Christiane Harzig

Immigration policies: a gendered historical comparison

Worldwide, migration is a human condition which threatens as much as it preconditions social development. Modern industrial societies attempt to politically deal with the issue of human mobility through immigration policies. These policies seek to control borders, regulate the relationship between the migrants and the state, and have to deal with aspects of diversity: e.g. minority formation, ethnic identity, and culture. The United States, Canada and Sweden are often cited as prototypical examples of old and new immigration countries, implying either that Europe should look to North America for examples or, conversely, that Europe’s ‘problems’ with immigration are so new and unique that ‘we’ have to seek ‘our’ own, i.e. culturally specific, solutions. By comparing the historical development of policies in the U.S., Canada and Sweden, the essay challenges the concept of ‘old’ versus ‘new’ immigration countries. Neither have old immigration countries been ‘naturally’ open to immigration nor is immigration a new phenomenon in the European context. Rather, all societies have long, and often conflictual, histories of negotiating issues of migration and diversity (Hoerder, et al., forthcoming). Contemporary debate on immigration policy generally frames the issue in gender-neutral terms; this applies to legal propositions (entry status and citizenship), but also to concepts, which structure the subsequent settlement process. However, the neutrality makes the absence of gender even more conspicuous because what seems to be impartial affects men and women rather differently. Using the policy concepts of ‘family unification’ and ‘male breadwinner,’ and situating them in the historical context of ‘community formation’ and ‘culture’, the paper seeks to analyze the relationship between immigration policies and gender. These concepts are also influential in restructuring gender relations in immigration/multicultural societies. We may then understand why women provide stability to migration systems, how women’s agency affects urban development, and how culture as a discursive construction became a tool in positioning women and in the application of social control. We can then assess the im-

36

Christiane Harzig

pact of gender on political issues, which rank so prominently in the policy debates, such as the control of migration flows, labor market regulations and the restructuring of the welfare state. Migration processes have often been interpreted according to two different sets of paradigms. The more traditional ones relate to the push-pull factor analysis linking the labor markets of the receiving cultures with economic and demographic developments of the sending cultures. Push factors such as low living standards, lack of economic opportunities and political repression are contrasted with demand for labor, economic prospects, availability of land and perceived political freedom (Castles & Miller, 1993). Within this framework people move as individuals, unaffected by time and space, not related to familial circumstances. This framework, which is favored by statisticians and economists, assumes that people move mainly to maximize their individual profits, relying solely on their own resources (see summary in Brettell & Hollifield, 2000, p. 3). Although the push-pull paradigm has long been criticized as ahistorical and individualistic, and most migration researchers today acknowledge various other than market factors influencing migration processes, the single, unattached migrant (mainly male, though sometimes female) still dominates most labor market and migration policy analysis. A more encompassing paradigm is based on collectivist and institutional approaches, and argues that migration can best be analyzed using the conceptual framework of migration systems ... which refer(s) to a set of places linked by flows and counterflows of people. The migration systems approach means examining both ends of the flow, putting a specific flow or destination in the context of other possible flows or destinations, and studying all the linkages between the places concerned: not just movements of people but also of information, goods, services and ideas (Castle & Miller, p. 22).

The linkages or interactions can best be analyzed in differentiating macrostructures referring to large-scale institutional factors, and micro-structures embracing networks, practices and beliefs of the migrants themselves. The systems approach has been adopted by most migration historians and thus has undergone analytical refinement. In order to relate the macro level of worldwide migration systems to the micro level of life-course analysis of the individuals a mezzo level has been introduced. The mezzo level uses segments of larger (economic and labor market) systems in order to make worldwide systems applicable to local circumstances and integrates individuals into networks of families, larger kin groups and neighborhood groups in order to assess options in other parts of the world. The mezzo level allows to place migrating male and female laborers into the specific segmented labor market they migrate to and considers their aims and goals within the context of the family economy (Hoerder, 1997). Whether the systems approach will allow policy makers to predict and channel migration flows more accurately than analysis based on the pushpull paradigm remains to be seen.

Immigration policies

37

Feminist debate has not yet systematically related gender to the various migration paradigms. There have been a number of historical and contemporary studies analyzing female migration within the push-pull framework (for example Diner, 1983; Glenn, 1991; Yans-McLaughlin, 1977) that point out that women often have the same incentives to move as men (Harzig, 1997). The systems approach, locating the mezzo level in neighborhoods, communities, and family networks has generated a more gender sensitive analysis (Moch, 1992). Feminist debate has also focused on the diversification of society as a consequence of migration, looking at the resultant transformation of gender relations. Often the analysis is framed in terms of the exploitive effects which patriarchy and racism have on women who are marginalized due to minority formation processes (Stasiulis & Yuval-Davis, 1995). The process of constructing citizens out of migrants, and their relationship to the welfare state, is also critically evaluated with regard to women (Boris, 1995). Within these frameworks women are examined as especially vulnerable waged workers, as family workers in family businesses, as maintainers of tradition (language and food habits), as people who could loose their citizenship upon marriage, or as objects of demographic analysis (high fertility patterns). Men, who are captured in the same relationships, are less often seen as gendered beings, that is beings who do not represent the universal, but the male version of these relationships. In the following three national histories of immigration policies up until the 1980s are outlined, focusing on their impact on women. I take a historical perspective on the 1960s to 80s, thus trying to avoid – though only for the purpose of this paper – to get entangled into the fast changing and ever bothersome present-day political decisions of migration. The most recent developments are summarized in the concluding paragraphs. In the second part I attempt to outline an interpretative framework that seeks to integrate the three aspects of immigration policies, the mezzo level of migration systems, and gender.

The United States The history of U.S. immigration legislation has been divided into four periods: – – – –

Laissez Faire (1789-1874) Qualitative Restrictions (1875-1920) Quantitative Restrictions (1921-to present) Immigration Legislation (1980-1990).1

1

See Martin (1995, pp. 21-42). Further analysis of the details may lead us to differentiate periods three and four with regard to the thrust and aim of restrictions and legislation, but for the time being this periodization serves our purpose.

38

Christiane Harzig

During the laissez-faire period immigration legislation consisted not of a policy regulating entry but it controlled the naturalization process, that is the process by which people became citizens. However, not only did the Naturalization Act of 1790 limit naturalized citizenship to whites only, but what it meant to be a citizen also varied greatly with regard to gender and class, as Kerber (1998) has shown. Men had much more to gain from naturalization when voting was the major benefit of citizenship and white women’s citizenship was malleable with regard to marriage. They could loose it when marrying a non-citizen and gain it when marrying a citizen. Until the 15th amendment citizenship regulations with regard to (free, male) African-Americans depended on state regulations. Not until the 1922 Cable Act, also called the Married Women’s Independent Citizenship Act, did women gain the right to retain their citizenship when married to a foreigner (Bredbenner, 1998, Chapter 3). During the early decades of this laissez faire period (1820-1840), women made up 30 to 37 percent of immigrants entering the United States. Their percentage rose to 44.5 in the following decade and dropped below 40 again during the Civil War. It remained in the high 30-plus range up until qualitative restrictions began in the 1920s (Gabaccia, 1996). During this period women’s participation in immigration did not so much depend on immigration policy, but on the migration history of the respective ethnic group and accordingly varied greatly. The second period was the one of qualitative restriction. It began with a law in 1875 which prohibited the admittance of prostitutes and convicts. From its first selective immigration law in 1875, Congress took a moralistic position and forbade the entry of those who might corrupt the morals of the American people. From this beginning Congress labored to devise more and more comprehensive measures, free of legal loopholes, for the exclusion of all aliens regarded as immoral (Hutchinson, 1981, p. 419).

