The birth of a sanctuary-city: a history of governmental sanctuary in San Francisco

Women Without A Country—And Health CareEntitled To Nothing: The Struggle For Immigrant Health Care In The Age Of Welfare Reform by Park Lisa Sun-Hee New York (NY) : New York University Press , 2011 205 pp.; $65.00 (cloth), $21.00 (paper)

During a post-election TV interview that aired mid-November 2016, then President-Elect Donald Trump claimed that there are millions of so-called “criminal aliens” living in the United States: “What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, we have a lot of these people, probably two million, it could be even three million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate.” This claim is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. A recent report by the Migration Policy Institute suggests that just over 800,000 (or 7 percent) of the 11 million undocumented individuals in the United States have criminal records.1 Of this population, 300,000 individuals are felony offenders and 390,000 are serious misdemeanor offenders — tallies which exclude more than 93 percent of the resident undocumented population (Rosenblum 2015, 22–24). Moreover, the Congressional Research Service found that 140,000 undocumented migrants — or slightly more than 1 percent of the undocumented population — are currently serving time in prison in the United States (Kandel 2016). The facts, therefore, are closer to what Doris Meissner, former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Commissioner, argues: that the number of “criminal aliens” arrested as a percentage of all fugitive immigration cases is “modest” (Meissner et al. 2013, 102–03). The facts notwithstanding, President Trump's fictional tally is important to consider because it conveys an intent to produce at least this many people who — through discourse and policy — can be criminalized and incarcerated or deported as “criminal aliens.” In this article, we critically review the literature on immigrant criminalization and trace the specific laws that first linked and then solidified the association between undocumented immigrants and criminality. To move beyond a legal, abstract context, we also draw on our quantitative and qualitative research to underscore ways immigrants experience criminalization in their family, school, and work lives. The first half of our analysis is focused on immigrant criminalization from the late 1980s through the Obama administration, with an emphasis on immigration enforcement practices first engineered in the 1990s. Most significant, we argue, are the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) and the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The second section of our analysis explores the social impacts of immigrant criminalization, as people's experiences bring the consequences of immigrant criminalization most clearly into focus. We approach our analysis of the production of criminality of immigrants through the lens of legal violence (Menjívar and Abrego 2012), a concept designed to understand the immediate and long-term harmful effects that the immigration regime makes possible. Instead of narrowly focusing only on the physical injury of intentional acts to cause harm, this concept broadens the lens to include less visible sources of violence that reside in institutions and structures and without identifiable perpetrators or incidents to be tabulated. This violence comes from structures, laws, institutions, and practices that, similar to acts of physical violence, leave indelible marks on individuals and produce social suffering. In examining the effects of today's ramped up immigration enforcement, we turn to this concept to capture the violence that this regime produces in the lives of immigrants. Immigrant criminalization has underpinned US immigration policy over the last several decades. The year 1996, in particular, was a signal year in the process of criminalizing immigrants. Having 20 years to trace the connections, it becomes evident that the policies of 1996 used the term “criminal alien” as a strategic sleight of hand. These laws established the concept of “criminal alienhood” that has slowly but purposefully redefined what it means to be unauthorized in the United States such that criminality and unauthorized status are too often considered synonymous (Ewing, Martínez, and Rumbaut 2015). Policies that followed in the 2000s, moreover, cast an increasingly wider net which continually re-determined who could be classified as a “criminal alien,” such that the term is now a mostly incoherent grab bag. Simultaneously and in contrast, the practices that produce “criminal aliens” are coherent insofar as they condition immigrant life in the United States in now predictable ways. This solidity allows us to turn in our conclusion to some thoughts about the likely future of US immigration policy and practice under President Trump.

