to 1945 (Varma, 2006, p. 15-19). These Indian immigrants, a group that

included migrants from present-day Pakistan and Bangladesh, found themselves in urban

environments such as Harlem in New York City where they tended to become part of

communities consisting of other ethnic minorities (Bald, 2013. p. 1-10). Like their

Chinese immigrant counterparts, they also faced considerable ethnic and racial prejudice,

and thus exclusion. For the most part, that population consisted primarily of unskilled

workers (Varma, 2006, p. 15-19; Bald, 2013, p. 3-5). The socioeconomic profile of the

Indian immigrant population started to change with the passage of the Luce-Cellar

Act in 1946, when the US government established a yearly quota of 100 Indian

immigrants. As a result, between 1946 and 1964, Indian immigrants with scientific and

technical backgrounds came to the country (Varma, 2006, p. 19-24; Varma, 2010, p.

1064-1073). Soon after 1965, the demographic realities of Indian immigration changed

20

considerably as the INA greatly increased the quota. This time around, the quota per year

for any given country was 20,000. Additionally, the INA’s provisions allowed for the

entrance of Indian immigrants with professional backgrounds and the initiation of chain

migration patterns by these professionals via the sponsoring of family members.

Indian immigration since 1965: General effects of the INA

After the INA went into effect, Indian immigration increased tremendously. This

growth in immigration rates occurred from the 1960s to the 1990s. Citing some statistics,

Varma (2006) writes on the increase,

[B]etween 1965 and 1970, the percentage of immigrants born in India increased more than that of newcomers from any other country. For instance, the number of Asian Indian immigrants

skyrocketed from 467 in 1965 to 8,795 in 1970. Between 1971 and 1980, 164,134 Asian Indians were admitted, followed by another 250,786 between 1981 and 1990. The 1980 Census recorded 387,223 Asian Indians, whereas the 1990 Census recorded 815,447 Asian Indians, an increase of

125 percent. (p. 21)

Due to INA preferences for family unification and immigrants with professional abilities,

Indian immigrants with science and engineering credentials and/or working experience as

well as science and engineering graduate students arrived to the US. The case of post-

1965 Indian immigration to the US in general and New York City in particular became a

story of two different immigrant trends, with one happening after the other but still

sharing a common basis.

This twofold development has been as much a product of the INA’s preferences

in practice as it has been a result of the history, political economy, and the public

education system of mid-to-late 20th century India. The INA’s provisions, as mentioned

above, allowed for the entrance of immigrants with professional backgrounds as well as

the arrival of family members of legal residents and citizens. As for India, although that

country’s educational institutions retained Western scientific training and research, both

21

legacies of the British Empire, its underdeveloped economy at the time, during the 1950s

and 1960s, was unable to absorb, year after year, newly graduated students with high-

level backgrounds in the “STEM” fields: science, technology, engineering, and/or

mathematics (Varma, 2006, p. 38). For these budding scientists, the employment options

in India amounted to underemployment if not unemployment (Fisher, 1980, p. 12). The

alternate choice was emigration, although this begged the question as to where.

The INA’s passage provided just such an answer. As Varma (2006) notes,

[T]he 1965 Act gave priority to the economic needs of the United States by admitting immigrants based on their level of knowledge or ability to do jobs that U.S. employers had been unable to fill

with U.S. citizens. This change in immigration policy coincided with the introduction of the Sputnik program in the Soviet Union, the growth of a new generation of high-technology

industries, the high demand for technical labor, and a perceived shortage of skilled workers in the United States. (p. 21)

Although the Indian economy might not have had room for a burgeoning professional

class of research scientists, computer programmers, information technology specialists,

mathematicians, medical doctors, and engineers, the US economy did. Likewise, the US,

as a leading world power at this point in time, had to take into account Cold War rivalry

with the former Soviet Union and recruit all the help it needed. Therefore, the US

urgently needed immigrants with scientific and technical expertise. Its demand ran high.

Indian nationals with such backgrounds met that demand. Even Indian immigrants who

still had to or wished to complete graduate studies in the STEM subjects were welcome.

In fact, as Varma (2010) notes,

The United States, as the center of graduate education in [science and engineering] fields, has been pulling students from India. After China and Taiwan, India is the major country of origin for

foreign doctoral graduate students in the United States, with approximately 90 million in its college age cohort. Between 1985 and 2005, students from India have earned more than 18,500 S&E doctoral degrees at U.S. universities mainly in engineering, biological sciences, physical

sciences, and computer sciences. (p. 1072)

In a sense, India’s actually existing professional class, along with its professional class-

22

to-be in the form of STEM graduate students, became an export to the country.

As per INA preferences, then, many Indian immigrants entered the US as

professionals or as graduate students. Indian students themselves also considered

graduate-level STEM studies in the US to be advantageous for their careers, and so they

willingly migrated. Furthermore, given Indian immigrant professionals’ strong “human

capital” advantages, namely extensive science and engineering backgrounds coupled with

proficiency in the English language, mainstream US science and engineering firms

eagerly hired them.

The relative ease that these Indian professionals had in terms of finding

employment in the science and engineering industries did not translate into equal

opportunity and respect within the workplace. Implicit racial and ethnic discrimination

continued to exist in the form of glass ceilings, thus obstructing opportunities for

advancement. Many of these highly trained and educated Indian immigrants, frustrated

with the glass ceilings they faced in their workplaces, broke off and started their own

firms, specializing in information technology, computer programming, cellular phones,

engineering etc (Varma, 2010, p. 1064 and 1067-1068). Indeed, one can even say that, at

least as of the 1990s, an “entrepreneurial culture” developed among these Indian

immigrant professionals in science and engineering who became founders of their own

technology companies (Varma, 2010, p. 1066-1068).