Even though it is generally agreed upon that the proportion of prostitutes among immigrant women was relatively low, it is equally agreed upon that what constitutes a prostitute is a social construction which especially single women, traveling alone, fell prey to. French women, especially, were victims of this stereotype.2 Though the actual number of women sent back on prostitution charges was small, it is safe to assume that this law had its effects on the decision of women of whether to travel alone or to seek the company of others. During the following decades the list of those eligible for exclusion was eventually expanded to thirty-three categories (polygamists, homosexuals, nonEnglish speaking and illiterate, contract workers). The exclusion of Chinese 2

Even though the number of immigrants from France was small, they came first in the number of prostitutes denied entry/ or deported. Unfortunately Doris Weatherford (1986) does not notice how she herself becomes victim of such a stereotype. “...the French live up to their sexual reputation and come in first in the number of prostitutes they contributed to the United States” (p. 61).

Immigration policies

39

(1882) or the so-called Gentlemen Agreement (1907) with regard to immigrants from Japan, however, were the most gender-consequential laws passed in the history of immigration legislation. Not only were immigrants from Asia, i.e. Chinese and Japanese, prohibited to come. It also created highly imbalanced sex ratios in existing immigrant communities. By the 1880s Chinese males outnumbered females by twenty to one (Daniels, 1990, p. 241). This forced pioneering groups of immigrant men, who had been invited to come to work on the railroad, to establish bachelor societies, which had long lasting negative effects on the establishment of Chinese-American communities. During this period, the concept of family unification was introduced, which, however, did not apply to Asians. It exempted family members of naturalized citizens from any of the exclusion categories. Even the Literacy Act of 1917, which tried to restrict immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, provided for reunification of families by making the test applicable only to male immigrants over the age of sixteen and by exempting people over the age of sixty, thus allowing for parents to enter. The definition of family varied, sometimes to include even married children and fiancées, sometimes to exclude adopted children and ‘picture brides.’ However, it always perceived the family as a nuclear patri-local unit along a Western model. As Hutchinson (1981) argues, the reasons for this consistent policy were rooted in the dominant ideas of settler societies, for family unification has never been a controversial or debatable issue in Congress, but rather has been considered obviously desirable. Probably there has been a mixture of altruism and calculation, based on the assumption that family unification contributes to both immigrant welfare and the national welfare (p. 505).

Behind this inferred altruism lay the assumption that an immigrant with a family was more likely to settle permanently. Permanent immigration was generally preferred over sojourning, immigrant families favored over birds of passage, who were often assumed to be single and male. Asian relatives were not only barred from immigrating by the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act but also because the 1870 Naturalization Act limited citizenship to white persons and persons of African decent. Family unification in this period only applied to naturalized residents. Different concepts of family and clan would later present problems in the definition of family and who was considered a family member.3 The Quota Act and National Origins Act of 1921 and 1924, which opened the third period of immigration legislation, this time based on quantitative restriction, actually divided the world into an unregulated New World (Western Hemisphere, including South America and the Caribbean), an effectively unregulated Northern European World (by this time these countries hardly filled 3

The history of Asian immigration and the racializing aspects of legal practices has recently received much scholarly attention (Hing, 1993; Takaki, 1989).

40

Christiane Harzig

their quotas), a heavily restricted Southern and Eastern European World and, one might add, an excluded Asian world. Africa was also de facto excluded because its allotted quota was negligible. It has been argued that immigration policy, especially the family reunification provision in times of restrictionist politics is responsible for women becoming a majority of the migrants to the U.S. Statistically the 1930s are the turning point, with 55.3% of female migrants from 1930-1939 and even 61.2% in the 1940s. From the 1950s onward women make up 54 to 55 percent. As Gabaccia has shown women from Southern and Eastern Europe immigrated in rising numbers already before the restrictionist law came into effect, and women’s entry into the U.S. from the effectively unregulated Northern European countries increased little; among unregulated New World migrants their number actually dropped. In general, when the total volume of migration dropped drastically, as in the depressions of 1907 till 1921 and again in the 1930s, the proportion of female migrants rose due to family unification processes. Restrictionist policies only intensified this tendency (Gabaccia, 1996, pp. 101-105). It was not until the mid 1960s that U.S. policy makers were ready to substantially revise the restrictionist policies of the 1924 Act. In the meantime, some adjustments were necessary. Diverging war scenarios brought forth the differential treatment of Asian Americans. While, after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, Japanese Americans were forcibly removed from their homes and put into ten concentration camps across the country, Chinese Americans, allies in the Asian war, experienced the transformation of their legal position when the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed in 1943 and the Naturalization Act changed. 4 The years 1944 to the early 1950s also demonstrated the inflexibility and discriminatory practices of U.S. immigration policies, when many Jews were prevented from finding refuge in the U.S., and provisions were lacking to deal with displaced persons. It thus did not serve the foreign policy needs and international responsibilities arising from U.S. involvement in the war. Therefore it was left to ad hoc presidential decisions (parole authority) to respond to international crises and foreign policy needs. Central elements of U.S. immigration policies were enacted in these years, without major legislative intervention and debate. This included establishing the U.S. as a country of secondary asylum, that is, a country that could pick and choose its refugees (able-bodied young single men and women) as well as giving preferential treatment to anybody coming from a communist country. However, with the Immigration and Nationality Act (McCarran-Walter Act) of 1952 congress demonstrated that it was not yet willing to adjust to the foreign policy demands of President Truman. 4

In 1988 “Congress passed … a bill containing an apology to the Japanese American people … and authorizing the payment of twenty thousand dollars in ‘redress’ to each of the perhaps sixty thousand surviving persons who had been in one of America’s concentration camps” (Daniels, 1990, p. 303).