For much of the twentieth century, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officials recognized that the US-Mexico border region was different, confronting a set of political, social, and environmental obstacles that prevented them from replicating their achievements on Angel Island and Ellis Island, the most restrictive immigration stations in the nation. In response to these challenges local INS officials resorted to the law, nullifying, modifying, and even inventing immigration laws and policies for the borderlands. The INS on the Line traces the ways in which the INS on the US-Mexico border made and remade the nation's immigration laws over the course of the twentieth century. While popular and scholarly accounts describe the INS primarily as a law enforcement agency, the author demonstrates that the agency defined itself not only as a law enforcement unit but also as a lawmaking body. Through a nuanced examination of the agency's legal innovations in the Southwest, the author reveals how local immigration officials constructed a complex approach to border control, an approach that closed the line in the name of nativism and national security; opened it for the benefit of transnational economic and social concerns; and redefined it as a vast legal jurisdiction for the policing of undocumented immigrants. Despite its contingent and local origins, this composite approach to border control continues to inform the daily operations of the nation's immigration agencies, American immigration law and policy, and our very conceptions of the US-Mexico border today.

Use of deadly force by the U.S. Border Patrol (and other immigration officers) and other forms of violence against border-crossing migrants has captured the attention of the agency's leadership, although the response remains equivocal and erratic. In 1993, the then Acting Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) pledged to "aggressively pursue[ ]" claims of misconduct and "strictly adhere" to investigative and disciplinary procedures. However, the INS stopped short of endorsing changes in complaint review procedures, such as the call for civilian oversight. A decade has passed since the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights identified serious problems in the INS procedures and recommended changes in a report to the President and Congress. Problems include delays in investigation, lack of public awareness of the process, no acknowledgment of receipt of complaints, deficiencies in the selection of investigators and investigative procedures and an inadequate statistical record of complaints and disposition. The same problems plague the system today, and almost none of the recommendations have been implemented. In this article, the author first documents examples of misconduct by the Border Patrol and other immigration and customs agents and examines the current INS internal complaint system. Next, he sets out some of the necessary features of a civilian or external review process, many of which are embodied in legislation recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, with an emphasis on those features unique to immigrants or immigration enforcement. (An Appendix contains proposed model regulations for an Immigration Law Enforcement Civilian Review Board).Finally, the author lays out some of the alternatives, or complements, to external review and how they are useful or limited in mitigating abusive behavior. Any system must be perceived as accessible, confidential, prompt, impartial and even-handed and policymakers will need to ask themselves how to measure the success of any review board. A review board alone cannot always deter misconduct or provide adequate remedies. Despite the obstacles, lawyers must persevere with civil suits for damages and criminal prosecutions. Nongovernmental organizations must petition human rights tribunals and continue to "mobilize shame" against 'the immigration authorities and the U.S. government in all available forums.

Straddling the Border: Immigration Policy and the INS. By Lisa Magaña. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2003. 132p. $37.50 cloth, $16.95 paper. In this book, Lisa Magaña provides a concise and thoughtful analysis of the immigration policy process from inside the bureaucratic agency formerly responsible for its implementation, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Using a combination of interviews with high- and low-level INS representatives and immigration advocates, government policy evaluations, immigrant surveys, and intensive field study, Magaña shows the disconnect that often exists between congressional immigration mandates and their actual implementation in INS district offices.

