|
Immigration is a recent development. Although people have moved from place to place throughout history, spreading, in the first instance, from Africa to many parts of the globe, most of these relocations are not immigration. Immigration, by definition, presupposes the existence of nation-states that have a desire and ability to control their borders (Torpey 2000). Thus, when Europeans moved to the Americas in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, they were emigrating from their home countries and colonizing the Americas. They were not immigrating. Enslaved peoples have been transported against their will as recently as the mid-nineteenth century and even into modern nation-states. This was not immigration either. Immigration refers to voluntary movement. Today when émigrés flee their home countries under duress, seeking freedom from political, religious, and racial persecution, it is better to think of their decision to flee as emigration because the term "immigration” is reserved to describe voluntary choice. Large-scale immigration therefore requires the worldwide development of effective constitutional guarantees of civil rights and personal liberties. As history vividly makes clear, large-scale immigration had to await improvements in income and reductions in transportation costs before such movement could be considered a possibility for more than a handful of the elite. For all these reasons, immigration could not have begun much earlier than the mid-nineteenth century. Immigration is a central feature of the economic, social, and political history of the United States. It is arguably the defining feature. The United States is often called a "nation of immigrants” but this phrase should not be interpreted too literally. Since the U.S. Census Bureau began publishing statistics on the fraction of the population foreign-born in 1850, the foreign-born share has never exceeded 20 percent of the total ( Table Ad354–443). Australia and Canada have long reported larger foreign-born shares than the United States. In addition, in the 1990s, many European countries achieved foreign-born shares that approach, and in some cases exceed, the U.S. levels (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 2001). Still, the phrase "nation of immigrants” is a nice way of highlighting some distinctive and long-standing features of the American experience. From 1860, when statistics on the Native American population - American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts - were first published by the Census Bureau, their share has been less than 1 percent of the total, even though many of those enumerated as Native Americans are of mixed ancestry. The exception is Census 2000, in which people who trace their heritage to the aboriginal population account for 3 percent of the total (see Table Aa145–184). Because most American blacks are descendents of slaves who were brought to America against their will as part of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, few are descendents of immigrants (Passel and Edmonston 1994). Nonetheless, because the black population has never been more than one fifth of the total, it is still the case that the vast majority of Americans are either immigrants themselves or descended from immigrants. Another reason to embrace the "nation of immigrants” label is that, over its history, the United States has absorbed more immigrants than other nations - indeed, more than all of the other immigrant-recipient nations combined. This is no small feat. Of the estimated fifty-five million immigrants who relocated during the hundred years or so preceding the 1920s, approximately 60 percent came to the United States (see Table Ad25–50 and Table Ad51–79). Moreover, unlike Australia, where approximately four fifths of immigrants came from Britain, and unlike Argentina, where more than three quarters of immigrants came from Italy or Spain, the United States received immigrants from many different countries all around the world. Finally, the United States is one of only a handful of countries that have not experienced an extensive diaspora of its own people (Mitchell 1980, 1983). Estimates of emigration from the United States are shown in Table Ad1–2 and Table Ad21–24. These numbers are small relative to those for other countries. Scholars suggest that most of these emigrants had recently arrived from another country, so their "emigration” is best thought of as a return to their native lands (Baines 1995). The pace and pattern of international migration to the United States, the experience of immigrants in the United States, and the impact of immigrants on the growth and development of the American economy have all been subjects of large scholarly literatures over the years. 1
The first systematic collection of data on immigration to the United States began in 1819, and the official estimates of annual immigration are presented in series Ad1 and Figure Ad-A. 2 In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the official immigrant series reveals strong cycles with successively higher peaks until the disruption of World War I from 1915 through 1919. After the war there was a brief recovery followed by a sharp decline in the mid-1920s and a virtual cessation during the 1930s. Beginning about 1950, there is a more or less smooth increase in the numbers over the last half of the twentieth century, except for a sharp spike in the early 1990s, reflecting legalizations authorized by the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, which are discussed later. At the end of the twentieth century, the number of immigrants admitted annually (excluding the IRCA legalizations) approximates those in peak years in the late nineteenth century. Of course, the United States was a much larger country at the end of the twentieth century than it had been one hundred years earlier. To put the immigrant flows into perspective, the number of immigrants can be shown relative to the size of the resident population (also in Figure Ad-A). In proportionate terms, the current inflow of immigrants is rather modest by historical standards. If the IRCA legalizations are omitted, then the late-twentieth-century flows are comparable to those in the slowest years from the period between 1840 and the onset of World War I. Still another way to think about the size of the immigrant flows is to calculate the contribution of net immigration to American population growth, as shown in Figure Ad-B. During the period of mass immigration preceding World War I, immigration accounted for somewhere between one third and one half of U.S. population growth. At the end of the twentieth century, immigration again accounts for about one third of this growth, despite the fact that the number of immigrants arriving is smaller and the base population is larger today than it was in the decades immediately preceding World War I. The reason for the relatively large contribution of immigration to American population growth today is that the rate of natural increase (births minus deaths) is low. Scholars divide the history of international migration to the United States into three phases. The first was an era of mass, largely unregulated migration that began in 1815, just before statistics were first collected, and proceeded, with enormous year-to-year variation, until the imposition of stringent numerical restrictions in the 1920s. The beginning year, 1815, witnessed the end of the War of 1812 between Britain and the United States, the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, and the beginning of massive economic, social, and political upheavals throughout the European continent. Beginning in England, Scotland, and Ireland, then moving east into Scandinavia and Germany, and then south and east into Spain, Italy, Eastern Europe, and Russia, traditional agricultural economies became market - and in some cases industrial - economies. The Industrial Revolution displaced handicraft industries, throwing artisans out of work. Commercial farming displaced self-sufficient agriculture, reducing the demand for labor in rural areas. The period was one of rapid population growth, and this meant that the contraction in employment opportunities coincided with an unprecedented surge in the number of young people looking for work. By contrast, in America and other New World countries, jobs were plentiful, wages high, and land cheap. Also, the U.S. Constitution guaranteed individual liberties and religious tolerance. It is no wonder that emigration proved so attractive to so many.
Between 1815 and 1924, an estimated fifty-five million people left Europe to make their homes in the New World countries of Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. The United States was the premier destination country and it received more immigrants than all the other destination countries combined ( Table Ad25–50 and Table Ad51–79). The United States offered economic opportunities and, for most of the period, it placed relatively few restrictions on immigrant entry. The immigrant flows to the United States during this first period of relatively open borders display two distinct features. One is long-term growth. From 1820 through 1914
and the outbreak of World War I, the number of immigrants arriving in the United States in each successive decade is generally larger than in the previous one. Equally remarkable is the volatility - the sharp peaks and troughs in the annual flows. These peaks and troughs correspond to economic and political developments in both the United States and the countries from which people emigrated. Good economic conditions in the United States attracted immigrants, whereas depressions repelled them or at least led migrants to postpone their departure for America. Thus, years of economic prosperity are years of high immigration flows and vice versa. Wars, both in the United States and abroad, dampened the flow of migrants across international borders.
The second phase covers the period when the National Origins Quota Act was in effect, from 1924 through 1965. This Act severely limited the number of immigrants and restricted their admission to countries with low levels of out-migration. Passage of this Act had a major impact on the magnitude and character of the subsequent immigrant flows. As Figure Ad-A shows, this was a period of historically low levels of immigration. The 1920s through the 1940s was also a time of retreat from international integration on many other fronts, including more restricted flows of capital, reductions in the volume of international trade, and, of course, World War II (also see Table Ee1–21). It was a period of tremendous internal migration within the United States, as blacks moved out of the South and into northern industrial cities; as farmers moved off the farm and into cities in the 1920s and then back to the farm again in the Great Depression of the 1930s; and as the population moved to the West, especially to California. Immigration policy became an arm of foreign policy as the United States gave high priority to political asylees, especially those fleeing the Nazis during the 1930s and those fleeing Communist countries after the onset of the Cold War. It was a period during which many distinguished scientists and engineers left Europe and came to the United States to live and work. Another important development, which began during World War II and continued into the 1950s and 1960s, was the creation of a large migrant agricultural labor force that moved between Mexico and the United States. The policy of admitting Mexican farm laborers for temporary employment came be known as the "Braceros Program.” Data on those engaged in this work during the war years are described in Table Ad1014–1022 and the number participating in the 1950s through 1964 is included in series Ad1022. During the peak years of the Braceros Program in the late 1950s, almost a half-million people entered the country under its auspices - more than the number who entered as immigrants during the same period. The third phase of U.S. immigration history commenced in 1965 with the adoption of the Preference System that raised the limit on the number of immigrants and shifted the criterion of admission from country of origin to family reunification. The number of immigrants increased and, unexpectedly, the country of origin of immigrants shifted away from Europe toward Asia and Latin America. At the conclusion of the Braceros Program in 1964, the annual flow of migrant agricultural labor became an undocumented flow and the population of undocumented persons rose. By the mid-1980s, this population was so large as to prompt legislation that legalized the status of this group while implementing controls to slow the future stream of such workers.