Immigration policies

41

Though it modified racially exclusionary provisions with regard to Asia, it maintained very narrowly defined national origin quotas. It was enacted over Truman’s veto. The act proved inadequate for policy needs. The Eastern Hemisphere countries did not fill their quotas, in other countries a large backlog of applications accumulated, and the Western Hemisphere immigration – mainly from Mexico – was beyond regulation and control, and special arrangements had to be made for refugee admissions. Only one third of legal immigrants to the US in the years 1952 to 1965 were admitted under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. If one assumes that the main purpose of an immigration admittance policy is to admit those immigrants that best suit the labor market needs of the national economy, then it is easy to see that the act failed this major purpose (Briggs, 1992, p. 102). It also continued the previous trend with regard to the sex ratio. Between 1950 and 1959 out of a total of 2.5 million immigrants 53.7% were women. The rising civil rights movement and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Kennedy’s initiative and L. B. Johnson political astuteness, all within the context of what has been labeled the country’s most ambitious domestic reform agenda, created the political climate, which led to the Immigration Act of 1965. It became the major immigration reform act since 1924. The new legislation comprised the following key-components: 1. There was overall political agreement that any overt racism of the national origins system should be eradicated. 2. Non-family and refugee immigrants had to prove that they did not negatively affect the employment opportunities of citizen workers. 3. A ceiling for Western Hemisphere immigrants was established (225,000), however, without labor market certification and preference system. 4. For Eastern Hemisphere immigrants a seven-category preference system was established, giving five preference categories to relatives of U.S. citizens. Category 6 was reserved for skilled laborers and category 7 applied to refugees from communist countries (Hutchinson, 1981, p. 370). Immediate family members, i.e. spouses, minor children and parents, were not counted as part of hemispheric or individual country ceilings. This legislation firmly established the family reunification system. It not only allowed ‘unlimited’ immigration of immediate family members, but also reserved three quarters of available immigrant visas to adult relatives of U.S. citizens who were potential candidates for the labor market. Family unification and family sponsorship (the Canadian equivalent) always assures or reinforces the existing ethnic composition of an immigration country. Thus, Briggs rightly argues that this priority for family reunification and (adult) family members of U.S. citizens was nothing else but another racially motivated attempt to maintain the ethnic composition of the U.S. population. These provisions of the Act where mainly lobbied for by such conservative groups as the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution (1992, p. 110).

42

Christiane Harzig

The postulate of family reunification is to this day the most important factor in immigration admission. It remained the principle category of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, though here the main thrust were amnesty programs for illegal immigrants, and it was maintained in the Immigration Act of 1990, though this time a ceiling for the admission of family related immigrants was proposed (Gimpel & Edwards, 1999). In fact the principle of family reunification has become so dominant, and the group of family immigrants so prevailing, that one begins to seriously wonder why labor market analyses assume such a central position in migration research today. A gendered life course analysis within the interpretive framework of the mezzo level and family economy seems to be the approach with the greater explanatory value. The present day immigration ‘problem,’ which the U.S. is confronted with, or the ‘fourth wave of mass migration,’ is not the result of various legislative measures of immigration policies, but rather of developments taking place outside the scope of policy provisions. Richmond (1994) has made us aware of the fact that postindustrialism and globalization, racial conflict, ethnic nationalism as well as ecological crises have profound impacts on international migration, and the U.S. is but one of the destinations, albeit an important one. But despite the global scope, refugee admissions, asylum seekers, illegal or undocumented migration, non-immigrant labor, and visa overstayers rely on their respective migration networks and systems based on individual or family needs as stated above.

Canada Canada is another ‘typical’ immigration country that looks back on a long history of attracting, but also of rejecting immigrants. Canadian immigration policies, even more so than the U.S. policies, were guided by two main principles: Immigration was to serve Canadian demographic and economic interests, and it was not to interfere with the predominantly white British and French ‘national character’ of the country (Harzig, 1994). From the mid 19th century onwards government saw it necessary to regulate and control its immigration, mainly in order to control the costs involved in handling immigrants once they entered the country. The fear of immigrants becoming a ‘public charge,’ a concept which came to play a prominent role in immigration policies, led to various regulations against paupers. In 1869 quarantine stations were organized and a head tax was introduced to finance the facilities. Immigration control became one instrument in the centralization process of the state, giving the federal government the power to overrule provincial regulations. From the 1870s until the end of World War Two all further additions, changes, administrative measures were designed

Immigration policies

43

to control and regulate those who wanted to immigrate to Canada. This included the Chinese Control Act of 1885 (three years after the U.S.) the Continuous Journey Stipulation directed against immigrants from India, various head-taxes and landing fees and rules against religious groups considered subversive. The most infamous incident of Canadian restrictionist immigration policy was the refusal to give asylum to Jewish refugees from Germany (cf. Abella & Troper, 1983). These restrictionist and racist immigration policies notwithstanding, the nation- building project depended on more people coming into the country to work and to settle the land between Ontario and the West Cost, to provide coherence to the young nation. Toward the end of the century an active immigration policy was pursued, and settlers were sought, preferably from Britain and the U.S. When they failed to follow the call of Clifford Sifton, Minister of the Interior in 1896, ‘stout, hardy peasants in sheepskin coats’ with healthy, hard-working wives from Central and Eastern Europe (Galicia and the Ukraine) were accepted. African American, immigrants from Asia or Italy, however, were explicitly excluded. Agents and brochures advertised Canada as a country of immigration throughout parts of Europe, immigration figures were rising, and the countries of origin diversified. The white European character, however, was preserved.5 At the end of World War II a rising demand for industrial workers on the one hand, and growing international involvement on the other, forced Canada to reconsider its immigration policy, and in 1947 Prime Minister Mackenzie King pronounced six essentials which were to guide Canada’s immigration policy: Immigration was to serve national economic and demographic interests, it had to be selective, and had to be related to the absorptive capacity of the country and immigration must not distort the present character of Canadian population (Hawkins, 1988, pp. 92-93). Thus it became obvious that Canad’s main objective with regard to immigration remained to enlarge its population and to meet its labor demands, while maintaining its racial and ethnic status quo. These essentials were incorporated into the 1953 Immigration Act. This Act, much as its 1952 U.S. equivalent, proved to be politically and administratively totally inadequate and did not meet the political demands of its time anymore. During the years 1959 to 1963 immigration had reached its lowest point. At the same time

5

During the years 1920 to 1930 an average of about 120,000 were entering Canada every year. This number dropped drastically with the onset of the depression in 1930 and remained low until 1948 when it reached 120,000 again, the peak year being 1951 with 194,000. Despite diversification, the British continued to make up more than 50% of immigrants until the 1930s. From the mid 1960s onward immigration remained above the 100,000 figure, reaching 222,000 in 1967 with the introduction of the point system. Historical Statistics of Canada (1965, p. 23).

