140
714
THS

 

 

 

um ' LIBRARY
l Michigan State
2,0025 _ University

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

THE SOUTHERN CONE OF AMERICA AND THE
MIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES:
A MIGRATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

presented by
CRISTIAN ALBERTO DONA—REVECO

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
' of the requirements for the

 

 

 

 

Master of degree in Sociology
Arts
/ eve
Major Professor’s Signature
1 Z / l'_%[0’7
Date

MSU is an aﬁ‘innative-action, equal-opportunity employer

o-.-.---o----o-u—-u--._.-o-n-—.—.—._ - A 4

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:/ClRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

THE SOUTHERN CONE OF AMERICA AND THE MIGRATION TO THE
UNITED STATES: A MIGRATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

By

Cristian Alberto Doﬁa—Reveco

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Sociology

2007

ABSTRACT

THE SOUTHERN CONE OF AMERICA AND THE MIGRATION TO THE
UNITED STATES: A MIGRATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
By

Cristian Alberto Doﬁa-Reveco

This research paper explores and explains the migratory ﬂows from the Southern
Cone of South America to the United States between 1960 and 2004. It presents a
preliminary answer to questions surrounding the impacts of broad historical relations in
the migration process. The main objective of this paper is to analyze changes in the
migratory ﬂows from the Southern Cone of America and their interaction with ongoing
historical changes. This project makes use on two sets of information. First, secondary
sources related to the recent history of the Southern Cone and the inﬂuences of the
United States in this sub-region. Second, this migration is analyzed using secondary
demographic data available using the Immigrant Visa category from the statistical
yearbooks of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the United States
Center for Immigration Services (USCIS). The statistical analysis is descriptive and

exploratory, comparing the data provided by the visas with historical moments.

Copyright by
Cristian Alberto Dona—Reveco

2007

iv

TO Cata, Emilia and very soon Camila

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ......................................................................................... vi
List of Figures ........................................................................................ vii
Introduction ............................................................................................ l

World-systems and international

migration in an interconnected system ............................................................ 5
A Short History of International Migration in the Americas .................................. 14
Three important moments:
The Last Fifty Years in the History of the Southern Cone of South America ............... 17
Industrialization by import substitution and the
Alliance for Progress (1930 — 1970) ......................................................... 18
Military governments and exile (1970 — 1990) ............................................. 20
Democratization processes (1984 - 1992) ................................................... 22
Methodology and Analytical proposal:
Flows from a Historical Perspective .............................................................. 23
Historical events and personal decisions in international migration ......................... 24

Migration from the Southern Cone to the United States from the 1960’s:

A systemic Analysis ................................................................................. 26
Conclusion ........................................................................................... 34
Bibliography ......................................................................................... 35

LIST OF TABLES

Table I

United States (1953 — 1979): Immigrants admitted by country or region of birth ......... 27
Table II

United States (1985 — 2004): Immigrants admitted by country or region of birth ......... 28

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure I
Relationships in the World Economy ............................................................. 9

Figure II
A sytems framework of international migration ................................................ 13

Figure 111
United States (1953-2004): Total immigrants admitted from Argentina
by year and percentage of immigrants over total South American immigrants ............ 30

Figure IV
United States (1953-2004): Total immigrants admitted from Chile by year
and percentage of immigrants over total South American immigrants ...................... 32

Figure V

United States (1960-2004): Total immigrants admitted from Uruguay
by year and percentage of immigrants over total South American immigrants ............ 33

vii

INTRODUCTION

Internal and international migration has been an extremely important issue for Latin
American countries since the period of national formation in the early 18th century. It was
through migration that many of these nations, especially those that are located in the
Southern Cone of America, fashioned their national identity and deﬁned their culture and
development policies. International migration history in this region in particular, and in
the Americas in general, can be divided into three periods. These periods are deﬁned by
the number of immigrants that arrived in each period and their place of origin, in
conjunction with the socio-historical processes that the new nations-states were going
through and their social and economic development. The ﬁrst period, from the early 18th
century to the 1950’s, may be called overseas migration and the immigrants were mainly
from Europe and in some cases from Asia. The second period, intraregional migration,
has its origins in the colonial period and is formed by migration within Latin America.
The third period, extra regional migration, from the 1960’s onwards, is comprised of
individuals and families that have migrated to countries outside of Latin America, such as
the US. and Europe.

During this third period, the US. tried to exert its inﬂuence more profoundly in the
region. This inﬂuence has been centered in socio-economic measures, such as the
Alliance for Progress; and in socio-political measures, such as the School of the
Americas. As it happened throughout the developing world, is also in this period when.

the traditional societal structures began to change rapidly. These changes were product of

new development programs, new social movements inspired by the Cuban revolution and
other social changes in the cities, product of the acceleration of urbanization. The last
forty years are also related to the rise of military governments in the Southern Cone,
succeeded by democratization processes in the mid eighties and nineties.

The Southern Cone is a socio-geographic term —in the broadest sense of the term
‘social’— designating a geographical part of South America. It consists of at least
Argentina, Chile and Uruguay (Whitaker, 1976). Other authors (Castles and Miller, 2003)
include Brazil and Paraguay. This paper utilizes the more deﬁned geographic area of
Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay. In addition to being regarded as the most socially and
economically developed in Latin America, these countries were the ﬁrst in the region to
achieve the third phase of the demographic transitionl and were among the ﬁrst to have a
strong workers’ movement, unions and social welfare systems. These countries were also
among the major receivers of European immigration between the 1830’s and the 1950’s,
leading to their consideration (by the western world European world and by the US.) as
being racially more inclined towards economic development, capitalism and democracy.
These countries were also the ﬁrst to industrialize and to have an important majority of
their population achieve literacy; they thus became the most socially and economically
developed nations of the former Spanish empirez. Furthermore, during the second part of
the 20th century, Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay had some of the most repressive and

bloodiest military governments in the Americas.

 

' The third stage of the Demographic Transition is deﬁned by a decrease in death rates and birth rate
associated to industrialization, modernization and urban life. In this stage the population might eventually
decline in numbers (Cfr. Weeks, John (2005), Population: An introduction to concepts and issues, 9'“
Edition, Wadsworth Publishers, USA:

2 According to the Human Development Index and to several econometric measures as GDP per Capita.

Since their independence from Spain, the United States has tried to inﬂuence the
political and economic decisions of Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay. The inﬂuence of the
United States has been much stronger since the turn of the 19th century, partly due to the
decrease of the inﬂuence of European empires —speciﬁcally Britain, France, and
Germany. This inﬂuence became a process of hegemonic domination after the end of the
Second World War and particularly during the Cold War. During the last ﬁﬁy years, the
United States has exerted its inﬂuence by economic and military means. This inﬂuence
has affected the political and socioeconomic destinies of the Latin American countries
differentially, and the macro-sociO-historical impact has helped shape migration
processes from Latin America towards the United States. This migration, which has
existed since independence from Spain, has had its peaks from 1960 onwards. Following
some of the classical push and pull theories, it is possible to hypothesize that the socio-
political and economic changes that have occurred in the region since the 1960’s, have
impacted migratory ﬂows between the Southern Cone countries and the US