Immigration to the United States takes place within a complex framework of federal and state laws and executive decisions that has changed significantly over time. While the federal government has successfully asserted its primacy in deciding who is allowed to enter the territory of the United States, various states have periodically attempted to influence the level of immigration by enacting laws specifically designed to discourage certain groups from settling or remaining in a particular state.
Examples include Massachusetts's Act to Prevent the Introduction of Paupers, from Foreign Ports or Places (1820), California's Alien Land Laws of 1913 and 1920 (aimed at legal Japanese and Chinese immigrants), and California's Proposition 187 of 1994 (the "Save Our State” initiative, which attempted to limit the presence of illegal or undocumented aliens).
Edward P. Hutchinson describes U.S. immigration law as one of the "largest and most complex bodies of legislation (in the United States), perhaps exceeded only by the tax code” (Hutchinson 1981, p. xiii). The complexity of the legal framework is magnified by the fact that all three branches of the federal government play important roles in its structure, administration, and execution. Congress makes immigration law. The president can authorize the admission of aliens for reasons of national interest and foreign policy and can negotiate treaties that have implications for immigration. Exercise of the presidential prerogative on admissions was especially important during the Cold War. The implications of international trade treaties, especially the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), for the admission of aliens to the United States have been enormous. The executive branch of the federal government has been responsible for administration and enforcement of immigration law since 1864 when Congress established the post of Commissioner of Immigration. Since its establishment in 1891, the Bureau of Immigration - later the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) - has had considerable latitude in its enforcement and has often played an active role in shaping legislation. Hutchinson (1981) provides an authoritative and detailed account of the major elements of U.S. immigration law and its development through 1965. The judicial branch has also been active. Individual federal judges made millions of case-by-case decisions to establish citizenship, and the Supreme Court decisions established a definition of "white” person for purposes of eligibility for naturalization. In cases such as Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), which attempted to discourage Chinese immigration by preventing Chinese launderers from doing business, the court reaffirmed federal primacy in matters of immigration by finding local statutes discriminatory (for a summary of major pieces of legislation, see Table Ad-C). 3
Federal laws governing immigration developed out of English colonial policies that strongly promoted it (such as the Plantation Act: The British Naturalization Act of 1740). With sparse populations and abundant lands, the colonies and the Crown viewed immigrants as a source of strength, security, and wealth. In the early years, many colonies tried to attract potential settlers with offers of land grants, religious toleration, exemption from taxation, and travel assistance. The desire for immigrants was not unbounded, however, and even in the early days some colonies did not welcome Catholics and Quakers because of their religion. The colonies were also suspicious of immigrants who might not be able to support themselves, and they actively resisted the transportation of convicts.
Shortly after ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the new federal government asserted its authority over immigration by introducing the Act of March 26, 1790, which established a uniform rule for naturalization, the process by which aliens become citizens. A key provision of this law restricted naturalization to free white persons. In 1798, the federal government authorized the president to arrest and deport any alien deemed dangerous to the United States. Except for these prohibitions, however, immigration and naturalization were unrestricted.
Over the nineteenth century, the United States became increasingly selective regarding the characteristics of aliens whom it permitted to enter the country. From the earliest times, immigrants had been judged on a variety of criteria and declared "desirable” or "undesirable.” These judgments developed into a selective immigration policy that progressed along two separate lines. There was a negative selection policy that excluded undesirables through restrictions on admission and through deportation of those defined as undesirable, and there was a positive selection policy that encouraged the entry of desirable immigrants. Negative selection policy has predominated.
At its beginnings in 1798, U.S. immigration policy excluded only persons suspected of being foreign agents entering the country for the purpose of overthrowing the U.S. government. By the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the classes of excludable aliens had expanded in important ways. Over this period at least nine important broad categories of undesirables were added to the list of those excluded by law.
The first to be written into immigration law was the class of convicted criminals. Legislation to bar the entry of convicted criminals was first passed in 1875. It appears to have been a response to actions of foreign governments that were allegedly pardoning convicted criminals who displayed a willingness to exile themselves abroad. The law was an effort to keep such people from coming to the United States.
A second class of undesirables was persons who were deemed likely to require public assistance because of a supposed inability or unwillingness to support themselves. Exclusion of immigrants likely to become "public charges” had deep roots in concerns that poor immigrants might become a financial burden on the resident community. Persons excluded under this heading were those who arrived in the United States without sufficient resources to support themselves while they looked for work and those with a physical or mental condition that, in the view of the authorities, would make it difficult to earn a living. The category was later extended to mandate the exclusion of unaccompanied minors younger than age 16.
So-called mental defectives and persons with health problems such as communicable diseases and serious physical defects were also excluded. The rationale for this exclusion was both the fear that these people would become public charges and a concern about public health. In the nineteenth century many medicines that now offer control for communicable diseases such as tuberculosis and leprosy were not available. In addition, many physical and mental conditions such as tuberculosis and mental retardation were thought to be of genetic origin. The eugenics movement of the era opposed the immigration of people with these conditions with the argument that their immigration would weaken the American genetic "stock” (Walker 1891).
Opponents of immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe attempted to erect additional barriers to such immigration. The National Quarantine Act of February 15, 1893, and its precursors were responses to "health emergencies,” such as the 1892 typhus and cholera outbreaks in New York, attributed to "unhealthy” immigrants. Other legislative proposals, for example, sought to impose onerous conditions on steamship companies to deter them from carrying immigrants, or to impose health requirements likely to affect immigrants from particular geographical areas.
Persons deemed to be "immoral” were another undesirable class. Beginning in 1875, prostitutes, polygamists, and homosexuals were excluded under this rubric.
In the latter part of the nineteenth century, many mass-based organizations that challenged established governments in Europe and Latin America appeared on the political scene. The Haymarket Riot in Chicago in 1886 was blamed on anarchists, as was the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901. In the wake of these political developments, U.S. immigration policy identified anarchists, and later socialists and then communists, as "undesirable.”
In addition, Congress excluded certain classes of laborers thought to put American workers at an unfair competitive advantage. The principal category before 1924 was contract laborers - immigrants who pledged a portion of their wages to brokers in return for transportation to the United States. The argument was that because of their legal obligation to the agencies that sponsored their transportation, such workers could not offer their services on the open labor market. Contract labor was authorized in 1864 but was then outlawed in 1885.
From the beginning, American immigration laws were designed to control the racial and ethnic composition of the U.S. population. The 1790 law limited naturalization to free whites. Following the defeat of the South in the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution authorized the naturalization of persons of African ancestry but implicitly left in place bars against the naturalization of Asians. After a surge of Chinese immigration in response to the California Gold Rush and railroad construction boom during the 1850s, Chinese laborers were barred from immigration in 1882. The same law explicitly barred Chinese naturalization. The prohibition of the immigration of Chinese was made permanent in 1904 by a law that also prohibited the entry of alien Chinese laborers from Hawai'i. This was an unusual step as Hawai'i was a U.S. territory at the time and citizens of Hawai'i were citizens of the United States. De facto exclusion of Japanese immigrants was accomplished by the Gentleman's Agreement of 1907–1908, according to which the Japanese agreed to prohibit emigration to the United States in return for a U.S. guarantee of better treatment of Japanese nationals already living in the country. In 1917 legislation identified a "barred zone” that included South Asia from Arabia to Indochina and the islands adjacent to Asia not possessed by the United States.
It was drawn to allow for the admission of immigrants from the American possessions of the Philippines and Guam but to bar all other Asians.
Literacy was first proposed as a criterion for immigration in 1891, and although the implementing legislation was defeated, support remained strong. A literacy test requirement was finally passed in 1917 over the veto of President Woodrow Wilson. The literacy test requirement for immigration was a conscious effort by its proponents to limit immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe.
Limitations on immigration were also used as a weapon against the international traffic in narcotic drugs. The first act limiting the immigration of narcotic drug users was passed in 1952, although foreign-born violators of U.S. drug laws were subject to deportation at an earlier date.
As the complexity of America's immigration system increased, prohibitions on the immigration of persons found to have violated admission regulations were added. The first such act, passed in 1917, was directed against stowaways. In later years, the list of violators of admission regulations grew to include persons without proper documents, those found to have made false statements in their immigration application, and those found to have aided illegal immigration.
Generally speaking, once a criterion became a basis for exclusion from immigration to the United States, it remained in effect. Thus at any point in time, immigration law represents the accumulation of practices built up over many years. There were three major exceptions to this generalization. The prohibition against contract labor was repealed in 1952 and replaced with different regulations aimed at moderating the labor market implications of immigration. The ban against Chinese was removed during World War II, when China was a U.S. ally, and all racial criteria for admissions were removed in 1952. The bars against the immigration of unaccompanied minors were removed in the post-World War II era when Americans began adopting foreign-born children. The restrictions on the immigration of persons with certain illnesses and infirmities were modified over the years and the list of dangerous, communicable diseases has changed with medical advances in the ability to treat various afflictions.
A substantive and far-reaching change in U.S. policy toward immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere (Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia) occurred in the 1920s with the passage of the Quota Acts. After establishing temporary quotas through the Quota Act of 1921, a more permanent "Quota System” was officially established by the Immigration Act of 1924, which set an annual numerical quota for the total number of immigrants based on the representation of ethnic populations from each of these countries in the United States prior to the passage of the laws. The goal of this legislation was to reduce the overall level of immigration and to maintain the predominance of people from Northern and Western Europe in the U.S. population. Thus Great Britain and Northern Ireland had the largest annual quota - 65,361. Eastern Europe, Russia, and Italy - countries that had been sending large numbers of immigrants to the United States in the two decades just prior to the passage of the Quota Acts - were given much smaller quotas.