44

Christiane Harzig

grossly understaffed immigration offices in Europe were unable to process applications and to clear the backlog. During the decades following World War Two Canada admitted mainly two types of immigrants: those who came on their own account (open placement) and those who were sponsored. Sponsored immigrants could be relatives of Canadian citizens or landed immigrants (people with permanent residence status and work permit). Between 1946 and 1966 2.5 million immigrants arrived, 900,000 came because of family ties and family networks mainly from Italy, Greece and Portugal. Though sponsorship in Canadian immigration policy was a much broader concept than the U.S. version of family unification, it had similar structural implications: the sponsorship system implied a bias in favor of already established ethnic groups, thus perpetuating the ‘cultural texture’ of the country; it contained an element of explosive growth since most sponsored immigrants could again sponsor others; it provided initial help and shelter for the immigrants, thus relieving the government from such responsibilities; it fostered the development of immigrant neighborhoods and it contributed to the growth of ethnic communities (Hawkins, 1988, pp. 48-49). Unlike in the U.S. case, the sponsorship system always provoked political controversy during the subsequent immigration policy debates. Since it was usually associated with the inmigration of uneducated people and unskilled laborers it was held responsible for unemployment and other social problems. Seldomly it was noted that the Canadian economy very much depended on the import of such labor. Attempts to regulate the sponsorship movement were made by broadening or narrowing the definitions of family relationships or by raising the responsibilities of the sponsors. However, as in the U.S. case, out of reverence towards the Western patriarchal family model it was never completely abandoned.6 In 1962, almost unnoticed by the public, immigration regulations were issued by the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, which removed the major racially discriminatory features of Canadian immigrations legislations. The new regulations established skill as the main criterion in the selection of unsponsored immigrants. However, it was not till the mid-1960s when the economy recovered after a brief recession, that the Conservative government was voted out of office and replaced by the Liberals, and the immigration bureaucracy was restructured for more efficiency, that immigration figures began to increase. Structural changes in the economy now necessitated a further shift in immigration policies. Canada had a growing demand for a highly skilled, specialized workforce and had to compete with other immigration countries for these professionals. 6

Today sociologists in conjunction with immigration policy makers discuss functional definitions of family in order to include gay couples and non-Western family concepts. Nowadays sponsorship is connected to citizenship which, in turn, has led to an increase in the numbers of citizenship applications.

Immigration policies

45

The subsequent debate on necessary revisions in immigration policy very explicitly reflected the two main problems of a future oriented immigration policy: the need to get the sponsorship program under control, and an effective selection system for qualified and specialized workers. The plan, which was eventually adopted in 1967, allowed for three application categories: 1. independent applicants, 2. sponsored dependents (dependent family members) 3. nominated relatives (independent family members). A point system established the criteria as to the usefulness of a candidate. It included aspects such as education, personal assessment, occupational skills, age, as well as some preference for being sponsored by a Canadian citizen. This point system, which was just a regulation, but not a law, presented a major revision of Canadian immigration policy and is basically in effect till today. These changes had subtle implications with regard to gender. To begin with, the sponsorship system, due to its broader concept of family relationship, was less biased towards female migration because it allowed for adult relatives (brothers, cousins, uncles) to immigrate. However, the traditional understanding of ‘skill’ imposed great limitations on female immigration. This becomes most obvious regarding domestics. Household workers were always in great demand on the Canadian labor market, however, their skills were never recognized under the point system. Rather, special programs, with restricted access to landed immigrant status, were implemented. In the 1970s Canada continued the process of re-designing itself, from a country with a dominant British (and French) culture to a country of diverse immigration and multiculturalism. In 1971 Trudeau announced the multiculturalism policy and after a broad debate in public and political circles the Immigration Act of 1976 (effective in 1978) was ratified. From now on Canada’s immigration policy had a different set of goals than the one outlined by Mackenzie King in 1948. Since Trudeau had explicitly rejected the concept of a Canadian Leitkultur, the maintenance of the Canadian ‘character’ was a concept of the past; under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms immigrants were to have the same rights as Canadian citizens; Canada accepted a humanitarian obligation with respect to refugees and facilitated the process of acculturation by providing easy access to citizenship. Vestiges of racism and discrimination were to be eradicated under the policy of multiculturalism. Through the 1980s and early 1990s these concepts dominated Canadian political culture. Presently, 250,000 independent immigrants are accepted per year. The sponsorship program is still in place. In the mid-1990s, due to growing (fiscal) conservatism, the liberal immigration and multicultural policies came under scrutiny again. A federal commission reassessed changes and demands in immigration policies and presented another comprehensive report (Not Just Numbers, 1998). The Report does not propose a more restrictionist immigration policy but suggests more responsibilities and active integration for those who want to become citizens.

Christiane Harzig

46

Sweden Emigration, remigration, asylum, labor recruitment, immigration, and multicultural society mark the stages of development in Sweden’s migration experience. Just like the 1960s were a turning point in U.S. and Canadian immigration policies, Sweden’s development toward a country of immigration and multiculturalism took shape in these years. After a century of heavy emigration Sweden experienced its first immigration wave in the 1930s and early 40s when many former emigrants returned from America in the wake of the Depression and oncoming war. Giving refuge to people from the Baltic countries and Norway, due to the country’s neutrality during the war, was the next step in the development. A declining birth rate and growing industrial development characterized the immediate post war years and made the need for foreign labor seem inevitable. At first the historical concept of a Nordic labor market seemed the appropriate way to meet the demands of Sweden’s industry. Labor permits for people from other Nordic countries were abolished and various agreements across the Nordic labor market led to a strong rise in immigration, especially from Finland. At the same time, people from nonNordic countries were also recruited for the Swedish labor market. This process was not regulated by state-organized bilateral agreements to the same degree as in other European countries (e.g. Germany), but depended on the individual recruitment efforts of employers.7 As in all other European countries with vastly developing industry, labor (in)migration was considered temporary and migrants were considered only with regard to their potentials for the labor market. And since it was a period of seemingly unlimited economic growth, there was enough surplus to spread around and no special attention was paid to the mainly male foreigners. Sweden had, as some came to realize, immigration without an immigration policy (cf. Widgren, 1980, chapt. 1). This in itself was not unusual – what differentiated Sweden from other European countries was the fact that it decided to change. In the mid 1960s, fueled by an economic recession, a debate began over the issues of further recruitment of laborers and what to do with those living already in Sweden. The issue was discussed in the media and among policy makers and it was concluded that, in order to maintain living standards of those already in the country, restriction of immigration was necessary. From 1967 only those people from non-Nordic countries who could provide a work permit and abode while still outside the country, were allowed to immigrate. Immigration was hardly affected by these restrictions once the economy picked up again. How7

In the 1950s people came predominantly from Germany and the Netherlands, later came Italians, Austrians, Belgians and Greeks (Widgren, 1980, chapt. 1). On the history of immigration to Sweden see also Runblom (1995).