Using a migration systems perspective and a theoretical framework based on
Wallerstein’s world—systems perspective this paper will analyze changes in the migratory
ﬂows that originate in the Southern Cone of America and their interactions with ongoing
socio-historical processes. This will permit a preliminary answer to the question about
the impacts of broad socio-historical relations on the migration process, and open a
discussion of some hypotheses on how these structural constraints inﬂuence the
migration decision making process, with speciﬁc reference to the Southern Cone of
America. This research paper is divided into ﬁve sections. The ﬁrst section theoretically

describes Wallerstein’s world-systems perspective and combines it with migration

systems to produce one analytical framework to analyze migration from the Southern
Cone. The second section presents a brief history of international migration in the
Americas with a speciﬁc reference to the Southern Cone. The third section gives a
general overview of the historical processes where these migration ﬂows can be set. The
fourth part is a brief methodological description of the data to be analyzed, describing the
pitfalls and opportunities of using immigration statistics and census data. The ﬁfth
section includes the statistical data analyses, taking into consideration the theoretical and

historical setting of these migration processes.

WORLD-SYSTEMS AND INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION IN AN

INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM

According to Wallerstein (2000; 2004), world—systems analyses arise initially as a
protest against the ways in which social scientiﬁc inquiries were structured since they
were conceived in the early eighteenth century. This social science clearly deﬁned the
boundaries of each of its components. —sociology, economics, anthropology and political
sciences—j and since then all have continued to develop independently, structuring not
only each ﬁeld of study but also their institutional aspects, such as the departments within
a modern university, professional associations and journals within speciﬁc disciplines.
The argument behind this protest was very straightforward. According to Wallerstein, the
“three areas of collective human action —the economic, the political and the social or
sociocultural— are not autonomous arenas of social action” (Wallerstein, 2000: 1349).
The structures behind this social action are not restricted to a particular discipline and are -
not different and separate logics; they all are part of the same “set of rules” or "set of
constraints”. As an answer to this criticism, Wallerstein proposed to change the focus of
the analysis of social sciences by substituting the discussion over “society” by the
discussion over the “historical system”. The term “historical system” underlies the unity
of an historical social science and deﬁnes the world system as “the fundamental unit of
analysis within which all other social processes and structures should be analyzed” (Hall,

2000: 4).

From an epistemological perspective, world—systems perspective emerged from four
debates that were going on in the period 1945 — 1970 (Wallerstein, 2004: 110. These
were the birth of the concepts of core and periphery in the Economic Commission for
Latin America (ECLA)3, under Raul Prebisch; the debate over the utility of Marx’s
concept of “Asiatic mode of production”; the discussion among Western Europe’s
historians over the transition from feudalism to capitalism; and the debate about total
history and the triumph of the Annales school in France. According to Wallerstein (Ioc.
cit), “(N)0ne of these debates were entirely new, but each became salient in this period,
and the result was a major challenge to the social sciences as they had developed up to
1945”.

The concepts of core and periphery were ﬁrst developed at ECLA during the late
1950’s as a way of explaining the subordinate economic relations that the
underdeveloped world had with the advanced industrialized nations. These concepts of
core and periphery were at the center of what became dependency theory. According to
this theory, underdevelopment was not an inherent condition of the underdeveloped
world. Rather, underdevelopment was originally a product Of colonialism, and later of
unequal international trade and historical capitalism. All the years of colonial dominance
in Latin America led to economically weak states, which could not trade on equal terms
with economically stronger states. This produced unequal terms of exchange where the
stronger states, the core states, would produce goods with elevated aggregated value;
while the rest, peripheral states, would produce raw materials to be used in the production
of highly technological and capital intensive goods. The second debate was based on a

theoretical discussion on the nature Of Marx’s concept of “Asiatic mode Of production”.

 

3 Now Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC)

According to Wallerstein (2004), Marx had referred to this mode of production as the one
that deﬁned production relations in “high civilizations of antiquity” such as India or
China. This mode of production was characterized by the existence of a large
bureaucratic and autocratic empire. Stalin, however, did not like this concept since it
could have been associated with the history of the Soviet Union, and eliminated it from
social discourse. With the death of Josef Stalin and the XXth Congress of the Communist
Party —where the party denounced Stalin, his politics and methods— the debate over this
mode of production reopened, leading to doubts over the inevitable stages of
development and of developmentalism as an analytic framework and policy directive.

The third debate concerned the origins of modern capitalism among Western
economic historians. According to Wallerstein (2004), this debate was important for four
reasons. First, the question on the transition from feudalism to capitalism opened the door
to questions on a possible transition from capitalism to socialism; this, obviously, had
strong political implications. Second, it pushed many economists to take a more profound
look at historical data, and introduced them to the work of the Annales. Third, the debate
was centered on the empirical unit of analysis, which became the socio-historical system.
And fourth, it changed the debate over Marxism from an ideological perspective to a
more scholarly argument.

The fourth debate centered on the argument on the totality of historiography
brought forth by the Annales school as a critique to the Rankean paradigm (Wallerstein,
2004: 11). By this, they meant that every historical analysis should look at history as an
integrated picture of historical changes that included all social ﬁelds. Here, the second

generation of this school under the leadership of Ferdinand Braudel was to have an

extraordinary impact, speciﬁcally with the concept of long dure'e —the multiplicity Of
social times and his emphasis on structural time— which was going to become central to
world-systems analysis.

For Wallerstein, world—system “is a an approach formulated in Marxist terms that
looks at the world economy, capital accumulation, including the capital—labor
relationship, and worldwide interstate relations as driving forces of historical
development” (Munch, 1994: 94). This is an interdependent world where the individual is
included not as a social actor, but as a subject of the changes and conditions of the world—
system. The world-system is an identiﬁable social system which extends beyond the
boundaries of individual societies or nations (Shannon, 1989220). This social system
starts from three basic assumptions: 1) there is one expanding world economy; 2) there
are multiple expanding states; and 3) production interrelations, intra- and interstate
politics are framed by the capital-labor relationship (Munch, 1994: 95; Hopkins et. al.,
1982). In this setting, for Wallerstein, the international division of exploitation is deﬁned
not by state borders but by the economic division of labor in the world (Ritzer, 2000:
291). Here, owing to dependency theory, Wallerstein deﬁnes three kinds of societies,
which are structured by the role they play in the system. As it can be seen in Figure 1,
there is the core area, which dominates the world economy and exploits the rest, a
periphery, from where the raw materials are extracted, and ﬁnally a semi periphery,
which is a residual category that encompasses a set Of regions located somewhere

between the previous two.

