The Gatekeepers: Comparative Immigration Policy (review)

166 SAISREVIEW encouraged to retaliate, thus choking off one of America's main sources of prosperity. Perhaps a broader perspective could help. Through the 1960s, foreign direct investment was a distinctly American phenomenon, as U.S. companies went abroad, mainly to Europe, to conquer markets with their (then) superior managerial techniques. But as Japanese and European firms have grown more sophisticated (with the help of technology transfers from U.S. companies!), they have now turned the tables and come to America to try their luck. A natural balancing has occurred. What about the Japan "problem"? Japan has recycled its current account surpluses by buying assets abroad at an impressive rate, moving from the seventh largest foreign investor in 1980 to the number three position behind the U.S. and the U.K. by 1987. But foreign companies in Japan account for only one percent of that country's gross sales. Julius is optimistic about the prospects for opening up the Japanese economy to foreign investment. It took fifteen years ( 1965-1979) for the United States to move from being a major source of outward investment to becoming a source of inward investment. So, according to Julius, "if we date Japan's emergence as a major international investor from 1981, and if the U.S. pattern is an appropriate guide, then we may expect strong inflows into Japan to begin in the latter half of the 1990s." Let us hope that Julius is right. The Gatekeepers: Comparative Immigration Policy. Edited by Michael C. LeMay. New York: Praeger, 1989. 232pp. $39.95/Cloth. Reviewed by Richard A. Holtzapple, M.A. Candidate, SAIS. Immigration policy represents one of the most intriguing and complex junctures of a nation's foreign and domestic policies. As the six essays collected in this volume aptly demonstrate, domestic pressures are the principle determinant of most countries' attitudes towards immigration. The domestic interests involved, however, vary dramatically, and The Gatekeepers provides a useful sample ofthe diverse perspectives which contribute to immigration policy. The author examines the historical experience of six nations, each of which has a distinctive immigration policy. The countries studied include the United States, Australia, and Venezuela, all major recipients of immigrants; Britain, historically a country of emigration which has been increasingly exposed to immigration in the post-colonial era; West Germany, which officially proclaims itself a "non-immigrant" nation but which nonetheless has a large immigrant population; and Israel, an immigrant nation where religious considerations determine immigration policy. The essays are linked by their historical perspective. Many of the authors spend a significant amount of time presenting the reader with an overview of each country's historic immigration patterns and policies. Beyond this, however, the essays diverge in focus to a distracting, and at times aggravating, degree. The essays on the U.S. and Australia concentrate on policy- BOOK REVIEWS 167 makers' efforts to regulate immigration by either encouraging or restricting the flow—the traditional "gatekeeper" role. The essays concerning West Germany and Britain largely ignore the gatekeeper role and instead focus on policies directed at what one author calls the "reconciling of non-nationals into the host society." In the essay on Israel the focus shifts again to a discussion of the qualifications which make an immigrant a national. While the diverse views may be defended as representative of the principle concerns ofthe specific countries, the diffuse result greatly weakens the volume's value as a comparative study. It is difficult to discover common themes in the essays, much less draw any general conclusions about immigration policy. The one common theme that does emerge throughout is the truism that domestic interests count for a great deal. In part, this is due to a lack of a common theoretical perspective. The reader is provided no lens through which to view immigration policy. For example, LeMay's essay on American immigration policy, while including a useful discussion of historical trends, deteriorates into an excessively detailed and confusing consideration of the 1986 Immigration Reform Act. Moreover, it ends with an incongruous and weakly supported attack on employer sanctions. Whether his arguments regarding the effectiveness of these sanctions are correct or not, they are definitely out of place in...