The Newest American Nativism Matthew Frye Jacobson (bio) David M. Reimers. Unwelcome Strangers: American Identity and the Turn Against Immigration. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998. xii + 199 pp. Index. $27.50 (cloth); $16.50 (paper). “Writing this book has been difficult at times,” begins David Reimers in his careful history of contemporary immigration debates. “Many persons debating immigration resort to emotional and vague generalizations” (p. 1). Unwelcome Strangers represents a conscientious effort to cut through the emotion, to bring some order and specificity to this chaotic universe of polemical and highly charged generalization. Following a brief overview of immigration policy and debate “from the earliest days of European colonization,” Reimers walks readers through the gallery of figures and organizations who have dominated discussion in recent decades. Their major arguments are rendered under four thematic headings: immigration is bad for the environment; the governmental systems for regulating and overseeing immigration have broken down; immigration poses an economic threat, either in terms of jobs unfairly taken from citizens or public monies unfairly expended on non-citizens; and immigration poses a threat to the cohesiveness of American culture and institutions. This is a neat delineation of otherwise untidy strains of public discussion, an enlightening roadmap to American politics at the end of the twentieth century. One is struck throughout by the strange bedfellows which the immigration debate has created (liberal and left-leaning multiculturalists, the Christian Right, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Rifle Association all oppose immigration restriction, for instance, though for very different reasons). The newest American nativism has been marked by a rising organizational infrastructure including groups like Save Our State (SOS), Tri-Immigration Moratorium (TRIM), and Stop the Out-of-Control Problems of Immigration Today (STOPIT); by popular nativist publications like The Immigrant Invasion, Alien Nation, and The Path to National Suicide; and by legislative initiatives like California’s Proposition 187 in 1994. The critical context for this resurgence of nativist sentiment, as Reimers carefully elaborates, is not only an overall increase in immigration (from roughly 250,000 per year in the 1940s to a high [End Page 312] of 1.8 million in 1991 alone—excluding undocumented immigrants), but also a shift in the racial make-up of the incoming populations. By the 1980s Europeans represented only 10 percent of the incoming immigrants; Asians constituted 40 percent, with the balance consisting primarily of Mexican, Central American, and Caribbean arrivals. It is among the ironies of the 1965 Immigration Act, a goal of which was the reunification of transoceanic European families, that it dramatically liberalized the terms of entrance from many Asian nations. Reimers wryly notes that the “diversity” visas recently devised by Congress were in fact an attempt to boost the European (primarily Irish) percentages among the current arrivals. Sheer numbers alone have been enough to spur some anti-immigrant sentiment. The environmentalist strain of debate emerged in the wake of Paul Ehrlich’s sensational book, The Population Bomb in 1968, and crystallized in groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and Zero Population Growth (ZPG) over succeeding decades. Former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm recently voiced the environmentalist concern in dire tones, attributing “intolerable traffic, unhealthy smog, inadequate water, ethnic conflict . . . acid rain, climate change, loss of ozone, disappearance of species, [and] loss of habitat” all to the “root” cause of overpopulation (p. 54). For Lamm and others, immigration policy is a chief instrument in population management. A second dimension of the argument from the standpoint of sheer numbers concerns the impact of rising immigration upon the very governmental and bureaucratic machinery which is meant to regulate and manage it. By these lights, even if the environment itself can indeed withstand the onslaught, the administrative capacities of the republic cannot. According to members of the American Immigration Control Foundation (AICF) and others, the combination of rising levels of “legal” immigration, ill-advised asylum and refugee policies, and massive waves of undocumented immigrants through “illegal” channels has overwhelmed, clogged, or even “broken” the system. The border patrol and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) do not have the capacity to administer the flow of traffic, and hence have lost control of the border; the...

In 1990, the United States Border Patrol arrested approximately one million illegals (Dillin, 1990). Significant as this number may seem, it parallels the rate of arrest that existed prior to the passage of the Immigration and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). This phenomenon suggests that the Act has failed to accomplish one of its primary objectives: to control illegal immigration to the United States. The IRCA represented the first major change in US immigration policy in twenty-two years. In seeking to prevent illegal entry and to gain control over the undocumented population already in the country, it contained two key provisions. First, it sanctioned fines, prison terms, or both, against employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. The intent of Congress was clear: to use employer sanctions to reduce the “pull” or attractiveness of American jobs to aliens contemplating illegal entry into the country.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, civil wars contributed to significant waves of migration from Central American countries such as El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States federal government, specifically the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), systematically denied Central American immigrants’ asylum claims and deported them back to war zones. In response, over 70,000 American citizens defied United States immigration laws in order to shelter Central American immigrants, transport them across the country, and provide them with sanctuary. This Sanctuary movement was largely led by people of faith, but it involved coordination across a wide variety of religious denominations. The size and heterogeneity of the movement, combined with the fact that their goals largely constituted a public good from the standpoint of supporters, presents a puzzle. How did participants in the Sanctuary movement successfully engage in collective action without succumbing to free riding and other social dilemmas? To answer this question, we analyze the polycentric networks and nested governance arrangements within the Sanctuary movement.