The rise of this business-oriented culture among Indian immigrant professionals

also became evident in the kinds of social networks that they cultivated. Varma (2006)

touches on the ties these professionals share with their university-based US counterparts

as well as professional associations with either a worldwide reach or a focus on assisting

23

fellow Indian immigrants with professional backgrounds (e.g., the Indus Entrepreneurs

and the Silicon Valley Indian Professionals Association) (p. 41-42). The entrepreneurial

culture that flourished thus led to the growing interconnectedness of the social networks

that Indian professionals relied on as well as the consequent merging of formal and

informal aspects of those networks. The increase in social connectivity is already evident

in light of the involvement with professional associations, but the combination of formal

and informal social ties is significant. For instance, two colleagues who have been in

communication on workplace- and industry- related for several years may also join the

same professional association later on. In this way, a high-end, professional ethnic

economy becomes a reality.

However, not all Indian immigrants had such elite socioeconomic backgrounds.

Although the initial post-1965 wave of Indian immigrants did in fact consist of

professionals and STEM students who would become professionals, this state of affairs

changed in the following decades. The seeds of class division within the Indian

immigrant population were sown through chain migration. As the first post-1965 wave of

mostly professional immigrants sponsored the arrival of relatives who did not have such

elite backgrounds. Likewise, those Indian professionals who arrived some time after the

initial post-1965 wave did not necessarily find as much ample opportunities for finding

professional-level work, in light of “hourglass economy” conditions, and thus became

downwardly mobile. Beyond the mid-to-late 1960s and 1970s and into the 1980s and

1990s, the differences became more apparent as New York City’s Indian immigrant

communities encompassed wealthy entrepreneurs and professionals on one side and

working class and middle class people on the other (Khandelwal, 2002, p. 6).

24

Finally, the last significant piece of US immigration legislation that affected

Indian migration was the H-1B program that began in 1990. Essentially a guest worker

program for science and engineering professionals which Indian immigrants were able to

apply to, it granted 65,000 visas per year. However, the numbers of visas given yearly in

1999, 2000, 2001, and 2003 increased to six figures. 2002 saw a temporary return to the

original figure of 65,000 visas, whereas 2004 saw a permanent return. Although this

program, in effect, was certainly advantageous for the US information technology

industry in particular and the country’s economy in general, the existence of

“casualization” trends within the workplace and the labor process pointed to a different

set of socioeconomic conditions for immigrants themselves (Rudrappa, 2008, p. 295-298).

The geography of Indian immigration in New York City and economic profiles of the Little Indias and other Indian immigrant communities

Members of the “first wave” of professional immigration settled into various,

disparate areas of the country such as Silicon Valley in California, upstate New York,

New Jersey, Connecticut, etc., all of which host engineering, information technology,

and/or computer industries (Lessinger, 1995, p. 17-20). In New York City, they

first moved to Lexington Avenue in Manhattan, home of the first “Little India,” before

they expanded into various neighborhoods in Queens such as Elmhurst, Jackson Heights

(home of the second “Little India”), Corona, and Flushing. They also moved onward into

nearby suburban communities in regions such as Long Island (Khandelwal, 2002, p. 7;

Lessinger, 1995, p. 17-20). Later Indian immigrants, or more precisely those who came

after the initial post-1965 wave, went directly to the communities in Queens

(Khandelwal, 2002, p. 12-33).

25

As previously mentioned, the socioeconomic range of post-1965 Indian

immigration became wider as the initial wave of professional immigrants sponsored the

arrival of relatives who would make up the subsequent migration waves. These family

members did not necessarily have high-level professional and academic backgrounds.

But even if they did have such backgrounds, the onset of the “hourglass economy”

phenomenon prevented them from achieving the success and the upward mobility that

their predecessors attained (Rumbaut, 1994, p. 583-588). The economic conditions, to say

nothing of discrimination that likely existed in the form of the glass ceiling, meant that

although these immigrants could keep trying in a mainstream context, other avenues

increasingly became of interest. Here, the ethnic economy becomes relevant as an

alternative. Those Indian immigrants who were not as successful in becoming part of the

mainstream US economy and society as science and engineering professionals or

entrepreneurs (for the latter, whether in terms of joining a respected, non-Indian-owned

firm specializing in software, information technology, engineering, medical science, etc.

or starting a firm specializing in any of the previously mentioned fields) could consider

becoming small business owners within the setting of an ethnic economy.

Consequently, the decision of an Indian immigrant with a professional

background to make the transition to small-time ethnic business ownership was nothing

out of the ordinary. Indeed, this was the case with Indian-owned grocery stores (some of

which became “chain” outlets, such as Laxmi Products, Shaheen’s, and Patel Brothers)

and stationery stores that started out in the late 1960s and early 1970s. More over and

initially, during the 1960s when the Indian immigrant community mostly consisted of

students, professionals, entrepreneurs, and government functionaries and employees

26

based in Manhattan, a handful of restaurants and grocery stores existed for their benefit

(Khandelwal, 2002, p. 13). The “Little Indias” along with the other Indian immigrant

neighborhoods hosted and continue to host grocery stores and restaurants that cater to

Indian immigrants, their consumer tastes and, in some ways, kept the various Indian

cultures alive. In the case of the last aspect, maintaining cultural connections, stores

would provide information on religious and cultural matters such as holidays, rent out

Indian movies, sell Indian newspapers and magazines, and post information on available

real estate options and open employment positions. (Khandelwal, 2002, p. 39-41)

Also, as Indian immigrants started relocating to Elmhurst, Jackson Heights,

Flushing, and Corona in Queens, still more Indian-owned grocery stores were established

in order to serve a growing consumer base of fellow immigrants (Khandelwal, 2002, p.