Figure I
Relationships in the World Economy

 

Core - like activities

SEMI PERIPHERY
Peripheral - like activities

 

0
CORE
Capital — intensive, high wage, high

technology production involving

lower labor exploitation and
coercion

1 r

PERIPHERY

Labor - intensive, low - wage. low -

technology production involving
high labor exploitation and coercion

Source: Shannon, 1989: 29

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By deﬁning four types of world-systems, Wallerstein assumes a historical
materialist approach to changes in history. Thus, the current world—economy has been
preceded by two other systems; mini-systems and world-empires. In turn, this world
economy will succeeded by world-socialism. Describing each of the systems, Wallerstein
states that mini-systems —which, according to him, would no longer exist— were
primarily very simple agricultural or hunting and gathering societies. They were
characterized by a complete division of labor within themselves and a single cultural
framework. World-empires were the great civilizations Of pre-modern times. They
emerged from world-economies since “it turns out empirically that world-economies
have been historically unstable structures leading either towards disintegration or
conquest by one group and hence transformation into a world empire” (Wallerstein,
2000:75)

World-empires and world-economies share a constitutive characteristic; they both

have a single division of labor and multiple cultural systems. However, it is only with the

rise of capitalism in the sixteenth century that a new world-economy takes the place of
the world-empires (with the obvious interregnum of the feudal system). It is today’s
world-economy that was able to arise from feudalism for three reasons: geographical
expansion through exploration and colonization; development of different methods of
labor control for zones (e.g. core and periphery); and the development of strong states
that were to become the core states of the emerging capitalist world economy (Ritzer,
2000:292)

The speciﬁc application of this perspective to international migration relies on the
idea that in “this scheme, the penetration of capitalist economic relations into peripheral,
non—capitalist societies create a mobile population that is prone to migrate abroad”
(Massey et. al., 1993: 444). It explains why certain relations between countries produce
migration ﬂows in both directions. According to Arango (2000: 290), migration stems
from unequal relations between countries in the world-system; but “contrary to
equilibrium models, it reinforces the inequality instead of leading to its reduction”. In this
sense international migration is a result of counter ﬂows of foreign capital to the
peripheral world (Massey et. al., 1993).

The common critique of the world-systems perspective is that by trying to create an
all-explaining historical social science and by choosing the world-system as the analytical
unit, this perspective has centered its analysis on economic relations and assumed that the
interests of capital were the ones that determined the outcomes of relations in the world-
system (Wallerstein, 2004; Castles and Miller, 2003). Wallerstein responds that his
analysis is not based on the economic system, but in the world-system, which in its

contemporary form happens to be centered in an expanding capitalist system, as was

10

Rome’s military system in a previous era. With regard to the participation of individuals,
Wallerstein points out that the social actors, just as other elements in the system, are the

product of a process:

They are not primordial atomic elements, but part of a systemic
mix out of which they emerged and upon which they act. They act
freely, but their freedom is constrained by their biographies and
the social prisons of which they are part. Analyzing their prisons
liberates them to the maximum degree that they can be liberated
(Wallerstein, 2004: 21)4.

Castles and Miller (2003: 26) point out that “out of such critiques emerged a new
approach, migration systems theory, which attempts to include a wide range of disciplines
and to cover all dimensions of the migration experience”, although for other authors
(Massey et. al., 1993) this migration systems theory is more a generalization following
from previous theories such as world-systems, network theory, cumulative causation and
others. For this paper, migration systems theory is considered as a thorough application
of world-systems theory to the speciﬁcs of international migration, incorporating
individual decisions through an analysis of migratory networks and considering the
system as the unit of analysis. Within this unit several transnational exchanges and
interactions take place, including migration. According to Kritz et. al. (1992: l),
“underlying those transnational exchanges and interactions are a range of political

systems and disharmonious levels, rates and strategies of economic and demographic

growth that encourage people to migrate”.

 

4 It is possible to observe here Marx’s inﬂuence in Wallerstein: "It is not the consciousness of men that
determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness"
(Marx, in the Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.)

11

At the same time, migration systems theory is a more comprehensive approach that
loosely relates to the classic idea of push-pull. In the latter, migrants do not decide their
migration; instead, they are constrained by structural factors that expel them from their
country of origin and/or attract them to the destination country. Migration systems theory
considers that these factors are present in the migration processes. However, they are just
stimuli that “can be best addressed by a systems framewor ” (Kritz et. al., 1992: 2), since
the causes of international migration and its impacts must include all the dynamics
associated with how the ﬂow is initiated, its changes, and the related effects that shape
migration. These authors represent migration systems as shown in Figure 2. In this
analytical framework, they present all the different and interdependent relations in the
system and how these relate to international migration. For them, a migratory system is
constituted by at least two (but generally more) countries that exchange relatively large
numbers of migrants with each other (Kritz et. al., 1992).

Figure 2 shows that in a two-country system, both countries send and receive
migrants. The magnitude of these ﬂows depend on which country is relatively more
developed, since the more developed country will receive more migrants and is the origin
of other ﬂows such as capital. The two key dimensions of space and time must be taken
into account. Space is deﬁned by the geographical setting, while time is essential to
capture the dynamics of the ﬂows. As Kritz et. al. (1992: 4) put it, “a historical

perspective on migration allows one to identify the pattern of interactions between

12

Figure II
A sytems framework of international migration

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Political contextj
- Exit. entry, and settlement policies
. lntemational Relations
Feedback and
I adjustments 1
C 0
Social 0 A l _ , 1 - 0 Demographic
COHIeXI U V 1 Migrailon PM I v u “text
n n . Fertility
- Welfare . .
differentials t t differentials
networks y E 1 Other linkages l : y links
- Historical
A - Cultural 8
° Colonial
- Technology
I Economic context 1
- Wage and price differentials
- Regional blocks

 

 

 

Source: Kritz, at. al., 1992: 3

migration and, on the one hand, structural conditions in the countries of origin and
destination within a system and, on the other, economic and political linkages between
those countries”. These linkages are set in a changing relation where the contexts will set
the tone for changes in the ﬂows of migrants, through changes in policies, hegemonies,
wages and conformation of networks among others.

The current world-system has deﬁned the structure of migration from the Southern
Cone to the United States. Thus, analyzing this migration by operationalizing the system
through the context of a shared history, interrelations between the US and the Southern
Cone, and their mutual inﬂuences can provide us with a very useful tool to understand the

high and low moments of these migration ﬂows.

l3

A SHORT HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION

IN THE AMERICAS

International migration in the Americas, and particularly in the Southern Cone, was
deﬁned by the nascent nations as a way to populate the vast and empty5 domains. It was
in this context that these countries promoted several policies with the objective of
encouraging immigration. Argentine intellectual and politician Juan Bautista Alberdi
epitomized this development strategy through his campaign slogan and government
motto, “to govern is to populate Greater populations would mean a thorough control of
the newly deﬁned national borders, a larger and better prepared greater army, more
production and a national identity deﬁned in opposition to Spanish and Native identities.
The mixture between Spanish and Native identities was seen as the reason for the lack of
development of these countries (Pellegrino, 2000). Public policies that were meant to
populate the “empty” lands of the new countries were directed not only to attract
immigrants, but also to bring the “precise” human resource. This meant free northern
European immigrants that would increase population and technological, economic and,
most important, cultural development (Alba, 1992). Of the more than 12 million
immigrants that arrived to Latin America between 1821 and 1932, about half of them
stayed in Argentina, a third in Brazil, and close to 800,000 in Cuba and Uruguay, with the
remaining immigrants going to other countries of the region (Pellegrino, 1995). This

migration had an enormous impact on the receiving societies; they helped form labor

 

5 Empty is how the American governments saw their lands; which were, however, populated by natives.
Their populations were that in most cases were ﬁnally decimated by the government or by the immigrants
themselves.

