The Rio Grande between Juarez, Mexico and El Paso, Texas.


Everyone agrees that apprehension figures
reported by the Immigration and Natural-
ization Service are at best a very imperfect
estimate of the magnitude of illegal
immigration.
 There is an emerging consensus, based
on recent empirical studies of undocu-
mented Mexican, Colombian and Domin-
ican immigrants, that a substantial propor-
tion return to their home countries after a
relatively short period in the United States.
This is especially true among Mexicans.
The pattern of return migration and even of
cyclical migration across the border makes
it very difficult to estimate what is the actual
size of the permanent undocumented pop-
ulation of the United States and what is its
impact on American society and economy.
One thing is certain, however, and this is
that not even the wildest estimates place the
number of immigrants now in the United
States at a level comparable to the
1890-1920 period.
 The number of illegal immigrants during
the last 30 years would have had to be 27.3
million in order for total immigration to
reach the 1920 level relative to the native
population. The number of undocumented
immigrants now in the United States would


have to be approximately 17.4 million in
order for the foreign-born population to
represent the same proportion of the total
that it did in 1920. To my knowledge, not
even the most exaggerated accounts have
come close to these numbers.
 The point is that the current wave of im-
 migration to the United States must be
 placed in historical context. The present pe-
 riod is definitely one of high immigration.
 However, the overall significance of immi-
 gration, both in demographic and eco-
 nomic terms, is but a fraction of what it was
 at the beginning of the century. If we are
 witnessing the "Mexicanization" or the
 "Latin Americanization" of the United
 States, it is only in the same sense, and to a
 much lesser extent, than it was "Italianized"
 and "South Europeanized" a few decades
 earlier. Rhetorical statements of this kind
 draw attention to the fact that immigrant
 flows have a significant economic and cul-
 tural impact in the areas where they settle.
 They conceal, however, the equally impor-
 tant fact that each foreign minority, no mat-
 ter how large, has been absorbed into the
 United States without altering the funda-
 mental economic and political structures of
the country. This absorption, or what 1


would prefer to call incorporation of immi-
grants, has not occurred, however, in a uni-
form manner.

Modes of Incorporation
The sociological analysis of immigration
has traditionally focused on the coping
mechanisms utilized by immigrants and
their processes of assimilation to a new set-
ting. Concepts such as accommodation,
acculturation, and adaptation-prominent
in the sociological literature-were coined
in the context of immigrant studies and in-
terethnic relations.
 The assimilation perspective portrays a
basically homogenous sequence of adap-
tation which would roughly move along the
following steps: Newly-arrived immigrant
groups concentrate in their own ethnic
ghettos. Lack of skills and lack of familiarity
with the language and culture forces them
into the worst jobs. The areas of the city
which they occupy are crowded and im-
poverished. Their "foreignness" and pov-
erty repel the native population. Immigrants
suffer from much prejudice and discrimina-
tion. The first generation gradually accultu-
rates and experiences some economic
progress. The second generation becomes


CABBEAN PEVIEW/23


5~-~bI~3~-~'A;-7_ 7~ 9