13, p. 15-16, p. 39-41). In this way, ethnic small business owners became an ethnically

defined lower middle class that filled an important niche within the Indian immigrant

ethnic economy. Additionally, and aside from businesses oriented toward food service

and retail, Indian immigrants were also able to carve out positions for themselves as

dealers and traders who specialize in jewelry and gemstones (Poros, 2011, p. 80-83).

However, those immigrants with professional credentials and backgrounds who were not

so fortunate in terms of establishing businesses along with immigrants who simply lacked

such credentials and backgrounds had few choices but to become part of an ethnic

working class socioeconomic formation. Accordingly, they took up jobs in restaurants,

retail stores, taxicab driving, newsstands, etc.

Socioeconomic class relations along with questions of family ties and ethnic heritage.

The two-tiered trend in post-1965 Indian immigration generally caused the

27

development of two differing socioeconomic strata. This has led to a situation in which

Indian immigrants operate on both ends of a dual labor market system (Piore, 1979, p.

35-43, p. 44-45, p. 47). Professionals and entrepreneurs found a way to become part of

the “primary” part of the labor market by way of joining or establishing science and

engineering firms. Likewise, the Indian immigrants who became “blue-collar” workers

such as those in food service, newsstands, taxicab driving, and retail make up part of the

“secondary” section of the labor market (Chatterji, 2013, p. 127-139; Khandelwal, 2002,

p.91-92, p. 106-112). That these strata, located on opposite ends of the dual labor market,

share common origins due to the history and workings of US immigration law, the

economic and educational conditions of the home and host countries alike, and family

ties and ethnic roots is, to say the least, a deep irony.

But just in terms of family ties and ethnic heritage, employer-employee relations,

certainly a set of capitalist socioeconomic relationships with capital on the one hand

(personified by the employer) and labor on the other hand (personified by the employee,

were outwardly cemented by personalized and pseudo- or quasi- familial ties within

workplaces such as restaurants. Miabi Chatterji (2013) writes of this perspective among a

few South Asian immigrant restaurateurs, who used the term “family” to describe their

working relationship vis-à-vis their employees (p. 128). The keyword to take into account

is “family,” which also rests upon a conception of ethnic ties held in common. This

approach is further underscored by another interview subject, also a restaurant manager,

whom Chatterji (2013) interviews,

“We immigrants, we’ve always had to rely on our families, the people we know, to run businesses here in America. It’s the same with the Chinese, the Jewish. We have to work with our

own. And that way, it’s safer for everyone, and you can rely on each other. Yes, it’s safer. It’s much easier for everyone when you work like a family, same background, same life.” (p. 131)

28

However, perhaps not surprisingly, workers take up opposing points of view in light of

experiences with workplace and hiring discrimination, poor working conditions, job-

related injuries, and/or the lack of health insurance (Chatterji, 2013, p. 132).

Nevertheless, and in an important way, the observations by Chatterji (2013)

mirror those of Kwong (1997, 2001). Just as Chinese immigrant employers tended to

emphasize ethnic and personal ties so as to develop unity with their workers, Indian

immigrant employers have used similar approaches through the pretexts of familial

relations and shared heritage. Given that the workers themselves are reliant on “word of

mouth” and other informal channels in order to find job opportunities within ethnic

enclaves, personalized socioeconomic relationships with employers can also present their

own problems. Certainly when compared to Chinese immigration, the case of Indian

immigration has similar characteristics. However, some differences show up when one

takes into account Mexican immigration during the second half of the 20th century.

Mexican immigration

Some key differences with the previous two case studies: General observations

This third section, which deals with Mexican migration to the US, differs to some

extent from the previous case studies on Chinese and Indian immigration since 1965.

Although the INA of 1965 was responsible for the latter cases, it did not directly account

for immigration from Mexico. Instead, just a year before the INA became law, the US

government abolished the bracero program, essentially a guest worker program

established in 1942 for agricultural purposes.

However, neither the termination of this program nor the formal exclusion of the

Western Hemisphere in the course of the INA’s formation precluded further immigration

29

from Mexico to the US. As a result, the issue of undocumented immigration became a

significant and longstanding problem as more immigrants entered the country. In

quantitative terms, the presence of so many undocumented immigrants, especially from

the Western Hemisphere or the generally Latin American nation-states such as Mexico,

provided the context for the construction of a “Latino threat narrative” in which the

mainstream US media, politicians, and political activists portrayed undocumented

immigrants from the Latin American nation-states as a threat to the structural integrity of

the US (Massey & Pren, 2012, p. 5-8; Nevins, 2001, p. 95-122).

This narrative gained currency within the public during the 1970s and 1980s

and influenced the US government’s policymaking (Massey & Pren, 2012, p. 5-8;

Nevins, 2001, p. 95-122). In this context, the IRCA in 1986 became law. Its provision of

amnesty for 3 million undocumented immigrants, was considered “the most sweeping

revision of U.S. immigration policy since 1965 when the national origins quota system

was abolished” (Sorensen & Bean, 1994, p. 2). Although the IRCA was not aimed at

any particular immigrant group, Mexican-origin immigrants benefited the most in

quantitative terms. Of the 3 million immigrants without documentation who were offered

amnesty, 2.3 million were of Mexican origin.