The level of the overall annual quota is shown in series Ad950, and the rather complicated formula used to calculate each country's quota is described in the text for this table. The effect of these restrictions was profound and can be seen in the drop in the overall number of immigrants admitted, which fell from more than 800,000 in 1921 to less than 150,000 by the end of the 1920s. This drop in immigration is especially remarkable because the United States was enjoying economic prosperity at that time. In the absence of the numerical restrictions embodied in the Quota Acts, the annual number of immigrants would probably have been well in excess of 800,000. The Quota Acts did not apply to immigration from the Western Hemisphere countries (North and South America). Scholars suggest that this exemption was partly a concession to ranchers and farmers in the Southwest who relied heavily on Mexican agricultural labor and, more important, that the exemption reflected the U.S. foreign policy goal of Pan-Americanism. Maldwyn Allen Jones writes:
The restrictive immigration laws were essentially an expression of American revulsion from the Old World; and since, as a consequence of her isolationism, the United States tended to draw closer to other American countries, it was natural for her to place immigration from them upon a special footing …. But although Mexican immigration was checked by administrative action during the depression, every demand that immigration from the Americas should be placed on a quota basis was rejected in the interests of what eventually became known as the "Good Neighbor” policy. (Jones 1960, p. 289)
After the passage of the Quota Acts, immigrants from the Americas - Canada and Mexico in particular - grew as a share of the total.
During the 1930s, the overall level of immigration to the United States was negligible. Part of the explanation is that this was the period of the Great Depression, when the unemployed - those actively looking for work but unable to attain it - accounted for approximately one quarter of the entire work force. Such dismal employment prospects would be expected to reduce the inflow of immigrants because the prospects of employment were so poor. On the other hand, the rise of fascism in many countries, with its intended persecution of Jews, intellectuals, and other "enemies of the state,” motivated many of those with the means to do so to seek refuge in the United States. The United States admitted approximately 250,000 refugees fleeing fascist regimes in Europe. These were primarily of middle-class origin and worked in business and the professions. Twelve of these immigrants had already received Nobel Prizes, most famously Albert Einstein. Many scientists who immigrated to the United States at this time went on to win Nobel Prizes after their arrival (see Table Ad938–949). Many less-well-connected refugees who wished to immigrate to the United States in order to flee fascism were not permitted to enter (Gemery 1994). Far-reaching changes to American immigration law were made during and immediately following the conclusion of World War II. Wartime labor shortages in agriculture and other industries led the United States, in cooperation with Mexico, to initiate an organized recruitment of Mexican temporary workers.
These nonimmigrants were authorized to come to the United States for a temporary period for work and were then expected to return to their home countries. The wartime program for agricultural workers was continued in the late 1940s and was finally regularized under the renewed urgency created by the Korean War in 1951. This wartime program formed the basis under which the Mexican Braceros Program operated through the end of 1964. Data on Mexicans admitted as nonimmigrant temporary workers, together with other nonimmigrant programs initiated during and immediately following World War II, are shown in Table Ad1014–1022 and Table Ad1023–1029. The inauguration of the Cold War led to the use of immigration policy or, more particularly, refugee policy, as an important arm of U.S. foreign policy. World War II had displaced millions of people from their home countries and many of these people believed that they faced high risk of political persecution if they returned. Although the United States had political reasons for wanting to assist these people, it was unable to easily grant them admission as immigrants because many of them did not have proper documents, were indigent, or possessed other characteristics that made them "excludable” under the immigration law prevailing at the time. Because the United States wanted to admit these people for geopolitical reasons, Congress passed a considerable body of legislation that facilitated the entry of select political refugees into the United States. Beginning in 1965, the president and the State Department became even more active in initiating offers of asylum. By 1978, thirteen separate presidential directives or pieces of legislation had been enacted to facilitate the entry of favored groups. In 1980, Congress, in an effort to regularize the process of approving requests for asylum and reduce the independence of the executive branch in this area, passed the Refugee Act.
Nonetheless, all subsequent presidents have been actively involved in refugee policy, and the number of refugees and asylees admitted in each year has exceeded the cap of 50,000 mandated in the 1980 law (see series Ad989). Gilbert Loescher and John Scanlon (1998) find that since the end of World War II, approximately 90 percent of all refugees admitted to the United States under special circumstances arrived from communist-controlled countries. Refugees from countries ruled by fascistic governments, such as Chile in the 1970s and Haiti in the 1970s and 1980s, were not offered similar access to the United States (for details regarding Chilean and Haitian refugees, respectively, see Llambias-Wolff 1995 and Zucker and Zucker 1995). Table Ad989–1004 describes acts relating to the admission of refugees and asylees and displays the number of persons admitted under each program, and Table Ad1005–1013 displays the number of refugees and asylees admitted annually by continent of birth. In the 1940s and 1950s, an overwhelming majority of refugees admitted for permanent resident status in the United States came from Europe. Beginning in the mid-1960s, refugees from Latin America and then Asia predominated. U.S. immigration law changed profoundly in 1965 with the adoption of amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act that abolished the national origins quota system and replaced it with the Preference System, which heavily favored family reunification as the basis for admission. It established two broad classes of immigrants for purposes of admission. The first, which was admitted without numerical restriction, included immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, that is, spouses, young children, and parents. Ministers and other religious workers, and after 1981, graduates of foreign medical schools and "investors,” were also admitted without limitation. A numerical "cap” limited all other immigrant admissions and a system of "preferences” selected among applicants subject to this numerical limitation. There were four types of preferences: relative preferences (for specified relatives of citizens and immediate family members of lawful permanent residents of the United States), occupational preferences, refugee preferences, and nonpreference immigrants. The last group could be used to fill the numerical limitation only after the other three preferences were filled. Initially, this fourfold preference system applied only to non-Western Hemisphere immigrants; those from the Western Hemisphere were admitted without limit on a first-come, first-served basis. Beginning on July 1, 1968, Western Hemisphere immigrants became subject to the numerical cap. (See the text for Table Ad955–965 for further details of the program.) Because of the heavy weight given to family reunification, proponents of the new law expected that future immigrant streams would reflect the national origins of the 1965 population. As Michael Teitelbaum and Jay Winter point out, however, this is not what happened. Instead, the opposite of what was expected took place.
"Pioneer” immigrants from Asia, admitted under a labor certification system as nurses, doctors, engineers, and scientists, began to use the family-preference categories while they were still resident aliens to petition for admission of their spouses and children. The aliens recognized the advantages of expeditious naturalization, too, since it permitted unlimited admission of immediate family members and petitions for the admission of extended family, such as adult brothers and sisters. Family-based immigration from Asia grew, at first gradually and later rapidly. (Teitelbaum and Winter 1998, pp. 140–1)
In the 1970s, Vietnamese, Laotian, and Cambodian refugees joined this migrant stream. Whereas in 1965, the year the Preference System was enacted, Asians accounted for less than 7 percent of all immigrants, by the early 1980s, they comprised more than half of the total (see Table Ad98–105). Consequences of the temporary migrant labor programs established during World War II were also becoming apparent. Farmers in the Southwest had come to rely on these workers. The migrant workers had come to rely on the relatively high wages such jobs offered. When the wartime programs ended, the seasonal migration continued despite legal prohibitions. In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), also known as the Simpson-Rodino Bill, was signed into law. It sought to reduce illegal immigration through two strategies. It legalized the status of undocumented aliens who had been living in the country for many years, and it sought to reduce future flows by imposing penalties on employers who hired undocumented aliens. IRCA provided a one-time amnesty for certain other undocumented aliens residing in the United States. Two classes of undocumented aliens were eligible for legalization: those who had resided continuously in an unlawful status since January 1, 1982; and "special agricultural workers” (SAWs) who had worked in perishable agricultural commodities at least ninety days in each of the three years preceding May 1, 1986, and "entered without inspection” (EWIs). For details on numbers admitted, see series Ad963 and series Ad972. It is estimated that more than 90 percent of those legalized under the IRCA provisions were Mexican nationals. IRCA-sponsored immigration is the proximate cause of the prominent spike in the number of immigrants to the United States in the early 1990s. There were two notable changes in immigration law in the 1990s. The Immigration Act of 1990 increased the number of authorized immigrants and revised the grounds for exclusion and deportation. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 established new, harsher measures to control U.S. borders, to enforce employment restrictions, and to limit benefits for both legal and illegal aliens.
Through the initiative process, in 1994 California's Proposition 187 sought to limit illegal aliens' access to public services provided by that state.
Naturalization is the process by which aliens become citizens. Although the U.S. Constitution gives many rights to both citizens and resident noncitizens, there are some rights that the Constitution reserves exclusively for citizens. Among these are the rights to vote, carry a U.S. passport, and receive U.S. government assistance when traveling abroad. The process of naturalization involves taking an oath of allegiance, in the course of which an alien promises to give up prior allegiances to other countries, swear allegiance to the United States, support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States, and serve the country when required to do so. Naturalized citizens have all of the rights and responsibilities of the native-born except for one - a naturalized citizen is ineligible to become President of the United States.