14

movements and universities, increased commercial ties with their countries of origin and
so on. These ﬂows stopped right after the First World War, and brieﬂy resumed at the
end of World War II, when close to two million people came to Latin America, mainly as
refugees. After 1950 this mass migration from Europe stopped and a different, equally
important process emerged: intraregional migration (Pellegrino, 1995 y 2000; Alba,
1992; CEPAL/CELADE, 1999).

Migration within Latin America is not a new phenomenon. Geographic proximity
has made the current national borders permeable to intraregional migrants, along with the
presence of a relatively close cultural background including language, ethnic and
historical connections, and (in most cases) membership in the same administrative
entities during the colonial period (Pellegrino, 1995). These ﬂows increased their
participation share of the migration in Latin America as ﬂows from overseas started to
decrease between the late 1930’s and the 1960’s. This migratory process is closely related
to an increase in economic growth, associated with changes in development and
demographic policies. Originally directed to those countries with a relatively higher
development such as Venezuela or Argentina (Balan, 1992), Pellegrino (1995 and 2000)
and Alba (1992) consider that these population movements are a continuation of internal
migrations, closely related to the movements Of seasonal workers than moved between
different rural areas or towards industrial areas in a neighboring country closer to their
places of origin.

In the early 1960’s this intraregional migration begins to decrease in importance
(Pellegrino, 2000) mainly due to economic and political crises in the region. At the same

time migration ﬂows towards the United States start to increase, inﬂuenced in some cases

15

by the rise of military governments in many Latin American countries in the 1970’s. The
external debt crisis in 1982, the IMF ’s structural adjustment programs, and civil wars in
Central America in the 1980’s (Alba, 1992: 102) mark another inﬂexion moment in this
migration process.

Economic and political changes in the Southern Cone, which began in the mid
1980’s but consolidated during the early 1990’s, changed the migration patterns in the
region. These new patterns included new countries of reception and new areas of origin.
The Argentine crisis of 2001 produced a new wave of emigrants, but this time mainly to
Western Europe. This region has become an extremely important destination for new
migrants from the Southern Cone, although the United States remains as the main

receiving country.

16

THREE IMPORTANT MOMENTS: THE LAST FIFTY YEARS IN THE

HISTORY OF THE SOUTHERN CONE OF SOUTH AMERICA6

According to Skidmore and Smith, the period between 1880 and 1990 in Latin
America can be divided in ﬁve phases of modernization. These phases, with some
differences in the years of applications of certain policies, or in a military coup are
common to all the countries that are analyzed here.

For these authors the ﬁve phases are: 1) Initiation of export — import growth (1880
—- 1900); 2) Expansion of export — import growth (1900 — 1930); 3) Import — substituting
industrialization (1930 — 1960); 4) Stagnation in import — substituting growth (1960 —
1980); and 5) Crisis, debt and democracy (1980 — 1990). Although these phases explain
fairly well the changes that Latin America went through during the 20th century, the
particularities of the Southern Cone demand a slightly different deﬁnition. In the case of
this region, the second half of the 20th century can be divided into three sub-periods: 1)
Industrialization by import substitution and the Alliance for Progress (1930 — 1970); 2)
Military Governments and exile (1970 -— 1990); and 3) Democratization processes (1984
— 1992).

The relations between the Southern Cone and the United States have been the axis
along which these processes have built up. In this sense, the hegemonic inﬂuence that the
United States has tried to achieve in the Americas is not new, and does not start with the

Cold War. This is a long term process that can be traced back to the Monroe Doctrine, the

 

6 This section is base upon GarretOn, 1989; Lambert,l997; Marshall, 1988; Nahum, 1999; Skidmore, 2001
and Whitaker, 1975

17

ﬁrst Pan-American meetings, the independence of Panama and the power vacancy left by

the British Empire after the First World War.

Industrialization by import substitution and the Alliance for Progress (1930 — 1970)

The economic crisis of the 1930’s, which began in the industrialized countries,
presented Latin American governments with the need to change their previous
development policies. The new policies centered in the creation of national industries,
which were intended to remove national economics from dependence on foreign
manufactured products at the same time as promoting the concentration of the production
for national markets. Although the new policy, known as the ISI model—an acronym in
Spanish for “Industrialization by Import Substitution”—had different impacts and
outcomes in Latin America, it was considered until the 1970’s to be a successful
development policy. Most of the countries had sustained economic growth between 1950
and 1978, achieving on average a yearly rate of 5.5% (Pellegrino, 2000: 20). At the same
time, the relatively more advanced countries in the region were going through the second
stage of the demographic transition, deﬁned by low mortality, high fertility and a
resulting increase in total population. This occurred simultaneously with an increase in
migration from rural areas to the more developed cities, which in turn resulted in
increased urbanization. The enormous social changes happening in the cities led to an
increase in the migration from rural areas which. in turn resulted on an increased
urbanization.

At the end of this period, however, the 181 model failed mainly for two reasons. On

the one hand Latin American economies did not have the market size to consume all the

18

production while, on the other, the model suffered from a structural dilemma that ﬁnally
caused its fall. One of the pillars of this model was protection of the national industries
through high import taxes. This meant that every part of the manufacturing process had to
be locally produced, including machinery and its components. Replacements parts,
necessary to keep the manufacturing process in operation, were too expensive to be
imported and were not produced in Latin America. Factories began to close; government
subsidies stopped due to lack of income and a new economic crisis began. This crisis had
major effects not only in the economies of the countries but also in their social and
political systems. Several democratic —Or semi-democratic as in Argentina— populist
governments tried to solve the economic crisis, with few positive effects. The end of
foreign aid devoted to development and the increase in direct political intervention and
military aid to “loyal” armed forces from the United States had a direct impact on the
countries of the Southern Cone. By the end of September 1973, all the countries of the
region were governed by extremely oppressive military juntas.

The role of the United States in this period is principally marked by the Alliance for
Progress. This was a program established by President Kennedy in the 1960’s to promote
development and social justice in the continent through loans targeted to rural areas. The
Alliance for Progress can be easily understood as a second stage of the good neighbor
policy. This US. foreign policy was designed to deter and oppose the spread of
communism and the Cuban revolution in other Latin-American countries. This program
had different results depending on the country, with Chile the country that received the
greatest share of loans. Its chief problem was that it consisted mainly of nondiscretionary

aid. This meant that economic resources were poorly used to buy expensive and

19

monopolized agricultural equipment and to pay high interest on loans obtained in US.
banks. The Nixon era during the late 1960’s produced a decline in ofﬁcial support to the
Alliance for Progress, and foreign policy changed to provide more military support and
direct support to right wing politicians and paramilitary groups. By 1970 it was clear that
the Alliance had failed, and it was never implemented again.