General historical background: Overview of Mexican immigration since the 19th century into the 20th century

Not unlike Chinese immigration, Mexican immigration also dates back to the

mid-1800s. Specifically, the year of interest is 1848, not long after the conclusion of the

Mexican-American War and the ratification of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, with the

chance location of gold in the Sierra Nevada in Alta California and the resulting gold

rush of 1848 and 1849 that drew not just miners and prospectors throughout the US but

30

also those from Mexico as well as other countries in Europe, Asia, and South America. In

Mexico’s case, this gold rush brought forth miners from various constituent states such as

Sonora, Sinaloa, Chihuahua, Durango, and Michoacan who, especially those from

Sonora, had considerable experience in mining and, along with the advantage of early

arrival, came to occupy key positions in commerce and transportation within California’s

fledgling but growing economy (Mora-Torres, 2011, p. 6). As was the case with their

Chinese immigrant contemporaries, these Mexican immigrants soon found themselves

victims of racial, ethnic, and nativist prejudice from white US-American miners, thus

leading to downward socioeconomic mobility as well as exclusion from the mainstream

US economy and society (Mora-Torres, 2011, p. 7).

Nevertheless, other waves of Mexican immigration followed as indentured

servants of large plantation-like estates known as haciendas relocated to the US for

somewhat better economic compensation and working conditions (Mora-Torres, 2011, p.

9-11). At roughly this period, the late 19th century into the first few decades of the 20th

century, the developmental pathways of the Mexico and the US coincided in such a way

that the former country provided workers to the latter nation via immigration. As Massey,

Alarcon, Durand, and Gonzalez (1987) note, “Mexican development policies created a

highly mobile mass of impoverished rural workers, and in the United States integration of

the southwestern states into the national economy generated a sustained demand for low-

wage labor” (p. 39). The policies associated with the economic development of Mexico,

which the country’s leaders such as the head of state Porfirio Diaz (in office 1877-1880

and 1884-1911) implemented contributed to the concentration of land ownership into as

few hands as possible – a task accomplished through the establishment of haciendas

31

(essentially large landed estates) which the hacendados (the owners of those estates)

controlled (Mora-Torres, 2011, p.18-19; Massey, Alarcon, Durand, & Gonzalez, 1987, p.

39).

This centralization of land tenure in the Mexican countryside also resulted in the

dispossession of the peasantry on a massive scale. Massey, Alarcon, Durand & Gonzalez

(1987) provide a sobering statistical portrait, “Mexican peasants were displaced from

their lands in massive numbers, and by 1910, 97 percent of rural families were landless.

One-seventh of the entire country was owned by twenty-nine individuals and

companies” (p. 39). This steep socioeconomic inequality provided more than enough

reason for emigration. Simultaneously, from 1880 to 1910, as the US placed bans on

Asian immigration, its southwestern region became increasingly economically developed

due to advancements in agriculture, mining, and railroad construction but lacked an

adequately large labor force (Massey, Alarcon, Durand & Gonzalez, 1987, p. 40). In this

situation, the presence of landless Mexican nationals as migrant workers became a

welcome prospect for the southwestern US economy. More over, in a long-term,

historical sense, one can see the context within which the bracero program emerged.

The bracero program, established in 1942, brought 4.6 million Mexican

immigrant into the US on a temporary basis in order to work in the agricultural sector of

the US economy (FitzGerald, 2011, p. 182). Although this arrangement between Mexico

and the US appeared to be agreeable and indicative of equalized political and economic

ties between the two nation-states, word soon spread as to the poor salaries, working, and

living conditions of the bracero program along with the ongoing discrimination that

Mexican immigrants faced within the US (Snodgrass, 2011, p. 87). Indeed, the program

32

drew widespread criticism and opposition from the right and left wings of Mexican

politics alike as an example of Mexico’s political and economic subordination to the

agendas of the US government (Snodgrass, 2011, p. 86). Nevertheless, dispossessed

Mexican peasants greeted the same program with enthusiasm and their decision to take

advantage of it led to the establishment of migratory social networks between Mexico

and the US (Snodgrass, 2011, p. 88, 95). In the end, however, the bracero program ran its

course a little over two decades since its inception. By 1964, the US government

terminated it. Nevertheless, Mexican immigration continued. As a result, undocumented

immigration became a serious issue, thus leading to the passage of the IRCA (FitzGerald,

2011, p. 182-183). The effects of IRCA on Mexican immigration in the later 20th century and the relevance of New York City

The US government passed the IRCA in order to regulate the flow of

undocumented immigration. It did so through a combination of restriction and admission.

Thus, and as previously discussed, the IRCA had three provisions, of which the one on

amnesty is of particular interest. It is of interest given that, as already mentioned as well,

most of the undocumented immigrants, 2.3 million out of 3 million, who applied were of

Mexican origin. Additionally, through amnesty, Mexican immigrants became permanent

residents who could travel freely between host and home countries, thus bringing over

relatives (Smith, 2006, p. 22). The IRCA thus also strengthened already existing chain

migration networks. According to FitzGerald (2011), “A pattern of circular, mostly male

migration gave way to permanent migration of whole families.” (p. 183) These networks

along with the IRCA’s offer of amnesty contributed to expanded Mexican immigration

33

during the 1980s and 1990s. Most of these new immigrants from Mexico wound up in urban communities. In

terms of New York City, Bergad (2013) writes that it has the highest number of persons

with roots in Mexico, in spite of a slight decrease between 1990 and 2010 (p. 11). Still,

there is no reason to doubt that the statistics will change in a turbulent manner. Mexican

immigrants may still likely base themselves in the cities, as according to Saenz, Morales,

and Janie Filoteo (2004),

The Mexican population tends to be overwhelmingly located in metropolitan areas. Overall, approximately 90 percent of Mexicans make their homes in metropolitan areas, compared to

about 81 percent of the nation’s entire population. Mexicans tend to be concentrated in the central cities while the total population is more likely to reside in suburbs. Across the regions, Mexicans have the highest degree of metropolitan residence in the Northeast (98.2 percent) and Southwest

(91.2 percent). (p. 13-14)

The chain migration networks thus ended in the cities of the US, including New York

City.