One of the first acts of the new federal government, shortly after ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1789, was to establish a uniform rule for naturalization. The basic requirements -including evidence of good moral character, allegiance to the Constitution, a residency requirement, and a formal declaration of intention to naturalize - have remained part of the provisions to this day. A key provision of the law restricted naturalization to free white persons.
Aliens wishing to become American citizens presented their petitions for naturalization before a local judge who had wide latitude in decision making. The only automatic reason for denial would have been race. A considerable body of legislation was developed over the course of the nineteenth century in an effort to curb alleged abuses of the naturalization process by which judges' approval of naturalization petitions was done with an eye to affecting election outcomes. Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1866, following the conclusion of the Civil War, made all persons born or naturalized in the United States American citizens. The Naturalization Act of 1870 lifted restrictions on the naturalization of persons of African ancestry and explicitly conferred U.S. citizenship on the newly freed slaves.
Over the years the requirements for naturalization were modified, generally in the direction of making them more stringent. Knowledge of the English language was made a requirement for naturalization in 1906. The current provisions for U.S. naturalization were set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. All racial restrictions on naturalization were removed and a process for naturalization was laid out. According to this process, an alien applicant for naturalization must be at least eighteen years of age, have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence, and have resided in the United States continuously for at least five years. Additional requirements included the ability to speak, read, and write the English language, knowledge of the U.S. government and U.S. history, and good moral character. Special provisions exempted spouses and children of U.S. citizens and certain aliens who served in the U.S. armed forces from some of these requirements.
Because of the decentralized method of conferring naturalization during the nineteenth century, there was no systematic annual reporting of naturalizations. The first national data were collected in the federal census of 1890, which asked foreign-born males at least twenty-one years of age to report their citizenship status. Among those who responded, approximately two thirds reported U.S. citizenship. In 2000, only 40 percent were citizens. The data for 1890 and for other years when similar questions were asked by the federal census are reported in Table Ad280–318. The percentage for 2000 was computed from U.S. Census Bureau 2001, Table 1.1. Annual data on the number of aliens naturalized were first reported in 1907 (see Table Ad1030–1037). This is when U.S. courts were first required to report naturalization proceedings to a central federal agency. Throughout most of the twentieth century, the vast majority of naturalizations were conducted under the general naturalization provisions. The number of such naturalizations each year, beginning in 1945, is shown in series Ad1031. In the period immediately following World War II, however, the special naturalization regulations developed for spouses of citizens were the predominant method of naturalization because this is the period when a large number of "war brides” became U.S. citizens. The annual numbers of persons naturalized under the special provisions for spouses and for children are shown in series Ad1032 and series Ad1033, respectively. Naturalizations under the special provisions for children of U.S. citizens reached a high in the early 1960s, when they accounted for more than 5 percent of all naturalizations. This was a period when family-based immigrant admissions accounted for a large share of total admissions. Aliens naturalized under the special provisions developed for those who served in the U.S. armed forces are shown in series Ad1034. These naturalizations accounted for more than half the total in the years immediately following World War I and more than 10 percent of the total in the years following World War II. The Korean and Vietnam conflicts were also followed by bulges in naturalizations conducted under the special procedures developed for former U.S. military personnel. The courts may deny petitions for naturalization by aliens who fail to meet the prerequisites. Reasons for denial include failure to establish lawful admission to the United States or to meet residence requirements, as well as failure to pass the U.S. history or government tests or tests for speaking, reading, and writing in the English language. Failure to establish evidence of good moral character or to show attachment to the Constitution of the United States is also grounds for denial of the petition to naturalize. Series Ad1037 shows the number of petitions for naturalization denied annually since 1907. Denials were unusually high during two different episodes. One was during the 1920s, when anti-immigration sentiment was strong and the quota system was first put in place. Scholars suggest that these rejections were a reflection of the anti-immigrant sentiment at the time, especially the public fear of socialists and anarchists. A second episode when a large fraction of naturalization petitions were denied occurred during the 1990s, when the threat of withdrawal of public services for noncitizens greatly increased the volume of applications for naturalization.
Although every immigrant admitted to the United States has the right to become a naturalized citizen after fulfilling the requirements, a large number never do. The term "naturalization rate” refers to the proportion of immigrants who have gained citizenship through naturalization. Casual observation suggests that immigrants from different nations differ dramatically in their propensity to become American citizens. Despite the potential importance of this issue, we know of no systematic, long-term study of such country-of-origin differences. The most probable reason for this gap is that the data required to properly measure naturalization rates are not available. The most precise way of calculating naturalization rates would be to compare the number of persons who naturalize with the number eligible to do so. Persons who become citizens in any given year would be drawn from the population of immigrants in all previous years who were alive, remained in the United States, had served the required waiting period of five years (or less for some categories of immigrants), and had not yet naturalized. However, the exact size of the total eligible population is very difficult to estimate. It is the result of many decades of immigrant experience, including immigrant arrivals, departures, and deaths. The required data for calculating the number eligible to naturalize and who have not yet done so are not available because the INS does not collect information on emigration or on immigrant mortality.
As an alternative to a comprehensive approach to calculating naturalization rates, the INS has recently begun following the naturalization experience of two immigration-year cohorts, those of 1977 and 1982. Estimates of the naturalization rates of these cohorts are derived by linking the statistical records of each arrival group with naturalization records starting in the year they became immigrants and for each subsequent year. Series Ad1051 displays the overall naturalization rate achieved in each year by the 1977 cohort. A perhaps surprising finding is that a large proportion of these immigrants had not yet naturalized after a relatively long period as permanent residents in the United States. Only about one third had naturalized ten years later; only a little more than half had naturalized after twenty years. Naturalization rates differ greatly depending on the immigrant's country of origin. Table Ad1051–1071 shows the naturalization rates for the 1977 cohort of immigrants from a number of different countries. It reveals high naturalization rates for immigrants from Cuba, the People's Republic of China, and the former Soviet Union - more than 60 percent by 1997 - a rate that is twice the rate among immigrants from Mexico, and three times the rate among immigrants from Canada and the UK. Other data not reported here suggest that the naturalization rates among immigrants reporting a professional specialty or a technical occupation are also high, suggesting that the highly skilled are more likely to naturalize than are immigrants generally. In addition, immigrants who arrive as young adults or who come as refugees also have a greater tendency to naturalize than others. Legislative efforts during the 1990s to restrict public social spending programs to citizens seem to have increased the propensity of all immigrants to naturalize. The series presented in Table Ad1051–1071 display the cumulative percentage of the 1977 immigration-year cohort who have naturalized by a given date. Immigrants who fail to naturalize may be divided analytically into three categories: those who die before naturalizing, those who emigrate before naturalizing, and those who fail to apply. Failure to apply may in turn have several explanations: the fees may seem high, requirements for passing examinations in the English language and civics may seem daunting, and evidence of "good moral character” may be impossible for persons with criminal records. Language may be a particular barrier for elderly immigrants, although the naturalization laws make some allowances for older persons. Another reason not to naturalize is that the perceived benefits are small or that the costs are great. Scholars estimate that the fraction of the world's population with dual or multiple national allegiances is growing and that such transnational citizens are playing an increasingly important role in international trade and politics (Schiller 1999).
The geographic origin of immigrants to the United States has changed substantially over time. We have already mentioned the transition from Western and Northern Europe to Southern and Eastern Europe in the late nineteenth century and the shift from Europe to Latin America and Asia after 1965. Important shifts have also occurred among countries within continents. We have assembled and presented two measures of immigrants' "country of origin”: one is "country of last residence,” which has been collected and published since 1820, and the second is "country of birth,” a measure available beginning in 1941 (see Tables Ad106-221). The tables classify migrants from particular areas by defining their boundaries according to the country in existence at the time of the migrant's move. Where country border changes were frequent and substantial, such as in Eastern Europe during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it may be impossible to use these data to measure migrant flows from a particular geographic area. Migration from Poland is perhaps the most notorious example. The tables document as clearly as possible the legal boundary changes. Users should exercise caution in interpreting the numbers.
For years beginning in 1941, both measures are available and they often display different patterns. For example, the number of immigrants who were born in Italy declined rather dramatically beginning in the early 1970s. By contrast, the number of immigrants for whom Italy was their last country of residence rose during the mid-1980s and displayed a sharp spike during the IRCA legalizations in the years surrounding 1990. The contrast provides a glimpse into the complicated pattern of international migration, in which migrants often live in one or more foreign countries before they settle in the United States. Scholars believe that international migration involving multiple countries was also common in the period before 1941.
Shifts over time in the country of origin of international migrants to the United States are the result of complicated processes acting within both the sending countries and the United States. The single most important factor that explains these shifts is change in the location of economic opportunities. Migrants' pursuit of economic opportunity has influenced the pattern of migration to the United States by country of origin in three different ways. One is that sharp changes in relative economic opportunities help explain the timing of the onset of immigration from individual countries. The massive movement of the Irish to the United States during the Great Potato Famine of 1845–1849 is a good example. For the Irish, migration to the United States was becoming common in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries as rapid population increase, a stagnant economy, and political instability meant few economic opportunities for young people in Ireland. Young Irishmen moved to Scotland, England, and America in search of better prospects. In the United States they found work building canals and highways in the new nation. When the Great Potato Famine struck from 1845 to 1849, an estimated 1.6 million Irish moved to the United States in search of a better means of livelihood (Scally 1995).