Margaret Randall, an alien residing in the United States, faces deportation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) because of her allegedly pro‐leftist writings. This essay examines her case and the INS's case against her in light of the 1952 McCarran‐Walter Immigration and Nationality Act. It analyzes the conflict between the McCarran‐Walter statute and the First Amendment, and the legal and constitutional ramifications suggested by this case. The essay concludes by describing the theoretical extensions of the First Amendment that emerge from this interface of that Amendment and American immigration law and policy.

When the US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was disbanded in 2003 many of its components were absorbed into the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). One of these new entities, called US Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS), now has the formidable task of processing and keeping track of all the applicants for entry into the United States. Its goal is to serve the immigrant community effectively, efficiently, and fairly, while avoiding the problems and deserved criticisms of its predecessor organization. USCIS is expected to achieve this goal under the administrative authority of DHS that has goals that may not be compatible. The primary mission of DHS is to fight terrorism, and providing good service to clients may be incidental. In this reorganization many members of the immigrant community fear they are viewed as potential terrorists. That it also has responsibility for refugee applicants raises the issue of the blurring of immigration and asylum - the former is about control whereas the latter should be focused on protection. The possible effects of these organizational changes on immigrants, refugees, and the nation are reviewed in this paper.

This article is part of a larger study about the factors shaping the exercise of discretion by Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) inspectors. It focuses on an infrequently examined topic: how agency behavior is affected when government depends on private enterprise to help enforce legal requirements. My examination of the INS's relationship with international airlines reveals that airlines are part of a third-party liability system. Airlines are mandated by law to screen foreign travelers prior to transporting them to the United States, in order to ensure foreign travelers' admissibility to the country, as well as required to remove all inadmissible travelers at airline cost. The study shows how third-party liability requirements generate a complex system of exchange relations and dependence between the INS and international airlines, a system that affects in important ways how the INS handles the cases of suspected inadmissible travelers.

The authors explored contemporary immigration litigation in the courts. They sought to establish a profile of the immigration caseload; discern some of the effects of certain immigration policy reforms on that caseload; emphasize the growing importance of affirmative challenge litigation especially impact cases in the immigration area; and determine what occurs when federal courts remand immigration cases to the US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the administrative immigration court. Their study was meant to be descriptive not normative. Their exploration nonetheless led them to believe that aliens often prevail over the INS in asylum litigation and impact litigation. These results suggest that the government currently contests many meritorious claims by aliens which in the interest of all parties would best be resolved at an early pre-litigation stage. In particular aliens were successful in overturning administrative denials of asylum requests.