However, even with chain migration and the legal breathing space that the IRCA

offered and granted, Mexican immigrants remained in working-class employment

positions such as restaurant and garment production work, more often than not working

for entrepreneurs of other ethnicities (e.g., Korean and Greek restaurant and delicatessen

owners) (Smith, 2006, p. 25-29). Therefore, chain migration proved important, although

the ethnic economy that the Mexican immigrant population work in, at least in New York

City, can be said to be in fact a “co-ethnic economy.” One can also plausibly conclude in

this regard that these immigrant workers were, for the most part, confined to the

secondary labor market (Waldinger & Der-Martirosian, 2001, p. 249-253; Portes & Bach,

1985, p. 252).

Conclusions

Comparison and contrast

34

When one sets this discussion’s case studies side by side for the purpose of

comparison and contrast, one is likely to notice the strong parallels between post-1965

Chinese and Indian immigration, with the arrival of migrants who became professionals,

small ethnic business owners, or workers. These three roles all came to be essential parts

of the socioeconomic arrangements of the Chinese and Indian enclaves, pointing to the

existence of two-tiered, or even multi-tiered, immigration trends.

More specifically, perhaps one of the most striking similarities is the fact that after

the INA’s 1965 passage, large numbers of Chinese and Indian immigrants with

professional backgrounds arrived to the US and settled in cities such as New York City.

Certainly, there are differences in specialization such as the fact that while Chinese

immigrant professionals tended to concentrate on finance and real estate, their Indian

counterparts focused on science and engineering. However, Indian immigrant

professionals in general seem to have held the advantage in terms of English language

proficiency, thus allowing them relatively greater opportunities to enter the mainstream

US economy. They could do so by joining established science and technology firms or

branching off to found their own firms. The latter, as previously mentioned, demonstrated

the growth of an entrepreneurial culture among Indian professionals. Additionally, the

existence of professional associations among these immigrants reinforces that culture.

Chinese immigrant professionals, on the other hand, were more likely to be confined to

operating in the enclaves. In the case of New York City’s Chinatown, among other

communities such as Sunset Park and Flushing, they established banking and real estate

firms that tapped into the consumer base that has been the Chinese immigrant population.

But returning momentarily to the case of the Indian professionals, their

35

cultivation of an entrepreneurial culture raises the question of how ethnic economic

relationships such as collaboration among fellow immigrants via an independent firm or a

professional association can nevertheless be conducive to integration into the mainstream

economy and society. Relevant as well is the possibility of a form of upward

socioeconomic advancement that operates in parallel to more conventional models of

upward socioeconomic mobility, especially in light of the “glass ceiling”-style exclusion

that Indian scientists, engineers, and programmers have faced. Accordingly, a subsequent

question arises as to whether ethnic economies are necessarily confined to the realm of

small businesses and “blue-collar” work. As for the working classes of the Chinese and

Indian immigrant enclaves such as those in New York City like Chinatown, Flushing,

Sunset Park, Jackson Heights, Corona, and others, they are certainly part of longstanding

historical trends that predate 1965. Before 1965, Chinese and Indian immigrants alike

found work as unskilled laborers. Afterward, significant numbers of these immigrants

continued to take on such a socioeconomic role.

However, in marked contrast to the two-tiered immigration patterns that the INA

contributed to vis-à-vis migration from China and India, immigrants from Mexico more

uniformly found themselves in working class and lower middle class socioeconomic

positions. This tendency is partially attributable to the restrictive legislation that the US

government approved and enforced in relation to undocumented immigration. Excluded

by such laws, to say nothing of the “Latino threat narrative,” these immigrants could not

enter the mainstream economy as easily. They therefore became compelled to seek work

in “blue collar” or “self-employment” sectors, not unlike Chinese and Indian immigrants

who found themselves at the lower tiers of the enclaves they inhabited as well as those of

36

the US social and economic hierarchies. Furthermore, at least in New York City,

Mexican immigrants have found themselves working for business owners of other

ethnic and national origins, thus pointing to the existence of co-ethnic economic relations.

All these case studies also expose the complicated nature of socioeconomic class

relations within immigrant populations and communities.

Complicated class relations

A complicated set of socioeconomic class relations, demarcated by familial and

ethnic lines, developed due to the provisions of the INA and IRCA in practice. Workers

may labor for employers who are fellow immigrants, thus exemplifying a fairly

straightforward socioeconomic class relationship between wage laborers and capitalists.

However, in terms of the economic ladder of mainstream society, immigrant employers

may only occupy the lower rungs. Their employees would be further beneath them. Here,

the dual labor market is relevant, as immigrants, such as those from the case studies, find

themselves in the secondary labor market where they hold down unskilled, manual jobs

(Piore, 1979, p. 35-43). Also, the possibility, indeed reality, of immigrant employers

working alongside their employees can blur class lines (Kwong, 2001, p. 73-74).