Immigration policies

47

ever, one result of this debate in which politicians, academics, labor leaders and some immigrants participated, was the public realization that ‘foreigners’ had become immigrants (cf. Harzig, forthcoming). After two decades of laissez-faire in immigration politics the government began to offer a number of services (language training, housing, information on community affairs) to facilitate everyday living in a Swedish environment. In 1972 the recruitment policies were stopped and further immigration to Sweden consisted, besides highly skilled workers, of refugees, asylum seekers and family migrants. The question, however, arose whether the immigrants should assimilate and become Swedes or whether they should be encouraged to keep their own culture. In 1968 an immigration commission began to work on a report on immigration to Sweden and presented its results in 1974. This seemingly very long process of analysis, debate and political discussion resulted in a change in policy that introduced the third period of Swedish immigration policy development. It established the principles that have guided Sweden’s immigration policy ever since: Equality, Freedom of Choice and Partnership, that is: “equality of opportunity in all fields of social and economic life, freedom of choice as to the cultural identity the immigrant wants to assume, partnership between immigrants, their associations and the larger society” (Lithman, 1985, p. 12). This policy implied that all immigrants had the same access to social security and the various income maintenance systems in Sweden, as well as the same legal and social rights and obligations as Swedish citizens; that they may participate in municipal elections after three years residence in Sweden and apply for citizenship after five years; that they have a right to mother tongue instructions as well as to Swedish language training during work hours; and a right to participate in the various adult education and training classes (Lithman, 1985, p. 12). Though the policy was framed in fairly gender-neutral terms, the social reality was far from it. In the 1980s, with growing recession and the subsequent restructuring of the economy, the position of immigrant women on the labor market became more and more precarious as they were singled out for special attention. Their position within the migration process, their labor market participation, housing, language acquisition, health care and family planing and organizational efforts were analyzed. Various measures were undertaken, such as further educational programs and organizational efforts, to strengthen their position in Swedish society. Women policy makers claimed that immigrant women, who made up 40 to 60 percent of the foreign population (Sopemi/ OECD reports), should not be the ones to experience the main thrust of economic restructuring processes.8 8

It has been argued that the halt to recruitment of foreign workers, the continuation of family reunification, the flow of refugees and return migration have led to a net increase in the proportion of women in the foreign born population, the process has been labeled the “feminization of foreign populations” (Lithman, 1985, p. 14). However, it is difficult to

Christiane Harzig

48

The public and political discourse on immigration to Sweden originally assumed that immigrants were expected to be treated like Swedes and that they should only maintain their culture if they chose to do so. Therefore it may be argued that the blueprint upon which gender relations among immigrant populations were imagined was designed according to the Swedish pattern. Immigrant women were taken care of within the framework of Swedish social services and initiatives by migrant women were supported with public money. The concept of the male breadwinner family, which is an outmoded model in Swedish society,9 not only in theory, but also in practice, was not imposed on immigrant families. On the other hand, during the subsequent debate on immigrant women in Swedish society, which, as Aleksandra Ålund has argued, mainly focused on the assumed quadruple oppression of ethnicity, class, gender and acceptance of fate, “the force of an oppressive traditional patriarchal culture has on the whole been a dominant theme in conceptions of Swedish migrant women” (1991, p. 49). When immigrant women entered the debate, introducing their own understanding of participation in Swedish society, the (Western, middle-class) feminist concepts of their supposed traditionalism and suppression had to undergo revisions. Similar claims for diversity, as they are debated in North American society, were voiced. The primacy of gender versus race/ethnicity had to be renegotiated and Swedish women had to reconceptualize their understanding of migrant women’s acculturation processes.

Immigration and gender As the national histories and their comparison have shown, immigration policies refer to three different aspects of the migration process. At first they provide

9

support this rather convincing theory by data, since it is almost impossible to find coherent figures on sex ratios with regard to immigration. This is not because the data are not available in the respective primary sources, but because secondary literature does not provide sex-differentiated data. The very detailed annual statistical reports of the Commission for Immigrant Research only sex-differentiated information on foreign citizens for the years 1976 and 1977. For the year 1976, 418,016 foreign citizens living in Sweden are reported, 47.8% were women. Of course the percentages vary according to ethnic group: the larger groups of Finns, Yugoslavs and Norwegians have a fairly balanced sex ratio, in a second large group of Greeks, Germans, and Turks about 43 % are female, the Poles being the exception with 63%, and some small groups vary greatly with Thai people having 62% and Moroccans 25% women. The total number of foreign citizens remained almost unchanged during the next 5 years and the group sizes varied only slightly. Thus it may be assumed that the sex ratio remained similar. In 1991, 89 percent of all Swedish women between 20 and 54 were gainfully employed. Furthermore their social security is neither related to marriage nor to their gainful employment, but solely based on their citizenship (Appelt, 1999, p. 112).

Immigration policies

49

rules and regulations as to who is allowed to enter the country and under what conditions. These regulations vary over time and cater to, or are an expression of, national interests, as has become most explicit in the Canadian case. These national interests are funneled into labor market needs, demographic developments and concepts of cultural compatibility. They are expressed in national origin quotas and point systems. The very large category of immediate or dependent family members, i.e. the concept of family reunification, which may have served originally to maintain an ethnic composition favoring the dominant groups, has not only become the main category of immigrants in all countries considered here, but has grown beyond any notion of control, selection and demand. The same is true for illegal immigration and refugees and asylum seekers turned immigrants. (They may at least serve some foreign policy interests, as has been shown with Cuban refugees to the U.S.) Thus it appears as if immigration policies that try to regulate entry in order to serve any kind of national interest has became a fiction, a political myth. Nevertheless, for the ‘old’ immigration countries this aspect remains of major importance. The ‘new’ immigration countries have not yet come to political terms with the fact that in-migration may actually be in the national interest. The most recent report by the German Immigration Commission (Süssmuth Report, 2001), which concludes that Germany is in dire need of immigration and suggests some form of point system with regard to skill and cultural resources (education and vocational training) for immigrants, does not seem to gain the necessary political support. The second aspect, immigration management, encompasses all measures taken to help immigrants/newcomers to adjust to the new society, such as language classes, adult education programs, work permits, placement programs, housing provisions, voting rights for local elections, and citizenship processes. For European countries that have deliberately decided to become immigrant countries, such as Sweden, this second aspect constitutes the core of their immigration policy. Canada has also designed a large number of programs to help newcomers, mainly refugees, to adjust. The U.S. has no national policy but leaves it up to local and state authority and private initiative to react. From the mid-1980s onward, (migrant) women’s participation in these debates has brought some tangible results. In Canada gender guidelines have influenced the refugee determination system (Giles et al., 1996), in Sweden migrant women questioned standard feminist perceptions, and in the U.S. gender has become an important analytical concept in ethnic and immigration studies. The third aspect refers to the process by which newcomers become an integral part of the receiving society and the receiving society emerges as a multiethnic or multicultural society. At this point we should talk about minority policies (as in the Netherlands), anti-racism and anti-discrimination measures, equal opportunity laws and affirmative action programs. Questions of ethnic cultures,

50

Christiane Harzig

identity, cultural retention, and forms of multiculturalism are debated as a result of societal changes due to migration. Striving for a gendered analysis of these three aspects of immigration/minority policies we need to specify our concept of gender. As an analytical category, gender involves a number of assumptions. – – –

Gender is not a substitute for the word ‘woman.’ It is perfectly legitimate to analyze the situation of women in the migration process, and the search for women is a prerequisite for a gender analysis. For a gender analysis it is necessary to recognize the diversity of men and women, and the interconnectedness of race, class, and gender. Our categories of analysis have constantly to be deconstructed and reconstructed if we want to recognize gender relationships.