The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) was a momentous law that recast undocumented immigration as a crime and fused immigration enforcement with crime control (García Hernández 2016; Lind 2016). Among its most controversial provisions, the law expanded the crimes, broadly defined, for which immigrants could be deported and legal permanent residency status revoked. The law instituted fast-track deportations and mandatory detention for immigrants with convictions. It restricted access to relief from deportation. It constrained the review of immigration court decisions and imposed barriers for filing class action lawsuits against the former US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). It provided for the development of biometric technologies to track “criminal aliens” and authorized the former INS to deputize state and local police and sheriff's departments to enforce immigration law (Guttentag 1997a; Migration News 1997a, 1997b, 1997c; Taylor 1997). In short, it put into law many of the punitive provisions associated with the criminalization of migration today. Legal scholars have documented the critical role that IIRIRA played in fundamentally transforming immigration enforcement, laying the groundwork for an emerging field of “crimmigration” (Morris 1997; Morawetz 1998, 2000; Kanstroom 2000; Miller 2003; Welch 2003; Stumpf 2006). These studies challenged the law's deportation and mandatory detention provisions, as well as its constraints on judicial review. And they exposed the law's widespread consequences, namely the deportations that ensued and the disproportionate impact of IIRIRA's enforcement measures on immigrants with longstanding ties to the United States (ABA 2004). Less is known about what drove IIRIRA's criminal provisions or how immigration came to be viewed through a lens of criminality in the first place. Scholars have mostly looked within the immigration policy arena for answers, focusing on immigration reform and the “new nativism” that peaked in the early nineties (Perea 1997; Jacobson 2008). Some studies have focused on interest group competition, particularly immigration restrictionists’ prohibitions on welfare benefits, while others have examined constructions of immigrants as a social threat (Chavez 2001; Nevins 2002, 2010; Newton 2008; Tichenor 2009; Bosworth and Kaufman 2011; Zatz and Rodriguez 2015). Surprisingly few studies have stepped outside the immigration policy arena to examine the role of crime politics and the policies of mass incarceration. Of these, scholars suggest that IIRIRA's most punitive provisions stem from a “new penology” in the criminal justice system, characterized by discourses and practices designed to predict dangerousness and to manage risk (Feeley and Simon 1992; Miller 2003; Stumpf 2006; Welch 2012). Yet historical connections between the punitive turn in the criminal justice and immigration systems have yet to be disentangled and laid bare. Certainly, nativist fears about unauthorized migration, national security, and demographic change were important factors shaping IIRIRA's criminal provisions, but this article argues that the crime politics advanced by the Republican Party (or the “Grand Old Party,” GOP) and the Democratic Party also played an undeniable and understudied role. The first part of the analysis examines policies of mass incarceration and the crime politics of the GOP under the Reagan administration. The second half focuses on the crime politics of the Democratic Party that recast undocumented migration as a crime and culminated in passage of IIRIRA under the Clinton administration. IIRIRA's criminal provisions continue to shape debates on the relationship between immigration and crime, the crimes that should provide grounds for expulsion from the United States, and the use of detention in deportation proceedings for those with criminal convictions. This essay considers the ways in which the War on Crime — specifically the failed mass incarceration policies — reshaped the immigration debate. It sheds light on the understudied role that crime politics of the GOP and the Democratic Party played in shaping IIRIRA — specifically its criminal provisions, which linked unauthorized migration with criminality, and fundamentally restructured immigration enforcement and infused it with the resources necessary to track, detain, and deport broad categories of immigrants, not just those with convictions.

Following 9/11, U.S. immigration law and policy toward international students in the U.S. dramatically changed. Post-9/11, the government instilled restrictive policies, including a tracking program (SEVIS), to closely monitor international students because these students were viewed as possible terrorists. Additionally, the government replaced the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) with a new enforcement agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The elimination of INS was part of a major reorganization of the executive branch, which consolidated Federal departments and agencies into a single Department of Homeland Security, whose mission is to prevent terrorist attacks within the U.S. and reduce U.S. vulnerability to terrorism. This dissertation examines the interactive nature of a transformative event, such as 9/11, discursive strategies, and organizational design in promoting these changes. This project further explores the effect of such changes in law, policy, and government structures on language and meaning. To probe the interrelationship between material events, discourse, and organizational structure, I used three theories of rhetorical analysis: kairos, frame theory, and genre analysis. Each theory provided a different level of analysis to examine the narrative of international students in the post-9/11 United States. Collectively, these three methods offered a systematic and sustained way to examine the story of international students in a time of transition. These three methods expose a process in which material events and discursive practices led to organizational change that then acted as a rhetorical device to replace discursive practices. The new organization created new understandings of social and cultural situations and influenced language and the ability of individuals to promote and curtail argument. This study reveals that rhetoric is not confined to discourse and language. Discourse and organizational change can Ann Margaret Sinsheimer, The Meaning of “International Student” Post-9/11 iv become so intertwined that organizational change seamlessly replaces discourse and therefore must be considered in rhetorical analysis. While my work has focused particularly on legal institutions and on how institutional change within the executive branch of the United States affected the meaning associated with “international student,” this work has implications for the study of institutions and organizations generally. Furthermore, this work demonstrates the need to consider organizational change in rhetorical analysis. Ann Margaret Sinsheimer, The Meaning of “International Student” Post-9/11 v Table of