English, Swedish, and German farmers immigrated to the United States in an effort to escape economic ruin when improvements in railroad and water transportation brought cheap grain from the United States, Russia, and India to their markets.
Upon European farming the effect was immediate and catastrophic. Germany, now linked by rail to the Russian black earth zone, the Polish and Hungarian plains, and the Rumanian wheatlands, changed with a single decade - 1865–75 - from a grain-exporting to a grain-importing country. In England a searing agricultural depression in the seventies, originating in the competition of American wheat, spelled the doom of the old agrarian economy; between the sixties and the eighties the price of wheat and the acreage of land under wheat both fell by almost 50 percent. In Sweden, which turned to free trade in 1865, the agrarian crisis was heightened by disastrous crop failures between 1861 and 1869, which produced famine conditions in many areas. In each of the areas affected tens of thousands of farmers and agricultural laborers were driven to emigrate. (Jones 1960, pp. 193–4)
Mass emigration out of Italy took place in the aftermath of a war for national unification, which left farmlands in the south of the country in ruins and no alternative source of support either from the Church or from large landowners. These so-called push factors were augmented by economic "pull” from the United States. Peak years of immigration into the United States - such as 1882, 1907, and 1910 - were also peak years of performance for the U.S. economy (for the dates of business cycle peaks and troughs, see Table Cb5–8). Economic considerations are important even in migrations that are motivated by the search for religious and political freedom. Although there is only one place a migrant can leave, there are many places where he or she can go. At the same time, the income differential between the United States and other parts of the world is not the only factor governing international migration. If this were the case, then migrants to the United States would be coming from the poorest countries of the world and from the poorest regions within these countries. This is not the case.
A second set of factors determining the pattern of immigration from any single country has to do with the way an initial migration changes the environment in which later potential migrants operate. These migration-induced changes help explain a widely observed pattern in international migration. That is, in the absence of stringent and effective regulations, immigration from any single country follows the pattern of an inverted U. There is an initial introductory phase that is often the result of a political or economic disjuncture in the home country. In the second phase, emigration from the country rises at an increasing pace. This is because family and friends of the initial migrants can benefit from the experience of the first movers. Immigrants in the first wave send money to help finance the travel of those who remained behind. They also provide temporary homes upon arrival, information about the country, and help in locating jobs. With the cost of migration reduced in these important ways, it is easier for others to follow. At some point, however, the migrant flows reach a saturation phase where the numbers level off. After this, they begin to decline. One reason for this leveling off is that the stock of potential migrants becomes depleted. There are fewer people left in the sending country, and, especially, many fewer with the ability and incentive to make such a move. Moreover, for those who remain, employment and other economic opportunities are often improved as a result of the exodus of their neighbors. There are relatively more jobs, more land, and, especially if the migrants send back remittances, more money.
These factors also discourage further out-migration. In the absence of further disruption, then, large-scale migration would be expected to cease of its own accord. One can observe this inverted-U pattern in the immigration data for Ireland, Germany, Britain, and Scandinavia, four regions that more or less completed the full process before the United States imposed stringent general numerical restrictions on immigration in the 1920s (see Figure Ad-D) (see also Massey 1994; Hatton and Williamson 1998). A final set of forces that affect migration from any country are the immigration laws of the United States and of the sending countries. Three examples of how such laws affect the level and timing of immigration are the histories of immigration from China, Japan, and Mexico.
The rapid expansion of immigration from China began under circumstances that were similar to those that sent thousands of Europeans across the Atlantic in search of economic opportunity.
Large-scale Chinese immigration, like that of the Irish, originated in economic catastrophe; the great Taiping rebellion, beginning in 1848, paralyzed trade and industry in southeastern China and brought famine and ruin to millions. News of the high wages paid to laborers in gold rush California was thus all that was needed to start an exodus from the hard-hit province of Kwangtung. (Jones 1960, p. 204)
However, unlike the case of the Irish, Chinese immigration was brought to an abrupt halt in 1882 when the United States passed the Chinese Exclusion Act. It was not until 1943 that a change to the Alien Registration Act effectively repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act and authorized an annual inflow of 150 immigrants from China. Figures on immigrants whose country of last residence or country of birth was China do not display an immediate response to the passage of this law during wartime, though in 1947, following the conclusion of World War II, both figures soar to heights that greatly exceeded the official numerical quota of 150 ( series Ad138 and series Ad151). The vast majority of these Chinese immigrants were alien wives of American citizens admitted on a nonquota basis. Roger Daniels (1988, p. 199) estimates that almost ten thousand Chinese women were admitted under this program in the eight years following the conclusion of World War II. Nonetheless, the number of immigrants from China remained small until 1965, when the National Origins Quota Acts were abolished and the Preference System, which eliminated country of origin as a criterion for admission, was adopted. The fact that immigration from China soared immediately following the abolition of the National Origins Quota Acts suggests that these Acts had served as a binding constraint on immigration (see Table Ad151–152). The history of immigration from Japan was also profoundly influenced by legal changes. Japanese immigration to the United States began in the 1860s and intensified in the 1880s and 1890s after the Japanese government lifted restrictions on the emigration of its nationals. Many Japanese also migrated to Hawai'i during this period, and when Hawai'i was annexed by the United States in 1898 these Japanese immigrants automatically became U.S. residents. For Japanese immigration to Hawai'i during the nineteenth century, see series Ad85. Japanese immigration was curtailed in 1907 with the so-called Gentleman's Agreement between the emperor of Japan and the president of the United States, according to which the Japanese emperor would not issue passports to unskilled laborers. In exchange, the United States promised better treatment of the Japanese population living in this country. Until 1924, wives of Japanese men living in the United States were allowed to migrate from Japan to the United States to join their husbands; however, the adoption of the Quota System severely curtailed even this migration. Like Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans suffered intense discrimination in the United States. In 1913 and 1920, laws were passed in some states that prohibited Japanese from owning land and limited their ability to lease land. During World War II, an estimated 110,000 Japanese Americans, including 70,000 American-born U.S. citizens, living on the West Coast were obliged by President Franklin Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 to liquidate their possessions and were forced into "relocation centers” for the duration of the war (Spicer [and others] 1969; Daniels 1972). Immigration from Japan resumed at the conclusion of World War II. Much of this migration comprised Japanese-born wives of U.S. servicemen who were stationed in Japan during the American occupation following the war. One scholar estimates that 45,000 of these so-called war brides were admitted to the United States between 1947 and 1975 (Kim 1977; see also Glenn 1986). If correct, it would mean that those war brides accounted for almost half of all Japanese immigrants to the United States during this period. Daniels's calculations (1988, p. 307) support this view. He shows that women accounted for 85.9 percent of Japanese immigrants to the United States between 1950 and 1960.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) shaped the immigration of Mexicans. Series Ad175 shows an almost fifteenfold increase in Mexican immigration between 1986 and the peak of IRCA-enabled immigration in 1991. The total number of IRCA legalizations is shown in series Ad963 and series Ad973. More than 80 percent of the immigrants admitted under IRCA were of Mexican birth. IRCA was a response to the flow of undocumented migrants from Mexico, which began in the late 1960s and grew during the 1970s and 1980s. By 1980, an estimated two to four million undocumented persons were living in the country (Edmonston, Passel, and Bean 1990, p. 27). IRCA was a compromise designed to meet two goals. One was to regularize the status of a large population, much of which had been living in the country for many years. The second was to stem this migratory tide by implementing sanctions against employers who hired undocumented workers (Bean, Edmonston, and Passel 1990).