Military support, such as educational exchange between military schools and
equipment sales, had as an objective the indoctrination of Latin-American militaries in
US. policies; it started in the 1950’s with the founding of the “School of the Americas”.
Its objective was to train Latin American militaries in counter-insurgency, antiterrorism
and anticommunist ideologies. From this education center emerged many ofﬁcers that
later helped to lead military coups and direct secret police. They designed what became
Operation Condor, a joint effort of the military forces of the Southern Cone to eliminate
left wing dissidents in any country of the region without regard to their nationality. This
had deeper consequences for the countries of the Southern Cone and represents a much

more direct inﬂuence than the good willed “Trojan horse” of the Alliance for Progress.

Military governments and exile (1970 —— 1990)

By the end of 1973, each country of the Southern Cone was under a military
government. These dictatorships were the most repressive and bloody that ever existed in
the continent. Although it is not possible to prove that the United States government
directly participated in the coups, it has been proven that the US. gave direct support to
the militaries of these countries, provided support for anti-govemment propaganda, and

helped eliminate terrorist groups such as the Uruguayan Tupamaros.

20

The military governments in power in the Southern Cone during the 1960’s, 1970’s
and 1980’s felt that they had an historical project; their leaders portrayed themselves as
the new liberators, always comparing themselves with the founding fathers of these
nations. In all the countries under study, military governments were politically active and
can be deﬁned as right wing populists. They saw themselves as destined to save their
countries from the claws of Marxism and moral, social and economic decadence. Even if
they were not supported by the United States at the moment of the coups, they were later
tolerated and even applauded by the US, at least until the early 1980’s.

Besides being regimes of torture and killing, these dictatorships were also
responsible for the biggest political exile in the continent. More than 230,000
Uruguayans, (roughly 8% of the total population in 1975), 400,000 Chileans (close tO
4.5% of its population in 1970)7, and a minimum of 500,000 Argentineans (more that
2.1% of the total population in the early 19705) had to leave their countries during the
military governments. A signiﬁcant number of these exiles never returned to their
countries of origin.

During this period, these countries also experienced the crisis of external debt. It
began in Mexico in 1982 and rapidly spread to the rest of the continent. In every country
in the region unemployment soared, poverty increased and social discontent rose. The
1980’s have been called the “lost decade” due to the lasting impact of this crisis in the
development of Latin America. This economic crisis, the lack of support of the
government of the United States to the military dictatorships after 1980 and speciﬁc
internal political problems led to the beginning of the democratization processes.

Argentina and Uruguay in 1984 and Chile in 1988—1990 began to democratize their

 

7 of. Stern, 2004

21

institutions, and free elections were allowed again. However, several constraints were
placed by the military to avoid being judged for crimes against humanity. Some of the
countries of the Southern Cone have been able to take these people to court, while others

have presented amnesties as a way to protect their democracy.

Democratization processes (1984 — 1992)

The democratization process in these countries has been a permanent struggle
between maintaining and changing the economic and social structures inherited from the
military governments. This struggle has lead to processes of creating a new national
identity, in order to cope with the human rights abuses of the dictatorship, economic
crisis and migration. In the case of Uruguay, the economic crisis that destroyed the ﬁrst
military government is said to remain unsolved. More than a third of Uruguayan youth
live abroad. Argentina’s economic system collapsed in the year 2000, producing new
waves of migration. Chile’s economic growth has produced at least three new forms of
migration; transnational executives, tertiary education students and those that do not ﬁt or
that are left out of economic growth. With regards to immigration, all the countries
implemented return policies in order to recover some of their exiled populations, with
varying success. Argentina has maintained its position as the main receiver of immigrants
in the Southern Cone, despite high levels of unemployment and recurring economic
crises. Chile has began to receive new migration ﬂows, especially from neighboring
countries, pulled by an over-publicized socio-economic tranquility and stable political

order.

22

METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL PROPOSAL: FLOWS FROM A

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

As mentioned before, the goal of this study is to analyze the changes in migration
ﬂows from the Southern Cone to the United States with relation to macro socio-historical
processes occurring close to the moment of migration. The data presented in this paper is
composed of second-hand statistical data, namely people admitted as immigrants from
the countries under study.

This data originates from the annual reports and annual yearbooks of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) between 1960 and 2001, and aﬁer 2002 of
the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). Detailed information
for the selected countries was only available for the years 1962 to 1978, since after this
year the INS decided to include only the data for the ten most signiﬁcant countries of
origin, and so the countries of the Southern Cone do not appear as separate entities but as
a category labeled “other countries”. Another difﬁculty is that the data distinguishes
between several different kinds of travelers to the United States, namely visitors,
refugees, internationally adopted orphans and admitted immigrants. This last group is key
to the analysis presented here and is deﬁned by the INS (1997) as:

An alien admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent
resident. Immigrants are those persons lawfully accorded the
privilege of residing permanently in the United States. They may
be issued immigrant visas by the Department of State overseas or

adjusted to permanent resident status by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service in the United States.

23

This excludes from the analyses those people that entered the United States as
visitors and overstayed their visas, undocumented immigrants and other non-regulated
immigrants. A third problem is that, since the data only show admitted immigrants, it is
not possible to conﬁrm that they are still residing in the country and have not left. On the
other hand, this visa data is available for each year, thus facilitating an analysis Of
migratory flows and permitting a comparison of this data with the socioeconomic and
political situations that are occurring in a speciﬁc area of the world, to determine how

they affect migration trends to the United States.

Historical events and personal decisions in international migration

International migration ﬂows and stocks only provide information on when the
immigrants and foreign born arrived, their numbers8 and characteristics. It is not possible
to know why they decided to migrate or how this decision was made. The historical
framework presented above can help the researcher hypothesize as to which events
produced an effect that led the individual or family to migrate. Assuming that the theories
presented here are valid and can explain international migration, a macro explanation of
migration from the Southern Cone to the United States can be attempted by analyzing the
data provided in relation to previous historical processes occurring during the arrival of
immigrants.

It is not possible to know how long the migrant planned or anticipated their move

before ﬁnally arriving in the United States. It is possible, however, to assume that people

 

8 With the permanent problem of how to count undocumented workers; something that it is not included in
this paper.

24

endured the historical events that affected their decision to migrate for some time). This
paper assumes that this period lasts for between one and two years. This means that
events that happened in a determined year can be compared with the immigration counted
two years after in the host country. This premise is supported by the following argument:
except in a refugee situation where lives are in danger, people take some time to make
such an important decision. It might be assumed that on average the decision making
process takes around a year, and also that government officials take some time —perhaps
around six months— to provide the documentation that will allow the immigrant to enter
the United States. To solve this, I will analyze the ﬂows, measured as the number of
people admitted in the United States with an immigrant visa, as well as the absolute and
relative changes in the number of immigrants admitted over one and two year periods.
Absolute changes are deﬁned as the arithmetic difference between two periods, and
relative change as the percentile change with relation to the previous year.