As Baron (1991) and others have pointed out, gender is a relational category referring to processes and constructions and not to seemingly homogenous entities. It is a process embedded in all social relations, institutions and processes. It is a relationship, which is constituted through people’s lived experience within continually redefined and contested social activities and institutions. The functioning of gender has to be tracked again and again in people’s everyday activities, in the construction of meaning as well as in the unspoken assumptions that form the essence of institutions and laws. Very often, these concepts and institutions seem to be gender-neutral, with policies, laws, and regulations framed in seemingly gender-neutral terms. We sometimes fail to notice that this ‘neutrality’ is only the result of the deeply ingrained assumption that the male is the universal, that the universal is nothing but the male concept or way of seeing things. And, not surprisingly, it is when we are searching for the women in the picture that we discover the constructedness of a relationship, of a role or an institution. Thus it is easier to see how a woman’s position is constructed through the state, through the various dimensions of state policies, taxation, social services (Yuval-Davis & Anthias, 1989), than to see the state as a male construction, or that the state is constructing the position of men by the same process. When applying the relational and processual concept of gender to the three aspects of immigration policy, the male bias and thus the limitations of these policies become most apparent. As we have seen, labor market needs, demographic development, cultural compatibility and family reunification are the concepts that structure entry regulations. The underlying theme of these concepts is the male breadwinner/male head of household model. However we have to move beyond considering only the fate of women as dependents with restricted residence permissions and limited access to language programs. The concept of the male breadwinner household has structured nineteenth and twentieth century understandings of society and social relations. Census-

Immigration policies

51

takers and social workers in North American urban communities in the early twentieth century, and social policy makers in post-World War Two Europe have used the male breadwinner concept as a yardstick to measure what was right and what was wrong, who had assimilated well, and what remedies should be offered in case of deviance. To migrants in the late nineteenth century – even those that were ‘white’ and Protestant – the concept was most likely a very foreign one and had little to do with their past experience. A family living in Chicago in the 1870s and 80s was confronted with the dominant urban ideology that the husband should be the sole provider of the family income. It was completely up to him to support his wife and children and to provide for old age and times of crisis, illness or unemployment. This situation was totally unfamiliar to people from peasant cultures. In Mecklenburg, labor force was evaluated within the family unit, and wives and children had specific tasks to fulfill on the estate. Old age was provided for, and unemployment was no concept in a society which had its specific place for everybody and excluded everybody it did not have a place for. Equally unfamiliar to Mecklenburg families must have been the notion that ‘the employment of wives otherwise than in their domestic duties and the placing at labor of children of school age, must be subversive of the best interests of the family, as well as of doubtful expediency as a measure of economy’ (Illinois Bureau of Labor Statistics, Third Report, 1884, p. 268) Children were expected to provide income for the family in so far as their labor was needed during harvest time or in caring for the animals. Whenever a conflict between school and work arose, work got priority. It was not the women who had obligations to the child but the child who had obligations to the family. How was the Mecklenburg family to resolve these conflicts between traditional rural culture and middle-class urban ideology? Was the husband’s income enough to provide adequately for the family? Did they need to make use of family resources to provide for the family’s survival, or were they to do without the wife’s and children’s labor in order to submit to prevailing ideology – and thus perhaps also forgo the dream of their own property? (Harzig, 1997, p. 206).

As can be shown here, the male breadwinner concept affected men, women and children alike and had lasting effects on how immigrants perceived themselves in urban America. Very obviously, it was a white middle-class urban model imposed on rural and working-class migrants. Post-World War Two migrants, though familiar with the pervasive male breadwinner model, nevertheless come from family economy environments in which every family member has a task and a function with regard to survival and development of the family. Immigration legislation, however, maintains the concept of the male breadwinner when separating migrants into working people and dependent classes, or into ‘independent’ and ‘family class’ immigrants as is the Canadian case. Men and women who migrate to industrialized countries in search of jobs – whether they are male Mexican fruit pickers or female Filipino nurses, Yugoslav construction workers or Kurdish seamstresses – derive their motivations most likely out of a family economy concept. This concept may vary greatly with regard to culture, life course, family cycle and individual circumstances, but even if migrants move as single individuals seeking work, more often

52

Christiane Harzig

than not they are connected to a family system. But also when they come as a family, with husband, wife and children, to assume that the work experience of the man is more valid for the national economy, or that the man automatically has the better education, or even to assume that in today’s time of strained private finances families can live on only one income, is quite far removed from reality. For Canada it has been shown that there is a growing need for families to live on two incomes (Ng, 1993). More often than not, ‘dependent’ wives have to join the work force, especially when continuing obligations to dependent family members at home have to be met. In general, the labor force participation of immigrant women is higher than the that of native-born women. Thus by maintaining an outdated concept based on patriarchal notions, immigration policy makers forgo the chance for any provisions to structure and control the migration flow. With regard to the second aspect, immigration management, it is even more obvious how sexist (and racist) concepts work in the construction of immigrant women and men. Despite the many different cultural origins and despite the importance of different cultural heritages, the immigration process nevertheless has a homogenizing effect: “the legal and institutional processes of Canada create certain common, shared conditions” (Ng, 1993, p. 280). People in bureaucracies, whose task it is to design programs to manage immigrants, to offer them a variety of courses, to provide legal categories to ‘handle’ people, have to categorize and structure people, have to group them together. And of course people will have to find out how they fit into these categories in order to benefit from programs or from legal provisions. There are very obvious cases of politically motivated construction with regard to asylum and political refugee cases (Joly, 1997), or with regard to the fiction as to who is accepted as an immigrant in Germany.10 But there are the more subtle ones, the hidden assumptions behind these categories and programs, which often fail to notice the diversity and heterogeneity of and among immigrant groups. For instance, a woman from a ‘Third world’ country with a college degree may have a much harder time finding adequate employment and may often be categorized as domestic service personnel. It has been shown that it is more difficult for academic women than for academic men (e.g. doctors) to have their qualifications recognized (Ng, 1993, p. 286). Very often policy makers in the 1980s assumed the ‘male single’ migrant was the ‘universal’ and thus they offered special programs, additional incentives, distinctive research, to find remedies for the immigrant woman, who were automatically considered to be deviant from the norm. This is not arguing that these programs were not helpful for many immigrant women and that these research projects did not generate some important insights into the social role of migrant 10 Of course there are no ‘objective’ reasons why Turkish and Kurdish people living for 20 years or more in Germany are still ‘foreigners,’ and why descendants of Germans who had left German speaking territory some three hundred years ago, can immigrate today. These are artificial, though politically opportune, constructions.