Thus, there are the questions of why and how shared ethnic ties between

employers and employees can contribute to the perception of commonly held interests

among both of these groups. The claim to heritage is relevant and important in light of

employers’ efforts to build a connection with their employees and thus inculcate and

command loyalty. These attempts tend to take on two forms that are not necessarily

unrelated: 1) the emphasis on “family” (whether or not the employers and employees are

in fact of the same family household is another question) and 2) the emphasis on shared

37

cultural, ethnic, or national orientation. Both forms may discourage immigrant workers

from seeking outside aid and information in the event of a human rights or a labor rights

abuse and encourage them to place more trust in their own employers. The development

of these complex, perhaps even “ethnicized,” class relationships, also reflects the way in

which chain migration networks, which usually involve people of the same ethnic,

national, and/or familial roots, contribute to such realities in the first place.

Counterargument

With regard to counterarguments, Rumbaut (1994) presents a point of view that is

worth taking up. The counterargument is as follows, although a law such as the INA has

proven to be a watershed in the history, the changes in immigration towards the US since

the 1960s are not entirely attributable to US government policies but also to social,

economic, political, historical and other structural conditions (Rumbaut, 1994, p. 588). In

brief, one cannot practice a legal form of reductionism when studying the reasons and

circumstances of immigration.

Although there is no disagreement to be had with the core of this perspective, one

may note in reply that the INA and IRCA both developed out of the political and

economic conditions that existed in the time leading to their passage and enforcement.

The INA became law because of the growing public disapproval of exclusionary

national-origins preferences as outlined in the McCarran-Walter Act and the political and

economic priorities of the US, which favored the arrival of professionals (especially those

with science and engineering backgrounds) among others. Indeed, the US government’s

priorities, which influenced and maybe even took the form of the provisions of the INA,

accounted for the quantitative increase and qualitative depth of late 20th century Indian

38

immigration. In qualitative terms, if the INA had not become law, few if any Indian

professionals would have entered the US. The IRCA arose as a partial answer to the

question of undocumented immigration. Although the IRCA continued to maintain a

basic exclusionary stance, it nevertheless allowed for a concession by way of amnesty for

a limited number of immigrants without documentation. This concession deeply affected

Mexican immigration to the US in the late 1980s and the 1990s.

Reflections

The question of how immigrants find work is, in essence, the issue of how ethnic

economies develop. The evolution of these ethnic economies also relates to the causes,

the conditions, and the processes of the immigrants’ arrival. The causes include the

political economy of the sending countries as well as the immigration policies and laws

of the host countries. In the case of Indian immigration, professionals and students

migrated because they believed that the employment and educational opportunities would

be better in countries such as the US. They were able to do so because of a law such as

the INA. The conditions include the ongoing forms of exclusion vis-à-vis immigrants. All

the immigrants from the case studies have encountered popular prejudice, discriminatory

legislation, etc. The processes encompass migratory social networks. The answer to the

question, then, of how immigrants become economically integrated as workers (or as

small ethnic entrepreneurs, for that matter) is threefold. The causes for migration

underscore the priorities of immigrant workers, the conditions point to the types of

employment these immigrants obtain, and the processes show how immigrants find such

work in the first place. The ethnic economy therefore develops and evolves in light of the

causes, conditions, and processes of immigration.

39

But returning to the causes, legal measures have proven to be important

contributors to the onset, alteration, or continuation of immigrant trends. To take two

obvious and primary examples discussed in this paper, the INA of 1965 and the IRCA of

1986 contributed, quantitatively, to the increase of immigration to the United States as

well as, qualitatively, to the existence of new immigrant communities and the re-

fashioning of old ones. The qualitative results became especially evident in urban settings

such as those of New York City.

These laws produced such effects through the encouragement of social networks

based on chain migration. The INA, which had as one of its aims the promotion of family

unification, directly spurred the evolution of chain-based migratory networks. The IRCA

achieved the same result in an indirect way through an offer of amnesty for 3 million

undocumented immigrants. Through amnesty these immigrants became permanent and

legal residents of the US. In this way, they were able to travel between host and sending

countries and bring over family members.

However, the chain migration patterns which the INA and the IRCA enabled did

not merely serve as ways of transporting immigrants across borders. These migratory

social networks also became sources of information about employment and

entrepreneurial (generally in the form of small businesses) opportunities alike. The result

was that at least certain numbers of immigrants faced relatively fewer restrictions as they

settled into various urban neighborhoods and, accordingly, found work, started

businesses, and/or assisted with the arrival of relatives.

This consequence was certainly the case with immigrants in cities like New York

City. As they settled into the neighborhoods that they came to inhabit, they also remade

40

those neighborhoods. In the process, the establishment and/or the remaking of urban

communities along with the dual function of the migratory social networks contributed to

the growth of ethnic economies which involve immigrants as small entrepreneurs and as

employees.

Important and pertinent examples of such new or renewed immigrant

neighborhoods along with the roles of migratory social networks and ethnic economies

within New York City include Chinatown, Flushing, the Little India enclaves on

Lexington Avenue in Murray Hill, Manhattan, and on 74th Street in Jackson Heights,

Queens,, Spanish Harlem (also known as El Barrio, literally “The Neighborhood” in

Spanish), and several more. All of these examples are reflective of immigration trends

that were the historical results of the INA and the IRCA in force. In the case of the INA,

those trends include Chinese immigration and Indian immigration. As for the IRCA, the

major trend is Mexican immigration. These trends therefore serve as appropriate case

studies for the effects of the INA and the IRCA on chain migration and ethnic economies

in general and within the context of New York City. More over and finally, they are also

models, albeit historically and geographically specific ones, for the understanding of

current and future trends of immigration to the US as well as the ways in which

immigrants form communities and go about the daily task of making livelihoods.