Considering these premises, arguments and the theoretical and historical
backgrounds described, I will analyze the ﬂows of immigrants with relation to the three

historical periods presented above.

 

9 Unless it is a very speciﬁc humanitarian case

25

MIGRATION FROM THE SOUTHERN CONE TO THE UNITED STATES

FROM THE 1960’s: A SYSTEMIC ANALYSIS

In general it is possible to conclude from the data analyzed that the historical events
did have impacts on the migration ﬂows. The economic crisis and military governments
caused a steady increase in migration from the Southern Cone countries to the United
States. It should be pointed out that there is a steady, background level of migration that
might have other or older origins, and in critical periods this migration is increased by
people that respond to different crises by migrating.

As we observe in Table 1, the selected countries represent only a small portion of
the total migration to the United States during this period. People from Argentina, Chile
and Uruguay have a maximum share of 1.99% in the ﬁve year period between 1960 and
1964 and a minimum of 0.49% in the period 1995 — 1999. Compared with other regions,
North America and Europe have historically the greatest percentages of immigrants with
maximums of 51.7% (1990 — 1994) and 55.91% (1953 — 1959) respectively. Comparing
the selected countries with the remaining countries of South America, it is possible to
observe that, in the 50 year period under analysis, the participation of the selected
countries decreases from 26.8% to 8.8%. This is clearly explained by increases in other
countries such as Colombia, for example. If we compare the total numbers, the migration
from the selected countries increases around 14,000 immigrants in the period (from

14,073 to 28,728); this 100% increase is particularly small compared with the South

26

 

Table I

United States (1953 — 1979): Immigrants admitted by country or region of birth

 

 

 

 

Years
Place ofbirth 1953 - 1960- 1965 - 1970- 1975 - 1980-
1959 1964 1969 1974 19792 1984
Argentina 10,537 21,192 20,423 1 1,355 14,391 1 1,286
4,; Chile 3,536 5,843 5,793 5,069 10,799 10,410
‘55 Uruguay .. 1,234 2,294 3,062 4,574 3,959
(41-4
0 Total
g; Selected 14,073 28,269 28,510 19,486 29,764 25,655
5 Countries
0 Ethersouth 38,419 71,862 90,709 85,188 132,190 158,970
menca
South
A . 52,492 100,131 119,219 104,674 161,954 184,625
menca
North
é Amenca' 600,498 552,367 754,693 717,835 891,484 868,449
53 Africa 11,080 11,756 21,710 34,336 51,291 73,858
0
g Asia 114,011 112,349 249,739 572,157 918,362 134772
3” Europe 994,619 636,114 638,466 478,687 368,266 330,933
Oceania 6,001 6,200 10,887 15,714 20,869 19,299
Unknown 143 96 22 10 2 77
Total 1,778,844 1,419,013 1,794,736 1,923,413 2,412,228 2,824,946

 

rFrom 1962 to 2004 North America included Canada, Mexico, Central America and the
Caribbean

2 In 1977 the ﬁscal year used to count the admittance of immigrants changed from June
30 to September 30.

No data available

Source: US. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Annual Yearbook, Table 14 (1962
— 1978), Table 13 (1979 — 1981), Table IMM 1.3 (1982 — 1984), Table 3 (1997 — 2004)

27

Table 11
United States (1985 — 2004): Immigrants admitted by country or region of birth

 

 

 

 

Years
Place of birth 1985 — 1990 - 1995 - 2000 - Total3
19892 1994 1999 2004
Argentina 12,081 18,345 9,086 17,306 146,002
{5 Chile 11,623 12,246 7,015 8,648 80,982
'56 Uruguay 3,668 4,418 2,022 2,774 28,005
c'5' Total
9 Selected 27,372 35,009 18,123 28,728 254,989
g Countries
0 Othersomh 198,771 287,350 229,168 297,772 1,590,399
Amenca
south. 226,144 322,359 247,291 326,500 1,845,389
AmerIca
E North. . 1,471,535 3,126,192 1,403,915 1,749,098 12,136,066
'5 AmerIca
95 Africa 95,688 153,653 220,496 273,995 947,863
g Asia 1,367,523 1,704,705 1,260,655 1,532,038 9,179,244
'53) Europe 333,031 712,197 579,102 710,498 5,781,913
94 Oceania 19,890 27,081 21,959 27,143 175,043
Unknown 86 148 2,340 10,554 13,478
Total 3,513,896 6,046,335 3,735,758 4,629,826 30,078,995

 

' From 1962 to 2004 North America included Canada, Mexico, Central America and the

Caribbean

2 There is no data available for 1985. Data for 1985 was calculated as an average of the

period 1983 — 1987.

Total is the sum of tables I and II and does not implies that the mentioned number of
immigrants are today residing in the US.

NO data available

Source: US. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Annual Yearbook, Table 14 (1962
- 1978), Table 13 (1979 — 1981), Table IMM 1.3 (1982 — 1984), Table 3 (1997 — 2004)

28

American increase Of close tO 240 000 immigrants in the same period (from 38,419 to
297,772); a growth of 600%. In general, the number of immigrants admitted increases in
the United States from over 1.7 million to 4.6 million; every region of the world increases
its number at least four fold, except for Europe which shows a reduction of almost
200,000 immigrants every ﬁve year period, with a minimum of close to 330,000
immigrants admitted in 1980 — 1984.

The case of Argentinean immigrants admitted to the United States differs from
those of Chileans and Uruguayans, although it is possible to clearly see the effects of
sociopolitical changes and economic crisis. In the ﬁrst place, a continuous political and
economic crisis takes place in the period studied. It is possible to count a minimum of
nine military coups and economic crises between 1959 and 1990. This leads, second, to
some interesting migratory ﬂows. There are sharp increases in the total number of
migrants from Argentina in 1964, 1977, 1990 and 2001. The ﬁrst two coincide with
military coups and the others, with economic crises. The number of sociopolitical crises
does not, however, result in a continuous increase of emigration, at least from the
analysis of those admitted"). From the original sharp increases in the 1960’s, there is a
reduction in the yearly number of admitted immigrants, which can be explained by a
smaller number of visas given or by a sort of resilience towards crisis that reduces the
need to migrate. Since it is not possible to prove or disprove the ﬁrst assumption, we will

focus on the second.

 

'0 From this source it is not possible to know how many Argentineans requested a visa and were denied.

29

Figure III
United States (1953 - 2004): Total immigrants admitted from Argentina by year and
‘ percentage of immigrants over; total South American immigrants.