Immigration policies

53

women. A gendered analysis, however, should show how these constructions shaped the perception immigrant women and men had of themselves in this process, at that particular stage in the migration process. When Swedish policy makers on the one hand singled out immigrant women for special treatment, in the attempt to give them a better chance on the labor market, they not only helped them to earn money in order to make a better living, but they also imposed on them the Swedish understanding of work as a central aspect of human development and as the focus around which Swedish society is organized. Thus immigrant women did not have to negotiate their right to work, nevertheless, their work and career experiences in the context of technological change were/are very structured by gender (Knocke, 1994). Rather, they clashed when it came to concepts of feminism and emancipation, demanding a more comprehensive recognition of their historical traditions and cultural backgrounds. They rejected the construction of subordinated, oppressed, un-emancipated women (Ålund, 1991). The locus of these negotiations, the area where these concepts have to be revised and reconstructed, relates to the third aspect of immigration or minority policy to which I connect the concept of community and (ethnic) culture. Since immigration became a mass phenomenon with a mainly urban connotation in the second half of the 19th century, ethnic communities and neighborhoods have come to structure the urban landscape of all countries which receive large numbers of migrants, whether they call themselves immigrant countries or not. Ethnic communities have become an important part of our concept of modern urban society and are the prerequisite of our ideas of a multiethnic/multicultural society. The histories, developments and analyses of immigrant communities have been a research focus of U.S. American history, sociology and urban studies. It is here that we find the most refined concepts of immigrant/ethnic group development and acculturation in a receiving society. Whether that society considered itself multicultural, or demands assimilation, has impacts on the potentials for migrant development, but it does not totally structure the emergence of an immigrant community and an ethnic culture. These social entities exist outside of immigration policy and control and emerge through the everyday experience of immigrant people.11 As research on immigrant communities has shown, the presence of women is a prerequisite for these communities and cultures to evolve (for example Harney, 1985, Harzig, 1997). Though their participation in community institutions has long gone unnoticed, it was obvious from the beginning that only when women become part of a group’s migration did settlement occur and ethnic neighborhoods and subsequent communities emerged. Usually it needed about 11 The literature on immigrant communities in 19th and early 20th century U.S. America is too large to mention (Gabaccia, 1989). Historical studies on Canadian ethnic communities are not so well developed; here, however, analyses of ethnic cultures under the impact of multicultural policies are abundant.

54

Christiane Harzig

30 to 40 percent women in order to provide some stability. Ethnic groups with a more unbalanced sex ration, like some Finnish loggers in Canada, or Chinese railroad workers on the U.S. and Canadian West Coast, developed different kinds of social structures, often with more of a temporary nature or bachelor ethos (Lindström-Best, 1988, Bradwin, 1972). Only recently has research begun to show how women provided their own impetus for community development and the emergence of an ethnic culture. They created community institutions to care for the old and the young, provided welfare and charity, and offered opportunities for people to come together to serve some community interest. They not only built a welfare and charity system within the ethnic communities, which had an impact on urban social services, but they also developed some ethnic, feminist understanding among them, which went largely unnoticed by the dominant Anglo-American feminist movement (Harzig, 1991). Research of post-World War Two immigration has not looked into community development with the same perseverance (Iacovetta, 1992). Very likely female participation in community construction emerges along different lines because much of what had been the public task of women in the past has today been taken up by state agencies. Now it is more common to look at how the presence of the cultural diversity that is the result of migration has created different needs and posed different challenges to existing understandings of welfare systems (Williams, 1995). The presence of immigrant/minority women, their different needs, and divergent understandings of motherhood, family responsibilities, reproductive rights, individualism, identity, self-fulfillment, have challenged and changed not only prevailing discourses of feminism12 but also our ideas of what a welfare state can and should provide. They have questioned the homogenizing effect which modern welfare systems have on our lives. The presence of a diversified female populace has led to an intensified discussion about the relationship between race/ethnicity, gender and class on the one hand, and such umbrella concepts as nation, citizenship and welfare state on the other. The presence of migrant women in migrant communities, where their lives evolve and take shape has not only forced a dominant majority to learn to be tolerant toward other cultural practices, but has fundamentally restructured our understanding of how society should be organized and what meaning those institutions and concepts which support society should carry.

12 See Ålund’s (1991) summary of the U.S. American feminist debate of women of color and its impact on discussion in Sweden.

Immigration policies

55

Concluding remarks I have tried to present a model by which immigration policies and gender can be conceptualized in a cohesive, integrated way. The model is grounded historically and derived from comparison. It assumes that there are three aspects to immigration policy: entry regulations, immigration management and the formation of a multiethnic society. It also assumes that gender is a relational category, the functioning of which has to be tracked down in people’s lives as much as in the ‘superstructure’ of institutions, ideologies, and laws. I ascribed one central conceptual category to each aspect of immigration policy by which it can be shown how gender and policy construct each other. Through historical development the concept of the male breadwinner household and the subsequent family unification provisions emerged as the most powerful category organizing entry regulations. For immigration management the practice of constructing a deviant female ‘other’ has fundamentally shaped our understanding of the function of women in the migration process. It has encapsulated men and women in specific roles which leave little room for agency and self-positioning. The concept of community formation and the development of self-assertive diaspora cultures have emerged as the central category for the formation of multiethnic cultures (the third aspect). The process of community formation, as historical analysis has shown, is only possible with somewhat balanced sex rations and it is here that gender relations are restructured with the group, but also in interrelation with the dominant society. Dominant categories of social organization, such as social welfare or citizenship, are redefined. This integrational conceptualization of immigration policies and gender may help to better understand the relationship between human agency and institutional constructions.

References Abella, I. & Troper, H. (1991). None is too Many. Canada and the Jews of Europe, 19331948. 2nd ed. Toronto: Lister Publishing. Ålund, A. (1991) The power of definitions: immigrant women and problem ideologies. In Author and Schierup, C. U., Paradoxes of multiculturalism (pp. 47-68). Aldershot: Avebury. Appelt, E. (1999). Geschlecht, Staatsbürgerschaft, Nation. Politische Konstruktion des Geschlechterverhältnisses in Europa. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus. Ava Baron, A. (1991). Gender and Labor History. Learning from the Past, Looking to the Future. In Author, ed., Work Engendered. Toward a New History of American Labor (pp. 35-37). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Boris, E. (1995). The Racialized Gendered State: Constructions of Citizenship in the United States. Social Politics 2/2, pp. 160-181.