Center for Migration Studies special issuesVolume 11, Issue 1 p. 46-72 Free Access Immigration to New York City in the Post–1965 Era: Sex Selectivity and the Economic Role of Women Joseph J. Salvo, Joseph J. Salvo Population Division, New York City Department of PlanningSearch for more papers by this author Joseph J. Salvo, Joseph J. Salvo Population Division, New York City Department of PlanningSearch for more papers by this author First published: January 1994 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2050-411X.1994.tb00102.xCitations: 2AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat References Arnold, F., B. V. Carino, J. T. Fawcett, and I. H. Park 1989 Estimating the Immigration Multiplier: An Analysis of Korean and Filipino Immigration to the United States,” International Migration Review 23: 813– 838. Bouvier, L. F., and V. M. Briggs Jr.. 1988 The Population and Labor Force of New York: 1990 to 2050. Washington, DC: The Population Reference Bureau, Inc. Bryce-LaPorte, R. 1979 New York City and the New Caribbean Immigration,” International Migration Review 13: 214– 233. Donato, K. M. 1990 Recent Trends in United States Immigration: Why Some Countries Send Women and Others Send Men?” Paper presented at 1990 Population Association of America meetings. Toronto, Canada. Donato, K. M., and A. Tyree 1986 Family Reunification, Health Professionals and the Sex Composition of Immigrants to the United States,” Sociology and Social Research 70: 226– 230. Garcia, J. A. 1986 Caribbean Migration to the Mainland: A Review of Adaptive Experiences,” ANNALS 487: 114– 126. Gordon, L. W. 1990 Asian Immigration Since World Wat II.” In Immigration and the U.S. Foreign Policy. Eds. R. Tucker, C. B. Keely, and L. Wrigley. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Herold, J. M. 1979 Female Migration in Chile: Types of Moves and Socioeconomic Characteristics,” Demography 16: 257– 278. Houstoun, M. F., R. G. Kramer, and J. M. Barrett 1984 Female Predominance of Immigration to the United States since 1930: A First Look,” International Migration Review 18: 908– 963. Keely, C. B. 1989 American Immigration: The Continuing Tradition. Washington, DC: The Portfolio Project – The Coordinating Committee for Ellis Island, Inc. Keely, C. B. 1975 Effects of U.S. Immigration Law on Manpower Characteristics of Immigrants,” Demography 12: 179– 192. Keely, C. B. 1971 Effects of the Immigration Act of 1965 on Selected Population Characteristics of Immigrants to the United States,” Demography 8: 157– 170. Khoo, S-E., P. C. Smith, and J. T. Fawcett 1984 Migration of Women to Cities: The Asian Situation in Comparative Perspective,” International Migration Review 18: 1247– 1263. Kraly, E. P. 1987 U.S. Immigration Policy and the Immigrant Populations of New York.” In New Immigrants in New York City. Ed. N. Foner. New York: Columbia University Press. Massey, D. S. 1988 Economic Development and International Migration in Comparative Perspective,” Population and Development Review 14: 383– 410. New York City Department of City Planning 1992 The Newest New Yorkers: An Analysis of Immigration Into New York City During the 1980s. New York: New York City Department of Planning. Pessar, P. R. 1987 The Dominicans: Women in the Household and Garment Industry.” In New Immigrants in New York City. Ed. N. Foner. New York: Columbia University Press. Reimers, D. M. 1985 Still the Golden Door: The Third World Comes to America. New York: Columbia University Press. Stafford, S. B. 1987 The Cultural Meaning of Race and Ethnicity.” In New Immigrants in New York City. Ed. N. Foner. New York: Columbia University Press. Stark, O., and J. E. Taylor 1989 Relative Deprivation and International Migration,” Demography 26: 1– 14. Stepick, A., and A. Portes 1986 Flight into Despair: A Profile of Recent Haitian Refugees in South Florida,” International Migration Review 20: 329– 350. Tyree, A., and K. Donato 1985 The Sex Composition of Immigrants in the United States,” Sociology and Social Research 69 (July). U.S. Bureau of the Census 1975 Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Time to 1970. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 1990 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1989. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Citing Literature Volume11, Issue1Special Issue: The Immigration Experience in the United States: Policy ImplicationsJanuary 1994Pages 46-72 ReferencesRelatedInformation