Data on immigrants' age, gender, and occupation were collected as part of the earliest efforts to count immigrants, which began in 1820. The figures are shown in Tables Ad222-255. These personal characteristics of immigrants are of great interest to policy makers because they help determine the impact of immigration on the U.S. economy and society. If immigrants are highly skilled young adults who migrate in order to work, then immigration will raise per capita income and earnings. If immigrants are less skilled than the average worker or if they are not engaged in paid labor, then average per capita income may fall, even though the income of each individual rises. This will be the case as long as immigrants' income in the United States is greater than that in their country of origin. Perhaps the most consistent pattern revealed in these data is that the numerical restrictions on immigration that began in the 1920s profoundly altered the characteristics of immigrants who came to the United States. Prior to the numerical restrictions, immigrants were disproportionately young adult males. Around the turn of the twentieth century, males outnumbered females by more than two to one (see Figure Ad-E). Young adults outnumbered children and older persons and their share in the immigrant stream was more than four times greater than their share in the resident population. This predominance of young adult males is a characteristic of the entire period of uncontrolled immigration; however, it disappears within a decade following the imposition of numerical limitations. Prior to these restrictions, most immigrants came to the United States in order to work for wages. Men were more likely than women to be engaged in wage work and young adult males enjoyed a greater relative labor market advantage than did older ones. The new regime equalized the probabilities of males and females gaining admission and it increased the immigration of children and older adults. The one exception is the spike in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which is associated with the IRCA legalizations. The large proportion of males and young people suggests that a large share of the previously undocumented population that had come to the United States were similar in their motivation to temporary migrants at the turn of the twentieth century, when employment opportunities were of paramount importance in the migration decision. The occupational distribution of immigrants is shown in Table Ad231–245 and Table Ad246–255. These can be compared with distributions of the native- and foreign-born labor force across the same occupational categories (see Table Ba1131–1144 and Table Ba1145–1158). There are many insights to be gained from a careful study of the trends in each table and from a comparison among them. As Matthew Sobek writes, "Occupations are among the most revealing and valuable pieces of socioeconomic information pertaining to individuals that survive in the historical record” (see the essay on occupations in Chapter Ba). One example of what can be done is displayed in Figure Ad-F, which aggregates these data in a way that highlights skill differentials among three classes - newly arrived immigrants, all foreign-born workers, and native-born workers. For those who reported an occupation, we added together those who defined themselves as farmers, farm laborers, nonfarm laborers, or domestic servants and then expressed that number as a share of the total. This is not a perfect measure of "low-skill” occupations because successful farming requires experience and specialized knowledge. Yet this is a standard measure and, in any case, it is the best we can do. In the era of mass migration, roughly 70 percent of immigrants who reported an occupation reported one that we have classified as low-skill. Such an occupational distribution is not particularly surprising because most of these immigrants came from rural backgrounds. As time passed and the American labor force was becoming more skilled, the low skills of immigrants were increasingly disparate from those of the native-born. It is also interesting to compare the occupations of newly arrived immigrants with those of all foreign-born workers. This differential is even greater than that vis-vis the native-born. The explanation for this surprising pattern is that the foreign-born were more likely than the native-born to live in cities and to work in manufacturing industries. Because very few immigrants had worked in factories in their home countries, their migration to the United States meant not only a change in country and occupation, but a change in industry as well. The passage of the Quota Acts in the 1920s led to a change in the occupations of arriving immigrants, bringing them much more closely into line with the occupations of both the native- and foreign-born work force of the United States. The exception is the occupations of immigrants legalized by IRCA. This group is heavily concentrated in agricultural occupations, which is not surprising because the program specifically targeted agricultural workers.
Nonimmigrants are aliens who come to the United States for a temporary period. The category "nonimmigrant” was first defined in the Immigration Act of 1819; however, the regular reporting of nonimmigrants did not begin until 1906. Prior to 1906, many of the so-called immigrants recorded in the official statistics were nonimmigrants by this more precise definition. Most of these early migrants came to the United States to work for a short time, save their earnings, and then return to their home countries. Between 40 and 60 percent of official immigrants who arrived during the period 1900–1906 had left the United States by 1920 (Carter and Sutch 1998, 1999). The Quota Act of 1924 first established a distinction among several different classes of nonimmigrants. The number of these classes has grown over time so that by the late 1990s, eighteen separate classes were being reported by the INS (see Table Ad1014–1022 and Table Ad1023–1029). The number of nonimmigrants admitted to the United States in any year far exceeds the number of immigrants. In 1996, for example, the number of nonimmigrant admissions was more than twenty-five times larger than that of immigrants. The disproportion between nonimmigrants and immigrants was not always so great. In 1950, the number of nonimmigrants was less than twice as large as the flow of immigrants. What happened over the second half of the twentieth century is that nonimmigrant admissions grew rapidly. With the exception of the "special programs” category, which was discontinued in 1982 ( series Ba4916), extremely rapid growth occurred in every category of nonimmigrant admissions. "Visitors for pleasure” or tourists account for more than 90 percent of all nonimmigrant admissions today ( series Ad1015). The rapid growth in the number of international tourists coming to the United States is a manifestation of the growth of international tourism worldwide. With the decline in transportation costs and worldwide improvements in standard of living, international tourism has moved from a luxury available only to the elite to an option for the broad middle class in many different countries around the world. Temporary workers, though far less numerous than tourists, are a class of nonimmigrants with very important economic and political implications for the American economy. Temporary workers are migrants who move to the United States for a short period for the purpose of working, earning income, and accumulating assets. Their larger goal is to return to their home countries better prepared with the assets they need to establish themselves in careers (see Table Ad1023–1029). In much of the world, temporary worker policy is a prominent political and economic issue. Temporary workers are usually attractive to the host country because their migration decisions are strongly motivated by labor market considerations. Temporary workers tend to move toward tight labor markets and leave loose ones. Their entry thus moderates wage increases during boom times and their exit softens domestic job loss during depressions. At the same time, the job skills and personal characteristics of temporary workers are often quite different from those of the native labor force. They tend to complement rather than compete with existing workers.
Despite these positive benefits, temporary workers and the policies that invite and regulate their flow are not without critics. The temporary workers who are most visible tend to live at the margins of their host country's economy and society, contributing little to the country's culture and repatriating a substantial fraction of the wages and salaries earned. Some temporary workers decide to become permanent residents and thus temporary flows lead to permanent stocks, perhaps in numbers unanticipated by or unwelcome to the host country. In some cases the transition from temporary to permanent residence is made without proper authorization. Official statistics on temporary workers began in 1950; however, the flow of temporary workers began much earlier. As noted earlier, many of those recorded as immigrants prior to 1906 were, in fact, temporary workers. For the period 1906–1949, some temporary workers were recorded as nonimmigrants but many were not recorded at all. The Immigration Act of 1924 defined the term "immigrant” and placed temporary workers in the category of "nonimmigrant temporary visitors” along with tourists and other temporary visitors. There were no restrictions on the number or occupations of such nonimmigrants that could be admitted beyond those of the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Contract Labor Law. In 1943, the Contract Labor Law was amended to permit the contractual importation of temporary agricultural laborers from North, Central, and South America to relieve wartime labor shortages. Virtually all of those admitted under the Emergency Farm Labor Supply Program were Mexican nationals. The 1943 Act evolved through its various extensions into the Mexican Braceros Program, which lasted through 1964. Temporary workers admitted as agricultural workers were considered as neither immigrants nor nonimmigrants, and statistics on their numbers were maintained separately by the Department of Labor.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 restricted the admission of temporary workers to three classes: persons of "distin- guished merit or ability” (called "specialty occupations” since fiscal 1992), persons performing "services unavailable in the United States” (defined to mean that unemployed residents capable of performing such labor cannot be found), and "industrial trainees” (when the training involved could not be obtained in the worker's home country). A new class of nonimmigrant admission was added by an act in 1970: intracompany transferees. These are persons employed by an international company who enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to work for the same employer (or a subsidiary or affiliate) in a capacity that is primarily managerial or executive or that involves special knowledge. At the same time, a special admission category for spouses and children of temporary workers was added. The U.S.-Canadian Free Trade Agreement of 1988 and the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1993 established provisions for temporary admission of professional business persons to work in the United States.
Temporary worker flows are large relative to the flow of immigrants and they have a different pattern over time. At their peak in the late 1950s, temporary worker admissions were almost twice as large as immigrant admissions. At their ebb in the late 1970s, temporary worker flows fell to less than 20 percent of the level of immigrant flows. Today, the flow of nonimmigrant temporary workers and their families is more than half as large as that of official legal immigrants.
Foreign student admissions have also grown rapidly ( series Ad1017). Over the last quarter of the twentieth century, foreign-born students grew as a share of all students in American colleges and universities, especially within graduate programs in the fields of science and engineering ( Table Bc537–564). In 1997, one fourth of all earned doctoral degrees awarded by American universities were bestowed on noncitizens holding temporary visas. In the field of engineering, the figure was almost 40 percent (National Science Board 2000, appendix Table 4-26). Many of these advanced-degree recipients later become permanent residents and citizens. They account for a significant share of the science and engineering work force of the United States.