 

 

 

 

    
    
 

  
 
 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I 8,000 l , ———*r .,,A,__ -—~~~w———— - ————— ——~-——- — —»-————~—-----———— - 1 30.00 i
|
7,000 lst Pres Coup EooCrisis Neollberal Asian Crisis
electron Doctrlne/ Economic 0°“ ,, 25.00
EwcouP , . Menem I
. . . Eco Crlsls l
. .- ' cnsrg Pol. Peron Coup '
6,000 ‘ .' '. ' '- " Violence Di
'. . 1 rty Falklands
‘ '1 1 ‘ 20.“)
' 5,000 « .0 . .'
| - i. k: Military
, ,I‘ (3th ends
I ‘ ..
4,000 -.' b «L 1500
! l
|
' 3,000
I
' b 1000 I
I' I |
I t |
4/ ' \
2,000 N”. ‘u 1
1 .0. 1
1,000 4' l
l i
' 5
ol ..... . 4 A44 e . . es 0.00 l
9 3 .3 3 .3 .8 .3 .3 .33 F P 1’3 F 1‘3 .5 3 3 5 5’3 .3 3’ 3 5 3 5 8
l fArgentin:ilrri-Ar% over South Ameffczi

 

 

Analyzing the data presented here, it is possible to deﬁne three “generations” of
Argentinean migration to the United States. The ﬁrst generation contains those that
migrated due to political reasons and left the country in the 1960’s. Although there is
migration in the 1970’s and 80’s, these were directed to the US. only in reduced
numbers. The second generation leaves the country in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s,
and is clearly related to the economic crisis that ended the Government of Alfonsin, and
the neoliberal structural adjustments of the ﬁrst year of Menem’s government. Finally,
these same structural adjustments led to a new crisis in the year 2001 that produced a

total economic collapse; migration triples between 2000 and 2004. Analyzing the changes

30

in migratory ﬂows through absolute and relative changes conﬁrms the relation between
migration and socio-political or economic situations. There are sharp increases between
years, at least one for every critical period, but it is not possible to prove or show why the
increases are not always the year immediate after the crisis.

Chilean migration is clearly deﬁned by the military government and 1982’s
economic crisis. There is a “normal” rate of migration to the United States of between
one and two thousand migrants a year. In this case, it is also possible to deﬁne three
major moments in migration to the United States. The ﬁrst, in the early 1960’s, is
probably related to an expulsion process stemming from a continuation of rural to urban
migration and industrialization. In this period, there is also strong migration to Canada
and Australia. The second moment is clearly related to the military government, as the
increase coincides with the most severe repression. The third interesting moment is just
before the new democratic government is sworn in, in 1990. This moment cannot be
explained by the democratization process itself. It probably can, however, be explained
by changes in the quota migration policies in the United States. This it could explain the

sharp increase in migration; it does not explain, however its immediate decline afterwards

31

Figure IV
United States (1953 - 2004): Total immigrants admitted from Chile by year and
percentage of immigrants over total South American immigrants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.500 w—N dr, ——~— — -—~—~ 4‘ ~ 4 9.00
E°,”a'.' " Dem. Gov't '
ectlon _‘ .
. 4 000 IMF style 8': 3 “Tm“! Plebiscite . a 00
‘ mvo men , , . ' Crisis ~> .
E t Re in lbe Military coup Foreign Debt II As"?
It I ‘ v. 1 rty 9‘ Crisis .' 1 Economw collapse
3.500 I \ ’ ‘ f“ \ , ‘\ -' - .. 7.00
r 1 I l \ _ , l l
j \ I \ l Allende's election \._ ‘
; i . . I ll ‘ Nixon's Blockade I, q \ l i
3.000 - ‘l 1‘ 1‘ R I l’ . \ I. 6 oo
4 g I
\ ' \ 9" } ' ‘ .\ ‘ .
I ,’ ‘\ I \ I .' ‘. 0’“ or 9‘ I“; r
2,500 . *h‘ 8" ’ \I j ‘. f. " .' \ '- + 5.00
Alliance for \ . ll . '- \ i Q \
Progress \ I ‘0 l . I \ .
2 000 \ ’ -' L I' ' T l ‘. 4 00
. l , \ A! ,l '.7. i ! ’ ‘ -
l u . ' L. - . o a.
. i ‘. ' v‘i‘x' * ' ,'
1 500 i ' , -\ ' k ‘ 3 00
. , 1 9 a '-
-h " ’ ‘- ' «y .
1 000 P R'— Fl ' ‘ 2 00
' l \ I I. ' ‘” .
Fl . - r
‘9’.
500 . I. “T 1.00
I
0 ‘iw‘ﬁ’r‘iu‘r— "" 't “‘T" T " T 'T '2' I "T '_T" T‘ I I 1 I IIIIIIIIIIIIII T 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 ‘—Y"‘T“T l r r 1 0m
'53 '55 '57 '59 '61 '63 '65 '67 '69 '71 '73 '75 '77 '79 '81 '83 '85 '87 '89 '91 '93 '95 '97 '99 '01 '03
L T—‘I- one - etslnsnagunmmcn'

 

Uruguay presents a similar dynamic to Chile, but with smaller numbers, reﬂecting
Uruguay’s smaller population, close to a third of Chile’s. The difference is the permanent
structural economic crisis that Uruguay has suffered since the late 1950’s. According to
some sources, close to a third of its youth live abroad. In this case, the emigration relates
closely to political situations such as political violence and military coups. There is a
sharp increase in migration just before ex-military members charged with human rights
abuses were given political amnesty (the same case as in Chile?) Also the dependence of

this small country can be observed in the increase of emigration aﬁer Argentina’s

economic collapse in 2001.

32

Figure V
United States (1960 - 2004): Total immigrants admitted from Uruguay by year and
percentage of immigrants over total South American immigrants.

 

 

 

 

   
  
   

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L600 l ‘ ‘ 4.00
i .
- Supresslon of
civil 11 i . . .
1.400 “ Tupamafos & . be" CS A818“ CHSIS "' 3-50
1 P01 violence .' ‘. [’0'— Amnesw Economic
0' collapse Ar
- 1,200 ,-"‘ -. 3.00 l
' E ' i ’ . . 1
co Cns S - Military GoV‘t
I957 ‘ . ' .
1,000 « o .. 2.50 l
i
l
800 ,‘ J 2.00 i
o. .'
O. ‘
600 a 1.50
O
400 ~ .' *r 1.00
200 4 0.50
0 "‘ T “T 1‘ tr 1 T _Y_'r‘ﬁ’—T—T__ *Tﬂ—‘T “Tr—r 1 r r r r r "1'"? "T r T I r r r 1"? T T I r r r 000
.3 S .3 .3 f3 1‘3 P F F3 r°~° .8 S .3 9‘3 5‘3 8 .93 .3 .3 8 .8 S .3
+ Urugﬁtiyi'» ': 7'7 ' uy °/e (over: @ﬁAmericai

 

 

 

33

 

CONCLUSION

Using the available data, with all its pitfalls and opportunities, it has been only
possible to present a post hoc analysis of international migration from the Southern Cone
to the United States. From this analysis, it is safe to conclude that there is a migration
system between the Southern Cone and the United States, since the inﬂuence of the
center state has produced changes in the migration patterns and ﬂows of the region under

analysis.