Bibliography (organized by areas of interest)

41

Sources on immigration law, immigration history, ethnic economies, etc.

Donato, K.M., Aguilera, M., & Wakabayashi, C. (2005). Immigration policy and employment conditions of US immigrants from Mexico, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic. International Migration, 43(5), 5-29.

Donato, K.M. & Massey, D. (September 1993). Effect of the Immigration Reform and Control Act on the wages of Mexican migrants. Social Science Quarterly, 74(3), 523-541.

Ewen, E. (1985). Immigrant women in the land of dollars: Life and culture on the Lower East Side, 1890-1925. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.

Light, I. & Bonacich, E. (1988). Immigrant entrepreneurs: Koreans in Los Angeles, 1965-1982. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Piore, M. (1979). Birds of passage: Migrant labor and industrial societies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Reimers, D.M. (1992). Still the golden door: The Third World comes to America. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Rumbaut, R.G. (1994). Origins and destinies: Immigration to the United States since World War II, Sociological Forum, 9(4), 583-621.

Sorensen, E., & Bean, F.D. (March 1994). The Immigration Reform and Control Act and the wages of Mexican origin workers: Evidence from current population surveys. Social Science Quarterly, 75(1), 1-17.

Takaki, R. (1993). A different mirror: A history of multicultural America. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.

Waldinger, R. (2003). Networks and niches: the continuing significance of ethnic connections. In G. Loury, T. Modood, and S. Teles (Eds.), Race, ethnicity and social mobility in the US and UK (pp. 342-362). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Waldinger, R. & C. Der-Martirosian. (2001). The immigrant niche: Pervasive, persistent, diverse. In R. Waldinger (Ed.), Strangers at the gates: New immigrants in urban America (pp. 228-271). Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Yang, P.Q. (February 2010). A theory of Asian immigration to the United States. JAAS, 1-34.

Chinese immigration

Chen, H. (1992). Chinatown no more: Taiwan immigrants in contemporary New York. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

42

Kwong, P. (2001). Chinatown, New York.: Labor and politics, 1930-1950 (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The New Press.

Kwong, P. (1997). Forbidden workers: Illegal Chinese immigrants and American labor. New York, NY: The New Press.

Lin, J. (1998). Reconstructing Chinatown: Ethnic enclave, global change. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Saxton, A. (1995). The indispensable enemy: Labor and the anti-Chinese movement in California (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, LA: University of California Press.

Wong, B.P. (2002). Chinatown: Economic adaptation and ethnic identity of the Chinese. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Zhou, M. (1992). Chinatown: The socioeconomic potential of an urban enclave. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Indian immigration sources

Bald, V. (2013). Bengali Harlem and the lost histories of South Asian America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chatterji, M. (2013). Putting the ‘family’ to work: Managerial discourses of control in the immigrant service sector. In V. Bald, M. Chatterji, S. Reddy, and M. Vimalassery (ed.), The sun never sets: South Asian migrants in an age of U.S. power (pp. 127-155). New York, NY: New York University Press.

Fisher, M.P. (1980). Indians of New York City. New Delhi: Heritage.

Khandelwal, M.S. (2002). Becoming American, being Indian: An immigrant community in New York City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Lessinger, J. (1995). From the Ganges to the Hudson: Indian immigrants in New York City. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Poros, M.V. (2011). Modern migrations: Gujarati Indian networks in New York and London. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Rudrappa, S. (2008). Braceros and techno-braceros: Guest workers in the United States, and the commodification of low-wage and high-wage labour. In S. Koshy and R. Radhakrishnan (ed.), Transnational South Asians: The making of a neo-diaspora (pp. 291-322). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Varma, R. (2006). Harbingers of global change: India’s techno-immigrants in the United States. Lexington Books.

43

Varma, R. (2010). India-born in the U.S. science and engineering workforce. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(7), 1064-1078.

Mexican immigration sources

Bergad, L.W. (September 2010). Demographic, economic and social transformations in the Mexican-origin population in the New York City metropolitan area, 1990-2010. Latino Data Project, Report 49.

FitzGerald, D. (2011). Mexican migration and the law. In M. Overmyer-Velazquez (Ed.), Beyond la frontera: The history of Mexico-U.S. migration (pp. 179-203). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Massey, D., R. Alarcon, J. Durand, & H. Gonzalez. (1987). Return to Aztlan: The social progress of international migration from western Mexico. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Mora-Torres, J. (2011). “Los de casa se van, los de fuera no vienen”: The first Mexican immigrants, 1848-1900. In M. Overmyer-Velazquez (Ed.), Beyond la frontera: The history of Mexico-U.S. migration (pp. 3-27). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Nevins, J. (2002). Operation Gatekeeper: The rise of the “illegal alien” and the making of the U.S.-Mexico boundary. New York, NY: Routledge.