The foreign-born population includes all residents born in a country other than the United States, whether or not they are citizens or are residing in the country legally. Because the flow of immigrants and emigrants has varied over time, so too has the size and relative share of the foreign-born population. Data on the size of the foreign-born white population are available beginning in 1850 and for the total foreign-born population beginning in 1870. These totals are shown in Table Ad354–443. As a consequence of the heavy immigrant flows beginning in the second third of the nineteenth century, the number of foreign-born grew to be a large share of the total popu- lation. In the years between 1860 and 1920, resident Americans born abroad accounted for between 13 and 15 percent of the total population. The passage of the Quota Acts with their stringent numerical controls precipitated a substantial fall in the foreign-born share from 1920 through 1970, at which point the foreign-born accounted for less than 5 percent of the population. The expansion of immigrant flows following the 1965 Act, combined with the fall in U.S. fertility, meant a rise in the foreign-born share of the population in the closing years of the twentieth century. As noted earlier, immigrants tend to migrate as young adults, and prior to the imposition of quotas, males predominated in the immigrant stream. These characteristics would be expected to affect the characteristics of the stock of foreign-born residents, and this was the case. While the male-to-female ratio among native-born whites remained close to 1 throughout the long period for which data are available, this ratio shifts wildly for the population of foreign-born whites. During the period of mass immigration in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, males predominated by a substantial margin. The imposition of quotas gradually reduced the margin until, by 1950, the ratio was about equal to 1. After that, it fell through 1970 as the foreign-born population aged and the greater longevity of women gave them the edge. The relaxation of immigration controls in 1965 led to growth in the male share. The age structure of the foreign-born population also reflects the pace and pattern of immigrant flows. Among both males and females, the fraction of the foreign-born population in the prime working ages was substantially above that for the native-born population throughout the period of mass immigration, fell sharply with the curtailment of immigration, and is again on the rise. The distinctive gender and age structure of the foreign-born population is important because, to a large extent, it determines the impact of immigration on the rest of the economy. If a larger fraction of the foreign- than native-born population is in the working-age groups and participates in the labor force, this will cause output per capita to rise even if the productivity of labor remains unchanged. In the last era of mass migration, immigrants were far more likely to participate in the labor force than the average American at the time. This was true for three reasons. Immigrants were predominantly male and, at the time, males were far more likely than females to participate. Immigrants were predominantly young adults, and young adults are more likely than the very young and the very old to participate. Finally, among the young adults, immigrants were more likely to be labor market participants than were their white native-born counterparts. These labor force participation rates by sex, race, and nativity are shown in Table Ad752–759. For these three reasons, then, immigration before the quota era tended to raise per capita income in the United States. The characteristics of immigrants arriving in the renewed immigrant flows following the abolition of the Quota Acts in 1965 have changed. The male-female ratio is more balanced, there are relatively more children and older persons, and the labor force participation rate of these immigrants is actually somewhat below that for the native-born white population and, for women (but not for men), below that for the black population as well. The positive impact of this wave of immigrants on per capita income in the United States will be more muted.
Characteristics of the foreign-born population relative to those of the native-born population are sometimes used as a measure of immigrant assimilation. Assimilation refers to immigrants' absorption into the prevailing culture. The assumption underlying this approach is that the greater the similarity between foreign-born and native-born characteristics, the more fully have immigrants been absorbed into American culture. Thus, for example, the larger share of the foreign-born population with English language proficiency in 1990 compared with 1900 suggests greater immigrant assimilation at the later date (see Table Ad711–721). Throughout American history, perhaps the most distinctive characteristic of the foreign-born population has been its geographic location. To a far greater extent than the native-born, the foreign-born have made their homes in cities. When data first became available in 1890, the share of the foreign-born living in urban places was more than 61
percent, almost double the share of the native-born ( Table Ad707–710). Although the gap closed somewhat over time, the urban location of the foreign-born remains a distinctive trait. Because of their concentration in urban centers, the foreign-born are more highly concentrated across states than are the native-born. Table Ad696–706 displays a measure of this differential concentration. It compares each state's share of the foreign-born population with its share of the native-born population. Thus, for example, in 1990 California was home to 10.2 percent of the native-born but 32.7 percent of the foreign-born population. The table indicates that the native-born population showed a modest tendency to become more widely dispersed across the states over time. In 1990, the three states with the largest native-born populations accounted for a smaller fraction of the native-born population than in 1850. For the foreign-born population, the pattern is quite different. In each year, the degree of geographic concentration is greater and it shows a different pattern over time. The rise of mass migration in the late nineteenth century was initially accompanied by greater geographic dispersal, although this process was reversed after 1890. Perhaps the most spectacular development was the unprecedented surge in the geographic concentration of the foreign-born after 1970, leading to an all-time high rate in 1990. Over the 1990s, the geographic concentration of the foreign-born was reduced somewhat as some of the foreign-born began selecting their homes from a broader range of areas (Frey 2002). Finally, until very recently, a disproportionate share of immigrants made their homes in the Northeast, Midwest, and Western portions of the country. This so-called avoidance of the South is thought to result from the potential labor market competition from slave labor up through 1860 and the relative absence of Southern manufacturing and low Southern wages throughout the nineteenth century and continuing into the 1960s (Wright 1986). For those coming to the United States to work, the South offered far fewer opportunities than other regions of the country. Beginning in 1940, the share of the foreign-born population living in the South began to rise and in the 1960s growth accelerated ( Table Ad696–706). Both reflect largely political developments, the first being the Braceros Program promoting the temporary migration of agricultural labor for Southwestern farms (especially Texas) and the second being the admission of Cuban refugees, a large proportion of whom settled in south Florida.
The primary source for quantitative measures of trends in immigration to the United States is the data collected by the federal office now known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), located in the U.S. Department of Justice until 2002, when it became part of the new Department of Homeland Security. The collection of data on immigrants began following the passage of the Act of March 2, 1819, which required the captain or master of a vessel arriving from abroad to deliver to the local collector of customs a list or manifest of all passengers taken on board. This original reporting requirement included a call for information on the age, sex, and occupation of each passenger, "the country to which they severally belonged,” and the number that had died on the voyage. Copies of these manifests were to be transmitted to the Secretary of State, who was to report the information to Congress "at each and every session.” Subsequently, the Act of 1855 prescribed that the Secretary of State report annually to Congress. Later acts expanded the range of data to be collected. Currently these data are collected, tabulated, and published by the INS in its Statistical Yearbook. Although the INS makes some effort to present continuous time series on various measures, the results are uneven. Important compilations of historical series relating to immigration include Bromwell ([1856] 1969), U.S. Bureau of the Census (1975), and Hutchinson (1958, 1981). Hutchinson prepared the chapter titled "International Migration and Naturalization,” in U.S. Bureau of the Census (1975). For two recent evaluations of the official statistics on immigration, see Levine, Hill, and Warren (1985) and Edmonston (1996). Many of the statistics presented here update those that appear in U.S. Bureau of the Census (1975). Table Ad1–2 includes a detailed description of the underlying sources. For most of these series, the updating process required an examination of each of the Statistical Yearbooks of the INS published since 1970. In some cases - for example, country of last residence- we offer more detail than Hutchinson so as to better reflect the increasing importance of, and diversity within, immigration from Latin America and Asia since 1970. More detailed data in the form of microdata are available from the National Technical Information Service, through which the INS also distributes public use data sets. Such data sets contain demographic information on each individual immigrant, the only major exception being those legalized under the IRCA legislation. Though the number of immigrants is presented as a continuous series from 1820 to 1998, the underlying definition of immigrant has changed over time with numerous year-to-year changes that are documented in the text for Table Ad1–2. There were three major conceptual shifts. From the beginning of the data collection process in 1820 and continuing through 1904, the data represent primarily the tabulations of reports by ship captains, who were required to provide a list, or manifest, of all passengers taken on board. The lists included passengers coming for brief stays as well as those who planned to settle permanently in the United States. The systematic reporting of persons who crossed into the United States over land borders with Canada and Mexico began in 1904 and was largely complete by 1908. It has been continued to the present. In 1906, arriving aliens were divided into two classes. "Immigrants” were defined as those who declared their intention to settle in the United States. Nonimmigrants were defined as aliens who stated that they did not intend to settle in the United States and also those aliens who were returning to their homes in the United States after a brief visit to their home country. In 1933, the definition of immigrants and nonimmigrants was changed to pertain not to physical movement, but to legal status. "Immigrant” was redefined as an alien accepted for legal permanent resident status. The shift in definition away from an emphasis on the geographic and toward an emphasis on the legal has a profound effect on the meaning of immigration data. Admission as an immigrant may occur on arrival in the United States; however, it may also take place many years after a person has begun living in the United States. For example, the IRCA legalizations did not represent the movement of individuals into the United States, but rather the adjustment of the status of people who had been living in the country for some time. The primary source for statistical information on the foreign-born population of the United States is the decennial census conducted by the federal government. Beginning in 1850 and continuing through 2000, the Census asked respondents to report their country of birth. For the years 1880 through 1970, the Census also inquired about the country of birth of the respondent's parents. Recently, microdata samples from the manuscripts of the federal censuses have been put into electronic format and made available to the public as the Public Use Microdata Series (PUMS). To facilitate the public's use of the PUMS data for the analysis of time trends, Steven Ruggles and Matthew Sobek have standardized the coding of many PUMS variables, including the coding of country of birth, to create the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS; see the Guide to the Millennial Edition for information on the IPUMS).
Two important data collection efforts that attempted to document characteristics of immigrants during the period of mass immigration around the turn of the twentieth century deserve comment. One important source of systematic quantitative evidence on the foreign-born population was collected in a series of surveys of working-class households in the late nineteenth century that were motivated by an effort to better understand the cause of the social unrest that immigration seemed to prompt. Carroll D. Wright (1840–1909), the leader of this effort, began his work as Commissioner of the Massachusetts Bureau of Labor Statistics and within a short space of time was appointed Commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Labor, where he organized and supervised large-scale studies of native- and foreign-born working-class families. These studies inspired labor commissioners in other states to conduct similar studies in the half-century that followed. For a description of this project see Carter, Ransom, and Sutch (1991). For an annotated bibliography of these surveys, see Williams and Zimmerman (1935). A second important source of information on immigrants and their characteristics is the forty-two-volume report of the U.S. Immigration Commission of 1911, also known as the Dillingham Commission Report (see U.S. Congress, Senate (1911)). Many countries around the world collect and publish data on immigration and emigration. An authoritative and influential compilation of such statistics through 1924 is Ferenczi and Willcox (1929). Table Ad25–50 and Table Ad51–79 display summary statistics from this source. For the late twentieth century, immigration data from many different countries are collected and published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2001). An impressive survey of international migration from ninety-five separate perspectives is Cohen (1995).