In this case, these ﬂows were affected by situations in the country of origin that
were promoted or simply accepted by the central economy. It is important to notice,
however, that to fully analyze the reasons behind migration, it is necessary to use a
different methodology that provides ﬁrst hand accounts of how the decisions were made;
as the results presented here only tell part of the story of the migration process between

the Southern Cone of America and the United States.

34

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alba, Francisco (1992). “Migracién internacional y modelos de desarrollo en el
contienente americano”, in El poblamiento de las Américas, International Union for
the Scientiﬁc Study of Population, Veracruz.

Arango, Joaquin (2000), "Explaining Migration: A Critical View." International Social
Science Journal Number 152, Volume 52, September, UNESCO.

Balan, Jorge (1992), “The role of migration policies and social networks in the
development of a migration system in the Southern Cone”, in KRITZ, Mary et. al.
(eds.), International migration systems: A global approach, International Union for
the Scientiﬁc Study of Population/Oxford University Press, New York.

Castles, Stephen y Miller, Mark J. (2003), The age of migration: International population
movements in the modern world, 3rd Edition, The Guilford Press, New York.

ECLAC (Economic Comission for Latin America and the Caribbean) /CELADE (Latin
American and Caribbean Demographic Center — Population Division) (1999).

Migracio'n internacional en América Latina y el Caribe: Algunos antecedentes
empiricos, LC/DEM/R. 296, CELADE, Santiago de Chile.

Hopkins, Terence K. et. al. (1982), World-systems Analysis: Theory and Methodology,
Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.

Kritz, Mary & Zlotnik, Hania (1992), “Global interactions: Migration systems, processes
and policies”, in Kritz, Mary; Zlotnik, Hania and Lim, Lin Lean (eds.),
International migration systems: A global approach, International Union for the
Scientiﬁc Study of Population/Oxford University Press, New York.

Lambert, Peter (1997), “The Regime of Alfredo Stroessner”, in Lambert, Peter and
Nickson, Andrew (Eds.) (1997), The Transition to Democracy in Paraguay, St.
Martin Press, New York.

35

Marshall, Adriana (1988), “Emigration of Argentines to the United States”, in Pessar,
Patricia (1988), When Borders don’t Divide: Labor Migration and Refugee
Movements in the Americas, Center for Migration Studies, New York

Massey, Douglas S.; Arango, Joaquin; Hugo, Graeme; Kouaouci, Ali; Pellegrino, Adela;
and Taylor. J. Edward (1993), "Theories of International Migration: A Review and
Appraisal." Population and Development Review Vol. 19 Number 3, September,
Population Council, New York.

Mﬁnch, Richard (1994), Sociological Theory Vol. 111: Development since the 1960’s,
Nelson Hall Publishing, Chicago.

Nahum, Benjamin (1999), Breve historia del Uruguay Independiente, Ediciones de la
Banda Oriental, Montevideo.

Pellegrino, Adela (2000) Migrantes Latinoamericanos y Caribeﬁos: Sintesis Histérica y
T endencias Recientes, Documento de Referencia, VersiOn Preliminar,
CEPAL/CELADE, Santiago

(1995). “La migraciOn internacional en América Latina”, en Notas
de POblaciOn, N° 62 y Pensamiento Iberoamericano, N° 28, (publicaciOn conjunta),
CELADE, Santiago de Chile.

 

Ritzer, George (2000), Classical Sociological Theory, Mc Graw - Hill, 3rd Edition, USA.
Shannon, Thomas Richard (1989), An Introduction to the World — System Perspective,
Westview Press, Boulder.

Skidmore, Thomas E. and Smith, Peter H. (2001), Modern Latin America, 5th Edition,
Oxford University Press, New York.

Stern, Steve J. (2004), Remembering Pinochets’s Chile: 0n the Eve of London 1998,
Duke University Press, Durham and London.

US. Department of Homeland Security (2005), Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, 2004,
US Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

36

(2004), Yearbook of Immigration Statistics,

 

2003, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

(2003), Yearbook of Immigration Statistics,

 

US

2002, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

Immigration and Naturalization Service (2002), Statistical Yearbook of the
Immigration and Naturalization Services, 2001, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce,

Washington DC.

(2001), Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and

 

Naturalization Services,

2000, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

(2000), Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and

 

Naturalization Services,

1999, US. Government Printing Office, Washington DC.

(1999), Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and

 

Naturalization Services,

1998, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

(1998), Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and

 

Naturalization Services,

1 99 7, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

(1997), Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and

 

Naturalization Services,

1996, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

(1996), Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and

 

Naturalization Services,

1995, US. Government Printing Office, Washington DC.

(1985), Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and

 

Naturalization Services,

1984, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

(1984), Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and

 

Naturalization Services,

1983, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

37

(1983), Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and

 

Naturalization Services,

1982, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

(1979), Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and

 

Naturalization Services,

1978, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

(1978), Annual Report of the Immigration and

 

Naturalization Services,

1977, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

(1977), Annual Report of the Immigration and

 

Naturalization Services,

1976, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

(1976), Annual Report of the Immigration and

 

Naturalization Services,

1975, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

(1975), Annual Report of the Immigration and

 

Naturalization Services,

1974, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

(1974), Annual Report of the Immigration and

 

Naturalization Services,

1973, US. Government Printing Office, Washington DC.

(1973), Annual Report of the Immigration and

 

Naturalization Services,

1972, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

(1972), Annual Report of the Immigration and

 

Naturalization Services,

1971, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

(1971), Annual Report of the Immigration and

 

Naturalization Services,

1970, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

(1970), Annual Report of the Immigration and

 

Naturalization Services,

1969, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

(1969), Annual Report of the Immigration and

 

Naturalization Services,

1968, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

38

(1968), Annual Report of the Immigration and
Naturalization Services, 1 96 7, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

 

(1967), Annual Report of the Immigration and
Naturalization Services, 1966, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

 

(1966), Annual Report of the Immigration and
Naturalization Services, 1965, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

 

(1965), Annual Report of the Immigration and
Naturalization Services, 1964, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

 

(1964), Annual Report of the Immigration and
Naturalization Services, 1963, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

 

(1963), Annual Report of the Immigration and
Naturalization Services, 1962, US. Government Printing Ofﬁce, Washington DC.

 

Wallerstein, Immanuel (2000), The Essential Wallerstein, The New Press, New York.

(2004), World-systems Analysis: An Introduction, 3rd Printing
(2005), Duke University Press, Durham.

 

Whitaker, Arthur P. (1976), The United States and the Southern Cone: Argentina, Chile
and Uruguay, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

39

 

 

 

r
u.

with.

51.0.1;

 

15.5

ll‘t LlBRAR

HNS

V

H SIAIk

A

i} it
4287

6
5
9
2
0
3
9
2
1

lllllillll?