56

Christiane Harzig

Boyd, M. (1986). Immigrant Women in Canada. In Simon, R. J. and Brettel, C. B. eds., International Migration: The Female Experience (pp. 45-61).Totowa, NJ: Towman and Allanheld. Bradwin, E. W. (1972). The Bunkhouse Men. A Study of Work and Pay in the Camps of Canada, 1903-1914. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Bredbenner, C. L. (1998). A Nationality of Her Own. Women, Marriage, and the Law of Citizenship. Berkeley: University of California Press. Brettell, C. B. and Hollifield J. (2000). Migration Theory. Talking Across Disciplines. New York: Routledge. Briggs, V. M. Jr. (1992). Mass Immigration and the National Interest. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharp. Castles, S. & Miller, M. J. (1993). The Age of Migration. International Population Movements in the Modern World. London: Macmillan. Diner, H. (1983). Erin’s Daughters in America: Irish Immigrant Women in the Nineteenth Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Gabaccia, D. R. (1989). Immigrant Women in the United States. A Multi-Disciplinary Bibliography. Westport CT: Greenwood Press. Gabaccia, D. R. (1996). Women of the Mass Migrations: From Minority to Majority, 18201930. In Hoerder, D. and Moch, L. P. (eds.), (1996). European Migrants. Global and Local Perspectives (pp. 90-114). Boston: Northeastern University Press. Giles, W., Moussa, H., Van Estrik, P. eds. (1996). Development and Diaspora. Gender and the Refugee Experience. Dundas, Ontario: Artemis. Gimpel, J.G. and Edwards, J. R. Jr. (1999). The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Glenn, S. (1991). Daughters of the Shtetl: Life and Labor in the Immigrant Generation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Gold, L. (1992). Immigration Law and Policy. In: Globerman, S, (ed.), The Immigration Dilemma (pp. 78-98). Vancouver: Fraser Institute. Harney, R. F. (1985). Gathering Places: Peoples and Neighbourhoods of Toronto, 18341945. Toronto: Multicultural History Society of Ontario. Harzig, C. (1991). Familie, Arbeit und weibliche Öffentlichkeit in einer Einwanderungsstadt. Deutschamerikanerinnen in Chicago um die Jahrhundertwende. St. Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae. Harzig, C. (1994). Einwanderungsrecht – Ein Instrument gesellschaftlicher Gestaltung.“ In Forschungsinstitut der Ebert Stiftung (ed.), Einwanderungspolitik Kanadas und der USA (pp. 59-82).Bonn. Harzig, C. (1997). Creating a Community. German-American Women in Chicago. In Author, ed. (1997). Peasant Maids- City Women : From the European Countryside to Urban America (pp. 185-222).Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Harzig, C. (forthcoming). Einwanderungspolitik in den Niederlanden, Schweden und Kanada. Historische Erinnerung und Politische Kultur als Gestaltungsressource. Hawkins, F. (1988). Canada and Immigration. Political Policy and Public Concern. Kingston, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Heckmann F. & Bosswick, W. (eds.) (1995). Migration Policies: a Comparative Perspective. Stuttgart: Enke. Hing, B. (1993). Making and Remaking Asian America. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Historical Statistics of Canada (1965). Cambridge: University Press of Toronto. Hoerder, D. (1997). Segmented Macrosystems and Networking Individuals: The Balancing Functions of Migration Processes. In Lucassen J. and Lucassen, L. (eds.), Migration,

Immigration policies

57

Migration History, History. Old Paradigms and New Perspectives. (pp. 73-84). Bern: Lang. Hoerder, D. (forthcoming 2002). Cultures in Contact. World Migrations in the Second Millenium. Durham: Duke University Press. Hoerder D., with C. Harzig & A. Schubert, (eds.) (forthcoming, 2002). Diversity in History. Transcultural Interactions from the Early Modern Mediterranean World to the Twenthieth-Century Postcolonial World. New York: Berghahn. Hoerder, D. & Moch, L. P. (eds.) (1996), European Migrants. Global and Local Perspectives. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Hutchinson, E. P. (1981). Legislative History of American Immigration Policy, 1798-1965. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press. Iacovetta, F. (1992). Such Hardworking People. Italian Immigrants in Postwar Toronto. Montreal: McGills. Illinois Bureau of Labor Statistics (1884) Third Report. Jackson, J. Jr. & Mock, L. P. Migration and Social History in Modern Europe. In Hoerder, D. and Moch, L. P. (eds.), European Migrants. Global and Local Perspectives (pp. 52-69). Boston: Northeastern University Press. Joly, D. (1997). An Analytical Framework for Decisions on Asylum. In G. Rystad, ed. Encountering Strangers. Responses and Consequences (pp. 39-71). Lund: Lund University Press.. Kerber, L. (1998). No Constitutional Rights to Be Ladies. Women and the Obligations of Citizenship. New York: Hill and Wang. Knocke, W. (1994). Gender, Ethnicity and Technological Change. Institutet för Arbetslivsforsking, reprint No. 2. Lindström Best, V. (1988). Defiant Sisters. A Social History of Finnish Immigrant Women in Canada. Toronto: Multicultural History Society of Ontario. Lithman, E. L. (1985) Women and Migration in a European Perspective. Report by the consultant to the Swedish Minister for Equality between Women and Men. Stockholm, 1985. Lucassen J. & Lucassen, L. (eds.) (1997). Migration, Migration History, History. Old Paradigms and New Perspectives. Bern: Lang. Martin, P. L. (1995). The United States: Benign Neglect toward Immigration. In Heckmann F. and Bosswick, W. (eds.), Migration Policies: a Comparative Perspective (pp. 21-42). Stuttgart: Enke. Moch, L. P. (1992). Moving Europeans. Migration in Western Europe Since 1650. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Ng, R. (1993). Racism, Sexism, and Immigrant Women. In Burt, S. et al., (eds.), Changing Patterns. Women in Canada (pp. 279-308). Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Not just Numbers. A Canadian Framework for Future Immigration (1998). Immigration Legislation Review. http://cicnet.ci.gc.ca/legrev/final/etoc.html. Richmond, A. H. (1994). Global Apartheid. Refugees, Racism and the New World Order. New York: Oxford University Press. Runblom, H. (1995), Immigration to Scandianvia after World War II. In Tägil, S. (ed.) Ethnicity and Nationbuilding in the Nordic World (pp. 282-324). London: C. Hurst u. Co. Stasiulis, D. & Yuval-Davis, N. eds. (1995). Unsettling Settler Societies. Articulations of Gender, Race, Ethnicity and Class . London: Sage. Süssmuth Report (2001). Zuwanderung gestalten. Integration fördern. Berlin: Bericht der Unabhängigen Kommission “Zuwanderung“. Takaki, R. (1989). A History of Asian Americans. Strangers from a Different Shore. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.

58

Christiane Harzig

Troper, H. (1993). Canada’s immigration policy since 1945. International Journal xlvii, p. 266. Weatherford, D. (1986). Foreign and Female. Immigrant Women in America, 1840-1930. New York: Schoken. Widgren, J. (1980) Svensk invandrarpolitik. En faktabok. Lund: Liber. Williams, F. (1995). Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Class in Welfare States: A Framework for Comparative Analysis. Social Politics, 2/2, pp. 127-160. Yans-McLaughlin, V. (1977). Family and Community: Italian Immigrtants in Buffalo, 18801930. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Yuval Davis, N. & Anthis, F. eds. (1989). Woman- Nation- State. London: Macmillan.