Figure Ad-A.
Immigrants to the United States - total and number per 1,000 of the resident population: 1820–1998
Sources
Figure Ad-B. Net immigration as a percentage of population growth: 1790–1999
Sources
Figure Ad-D.
Immigrants, by country of last residence - Great Britain, Scandinavia, Germany, and Ireland: 1820–1920
Sources
Series Ad107–109 and Series Ad111, along with quadratic trend lines fitted to the data over the period 1820–1920 for Great Britain, Germany, and Ireland and over the period 1860–1920 for Scandinavia.
Figure Ad-E. Male-to-female ratio among immigrants: 1825–1997
Source
Figure Ad-F. Low-skill occupations as a percentage of known occupations among immigrants, native-born persons, and foreign-born persons: 1820–1998
Source
Immigrants, through 1982: series Ad231, series Ad233, series Ad239, series Ad241, and series Ad244–245. Immigrants, beginning 1983: series Ad246, series Ad252–253, and series Ad255. Native-born persons: series Ba1131, series Ba1133, series Ba1140, and series Ba1142–1144. Foreign-born persons: series Ba1145, series Ba1147, series Ba1154, and series Ba1156–1158.
Documentation
In each case, the sum of the series for "low-skill” occupations is expressed as a percentage of the following: the total minus those with an unspecified occupation or no occupation reported. Note that the figures for native-born and foreign-born persons exclude women in 1850 and slaves in 1850–1860.
Archdeacon, Thomas J. 1983. Becoming American: An Ethnic History. Free Press.
Bailyn, Bernard. 1986. The Peopling of British North America: An Introduction. Knopf.
Baines, Dudley. 1995. Emigration from Europe, 1815–1930. Cambridge University Press.
Bean, Frank D., Barry Edmonston, and Jeffrey Passel, editors. 1990. Undocumented Migration to the United States - IRCA and the Experience of the 1980s. Rand Corporation and the Urban Institute.
Bodnar, John. 1985. The Transplanted: A History of Immigrants in Urban America. Indiana University Press.
Briggs, Vernon M., Jr. 1984. Immigration Policy and the American Labor Force. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bromwell, William J. [1856] 1969. History of Immigration to the United States, 1819–1855. 1st edition, Redfield, 1856; reprinted by Augustus M. Kelley, 1969.
Carter, Susan B., Roger L. Ransom, and Richard Sutch. 1991. "The Historical Labor Statistics Project at the University of California.” Historical Methods 24 (2): 52–65.
Carter, Susan B., and Richard Sutch. 1998. "Historical Background to Current Immigration Issues.” In James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, editors. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. National Academy Press.
Carter, Susan B., and Richard Sutch. 1999. "Historical Perspectives on the Economic Consequences of Immigration into the United States.” In Charles Hirschman, Philip Kasinitz, and Josh DeWind, editors. The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience. Russell Sage Foundation.
Cohen, Robin, editor. 1995. The Cambridge Survey of World Migration. Cambridge University Press.
Daniels, Roger. 1972. Concentration Camps, U.S.A.: Japanese-Americans and World War II. Rinehart and Winston.
Daniels, Roger. 1988. Asian America: Chinese and Japanese in the United States since 1850. University of Washington Press.
Edmonston, Barry, editor. 1996. "Committee on National Statistics and Committee on Population, National Research Council.” Statistics on U.S. Immigration: An Assessment of Data Needs for Future Research. National Academy Press.
Edmonston, Barry, Jeffrey S. Passel, and Frank D. Bean. 1990. "Perceptions and Estimates of Undocumented Migration to the United States.” In Frank D. Bean, Barry Edmonston, and Jeffrey Passel, editors. Undocumented Migration to the United States - IRCA and the Experience of the 1980s. Rand Corporation and the Urban Institute.
Ferenczi, Imre, and Walter F. Willcox. 1929. International Migrations, volume 1, Statistics Compiled on Behalf of the International Labour Office, Geneva, with Introduction and Notes. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Frey, William H. 2002. "U.S. Census Shows Different Paths for Domestic and Foreign-Born Migrants.” Population Today (August/September). Available only online at the Web site of the Population Reference Bureau.
Gemery, Henry A. 1984. "European Emigration to North America, 1700–1820: Numbers and Quasi-Numbers.” Perspectives in American History new series 1: 283–342.
Gemery, Henry A. 1994. "Immigrants and Emigrants: International Migration and the US Labor Market in the Great Depression.” In Timothy J. Hatton and Jeffrey G. Williamson, editors. Migration and the International Labor Market, 1850–1939. Routledge.
Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. 1986. Issei, Nisei, War Bride: Three Generations of Japanese American Women in Domestic Service. Temple University Press.
Hatton, Timothy J., and Jeffrey G. Williamson. 1998. The Age of Mass Migration: Causes and Economic Impact. Oxford University Press.
Hutchinson, Edward P. 1958. "Notes on the Immigration Statistics of the United States.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 55: 963–1025.
Hutchinson, Edward P. 1981. Legislative History of American Immigration Policy, 1798–1965. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Jones, Maldwyn Allen. 1960. American Immigration. University of Chicago Press.
Kim, Bok-Lim C. 1977. "Asian Wives of U.S. Servicemen: Women in the Shadows.” Amerasia Journal 4: 98–100.
LeMay, Michael, and Elliott Barkan, editors. 1999. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Laws and Issues: A Documentary History. Greenwood.
Levine, Daniel B., Kenneth Hill, and Robert Warren, editors. 1985. Immigration Statistics: A Story of Neglect. National Academy Press.
Llambias-Wolff, Jaime. 1995. "Chile's Exiles and Their Return: Two Faces of Expatriation.” In Robin Cohen, editor. The Cambridge Survey of World Migration. Cambridge University Press.
Loescher, Gilbert D., and John A. Scanlon. 1998. Calculated Kindness: Refugees and America's Half-Open Door, 1945 to the Present. Free Press.
Massey, Douglas S. 1994. "An Evaluation of International Migration Theory: The North American Case.” Population and Development Review 20: 699–751.
Mitchell, B. R. 1980. European Historical Statistics: 1750–1975. 2nd revised edition. Macmillan.
Mitchell, B. R. 1983. International Historical Statistics: The Americas and Australasia. Gale Research.
National Science Board. 2000. Science and Engineering Indicators - 2000. National Science Foundation.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2001. Trends in International Migration: Continuous Reporting System on Migration. Annual Report 2000 edition. OECD.
Passel, Jeffrey S., and Barry Edmonston. 1994. "Immigration and Race: Recent Trends in Immigration to the United States.” In Barry Edmonston and Jeffrey S. Passel, editors. Immigration and Ethnicity: The Integration of America's Newest Arrivals. Urban Institute Press.
Scally, Robert. 1995. "The Irish and the ‘Famine Exodus’ of 1847.” In Robin Cohen, editor. The Cambridge Survey of World Migration. Cambridge University Press.
Schiller, Nina Glick. 1999. "Transmigrants and Nation-States: Something Old and Something New in the U.S. Immigrant Experience.” In Charles Hirschman, Philip Kasinitz, and Josh DeWind, editors. The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience. Russell Sage Foundation.
Spicer, Edward H., [and others]. 1969. Impounded People: Japanese-Americans in the Relocation Centers. University of Arizona Press.
Teitelbaum, Michael S., and Jay Winter. 1998. A Question of Numbers: High Migration, Low Fertility, and the Politics of National Identity. Hill and Wang.
Torpey, John. 2000. The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship and the State. Cambridge University Press.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1975. Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970. Bicentennial edition. U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2001. Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000. Current Population Reports Special Studies number P23-206. U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Congress, Senate. 1911. Reports of the Immigration Commission. Committee on Immigration, U.S. Senate, 61st Congress, 3rd Session. 5 December 1910. 42 volumes. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Walker, Francis Amasa. 1891. "Immigration and Degradation.” Forum 11: 634–44.
Williams, Faith M., and Carle C. Zimmerman. 1935. "Studies of Family Living in the United States and Other Countries: An Analysis of Material and Method.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication No. 223. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wright, Gavin. 1986. Old South, New South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy. Basic Books.
Zucker, Naomi Flink, and Norman L. Zucker. 1995. "US Admissions Policies towards Cuban and Haitian Migrants.” In Robin Cohen, editor. The Cambridge Survey of World Migration. Cambridge University Press.
......................................
| 1. |
Key works of synthesis include Bailyn (1986) for the colonial period, Jones (1960) for the period through 1924, Bodnar (1985) for the period 1830–1930, Hatton and Williamson (1998) for 1850 through World War I, and Archdeacon (1983) up to 1980.
|
| 2. |
For immigration history of the earlier period, see Chapters Aa, on population characteristics, and Eg, on colonial statistics.
|
| 3. |
For a description and analyses of more recent developments, see Briggs 1984 and the annual issues of Statistical Yearbook of the INS. Michael LeMay and Elliott Barkan (1999) offer a compilation of major federal, as well as some state, legislative acts and executive orders affecting immigration.
|
|
Top 