Portes, A. & R. Bach. (1985). Latin journey: Cuban and Mexican immigrants in the United States. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Saenz, R., Morales, M.C., & Filoteo, J. (2004). The demography of Mexicans in the United States.” In R.M. De Anda (Ed.), Chicanas & Chicanos in Contemporary Society (pp. 3-20). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Smith, R.V. (2006). Mexican New York: Transnational lives of new immigrants. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Snodgrass, M. (2011). The Bracero program, 1942-1964. In M. Overmyer-Velazquez (Ed.), Beyond la frontera: The history of Mexico-U.S. migration (pp. 79-102). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

General bibliography

44

Bald, V. (2013). Bengali Harlem and the lost histories of South Asian America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bergad, L.W. (September 2010). Demographic, economic and social transformations in the Mexican-origin population in the New York City metropolitan area, 1990-2010. Latino Data Project, Report 49.

Chen, H. (1992). Chinatown no more: Taiwan immigrants in contemporary New York. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Chatterji, M. (2013). Putting the ‘family’ to work: Managerial discourses of control in the immigrant service sector. In V. Bald, M. Chatterji, S. Reddy, and M. Vimalassery (ed.), The sun never sets: South Asian migrants in an age of U.S. power (pp. 127-155). New York, NY: New York University Press.

Donato, K.M., Aguilera, M., & Wakabayashi, C. (2005). Immigration policy and employment conditions of US immigrants from Mexico, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic. International Migration, 43(5), 5-29.

Donato, K.M. & Massey, D. (September 1993). Effect of the Immigration Reform and Control Act on the wages of Mexican migrants. Social Science Quarterly, 74(3), 523-541.

Ewen, E. (1985). Immigrant women in the land of dollars: Life and culture on the Lower East Side, 1890-1925. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.

Fisher, M.P. (1980). Indians of New York City. New Delhi: Heritage.

FitzGerald, D. (2011). Mexican migration and the law. In M. Overmyer-Velazquez (Ed.), Beyond la frontera: The history of Mexico-U.S. migration (pp. 179-203). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Khandelwal, M.S. (2002). Becoming American, being Indian: An immigrant community in New York City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Kwong, P. (2001). Chinatown, New York.: Labor and politics, 1930-1950 (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The New Press.

Kwong, P. (1997). Forbidden workers: Illegal Chinese immigrants and American labor. New York, NY: The New Press.

Lessinger, J. (1995). From the Ganges to the Hudson: Indian immigrants in New York City. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Light, I. & Bonacich, E. (1988). Immigrant entrepreneurs: Koreans in Los Angeles, 1965-1982. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

45

Lin, J. (1998). Reconstructing Chinatown: Ethnic enclave, global change. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Massey, D., R. Alarcon, J. Durand, & H. Gonzalez. (1987). Return to Aztlan: The social progress of international migration from western Mexico. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Mora-Torres, J. (2011). “Los de casa se van, los de fuera no vienen”: The first Mexican immigrants, 1848-1900. In M. Overmyer-Velazquez (Ed.), Beyond la frontera: The history of Mexico-U.S. migration (pp. 3-27). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Nevins, J. (2002). Operation Gatekeeper: The rise of the “illegal alien” and the making of the U.S.-Mexico boundary. New York, NY: Routledge.

Piore, M. (1979). Birds of passage: Migrant labor and industrial societies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Poros, M.V. (2011). Modern migrations: Gujarati Indian networks in New York and London. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Portes, A. & R. Bach. (1985). Latin journey: Cuban and Mexican immigrants in the United States. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Reimers, D.M. (1992). Still the golden door: The Third World comes to America. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Rudrappa, S. (2008). Braceros and techno-braceros: Guest workers in the United States, and the commodification of low-wage and high-wage labour. In S. Koshy and R. Radhakrishnan (ed.), Transnational South Asians: The making of a neo-diaspora (pp. 291-322). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rumbaut, R.G. (1994). Origins and destinies: Immigration to the United States since World War II, Sociological Forum, 9(4), 583-621.

Saenz, R., Morales, M.C., & Filoteo, J. (2004). The demography of Mexicans in the United States.” In R.M. De Anda (Ed.), Chicanas & Chicanos in Contemporary Society (pp.3-20). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Saxton, A. (1995). The indispensable enemy: Labor and the anti-Chinese movement in California (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, LA: University of California Press.

Smith, R.V. (2006). Mexican New York: Transnational lives of new immigrants. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

46

Snodgrass, M. (2011). The Bracero program, 1942-1964. In M. Overmyer-Velazquez (Ed.), Beyond la frontera: The history of Mexico-U.S. migration (pp. 79-102). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Sorensen, E., & Bean, F.D. (March 1994). The Immigration Reform and Control Act and the wages of Mexican origin workers: Evidence from current population surveys. Social Science Quarterly, 75(1), 1-17.

Takaki, R. (1993). A different mirror: A history of multicultural America. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.

Varma, R. (2006). Harbingers of global change: India’s techno-immigrants in the United States. Lexington Books.

Varma, R. (2010). India-born in the U.S. science and engineering workforce. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(7), 1064-1078.

Waldinger, R. (2003). Networks and niches: the continuing significance of ethnic connections. In G. Loury, T. Modood, and S. Teles (Eds.), Race, ethnicity and social mobility in the US and UK (pp. 342-362). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Waldinger, R. & C. Der-Martirosian. (2001). The immigrant niche: Pervasive, persistent, diverse. In R. Waldinger (Ed.), Strangers at the gates: New immigrants in urban America (pp. 228-271). Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Wong, B.P. (2002). Chinatown: Economic adaptation and ethnic identity of the Chinese. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Yang, P.Q. (February 2010). A theory of Asian immigration to the United States. JAAS, 1-34.

Zhou, M. (1992). Chinatown: The socioeconomic potential of an urban enclave. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

47

48