PGDT_Border.pdf

8/14/2019 PGDT_Border.pdf

1/18

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/156914907X253224

PGD 6 (2007) 539-556 www.brill.nl/pgdt

Perspectives onGlobal Development

and echnologyP g d t

Changing Borders and Realities:Emigration of Indian Scientists and

Engineers to the United States

Roli VarmaSchool of Public Administration, University of New Mexico,

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USAEmail: [email protected]

AbstractInternational migration cannot be viewed as a byproduct of globalization since people have beenmigrating for centuries. However, globalization has given rise to a new kind of immigration,

where a growing variety of interconnected social activities are taking place among technicalimmigrants at a high speed irrespective of their geographical location. Te advent of instantonline communication and the ability to share discoveries, inventions, advances, documents,and pictures in real time, as well as safe, easy, and fast travel options have made the traditionalnotions of borders, immigration, and even assimilation obsolete. Tis paper looks at how the

tenets of immigration under globalization seem to be becoming outmoded as scientific knowl-edge flows between India and the U.S. It is based on the review of literature on the subject andin-depth interviews conducted in 2002-2004 with 120 Indian scientists and engineers fromboth countries.

Keywordsbrain circulation, Indian Diaspora, immigrant network, new immigration, transnational space

Introduction

Te concept of international immigration is based on notions of identity asdefined by nationality, which in turn is defined by a persons passport and legalstatus in a given country. International immigration is the physical and legalmovement of people from one nation to another for lawful permanent resi-dence. Embedded within such a movement is an assumption that social tiesare irrevocably dissolved and the past is overwhelmed by future acculturation.Immigrants abandon their home country and assimilate into the country to

which they have migrated. Tus, physical borders are transformed into socialboundaries.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156914907X253224http://www.brill.nl/pgdthttp://www.brill.nl/pgdthttp://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156914907X253224http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156914907X253224


2/18

540 R. Varma / PGD 6 (2007) 539-556

Globalization and advances in technology, however, have given rise to a

new kind of immigration. ill the mid-1980s, traveling between home andmigrating countries was rather a time-consuming and expensive process. Writ-ten letters via snail mail were economical but took a long time; other means ofcommunication, such as the telephone, were instant but expensive. Tese lim-ited the flow of immigrants communication with people in their home coun-try. Globalization, however, has reduced geographical locations, which aretypically measured in time and not in distance. With advances in communica-

tion and transportation technologies, immigrants can quickly move betweenhome and migrating countries, can maintain instantaneous close ties withpeople in their home country, and do not need to fully assimilate into themigrating country. Tis is especially the case with the technical immigrants.

Objectives:Tis paper explores the issues of border and immigration asthey relate to Indian scientists and engineers. First, it outlines the evolution ofU.S. immigration policy toward Indians. Although the primary role of the

Indian immigrant was, and continues to be, recruited labor, the form of thatlabor has changed from unskilled to highly specialized with a shift from anation-centered economy to a global economy. Second, the paper discussesscholarly views on international immigration. It shows that the push-pulland brain-drain models of international immigration are outdated as theyare predominantly economically driven. It suggests international immigrationshould be considered as an essential part of globalization. Tird, the paper

reports findings from in-depth interviews with 120 Indian scientists and engi-neers in the U.S. and in India. It shows immigration of Indians in the contextof the globalization of science and engineering education and work. It suggeststhat geopolitical structures historically imposed on the international move-ment of Indian scientists and engineers are increasingly becoming irrelevantin a world dominated by virtual consumer and global labor markets. Finally,the paper concludes by developing a post-modern approach to international

immigration.

U.S. Immigration Policy: From Skin to Skill

Four phases mark the history of Indian immigration to the U.S. Te firstphase began with the arrival of the first lot of Indians in the late eighteenth

century through 1945. Te U.S. immigration policy of the time was based onthe exclusion of undesirables, defined primarily by a persons country oforigin (e.g., the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the Gentlemans Agreement

with Japan in 1907, the Barred Zone Act of 1917, and the Immigration Act


3/18

R. Varma / PGD 6 (2007) 539-556 541

of 1924). ypically, anyone from outside Western Europe was unwelcome. As

a result, emigration from India was first restricted and later banned.In this period, the majority of Indian immigrants provided unskilled labor

for Americas growing industrial needs (Hess 1974). Tey worked on the con-struction of railways such as the Western Pacific Railroad and in the lumbermills of the Pacific Northwest. Some constructed bridges and tunnels, andothers worked on farms in California. Tey took jobs formerly held by EasternEuropean workers. With restrictive U.S. immigration laws, Indians either

kept to themselves or joined Mexican and Black communities by abandoningtheir turbans and engaging in intermarriage (Helweg and Helweg 1990).

Te 1910 Census recorded 2,546 Indians; the 1920 Census recorded 2,495Indians; the 1930 Census recorded 3,130 Indians; and the 1940 Censusrecorded 2,404 Indians (U.S. Census Bureau 1913: 126; 1922: 767; 1933: 27;1943: 74). Te majority of Indian immigrants were non-English-speaking,mostly of peasants background.

Te exigencies of World War II ushered in a second phase that lasted from1946 through 1964. Te U.S., as a gesture toward Allied supporters in Asia,allowed in a trickle of immigrants from that region. Initially, the U.S. intro-duced the 1946 Luce-Cellar Act, which provided for an annual quota of 100and gave Indians naturalization rights. In 1952, the Immigration and Nation-ality Act combined the multiple laws that governed immigration and natural-ization in the U.S. into one comprehensive statute. Te new statute allowed a

quota of 100 immigrants per country, with a ceiling of 2,000 on most coun-tries in Asia. It also allowed naturalized American citizens to bring spouses tothe U.S. as non-quota immigrants. Most importantly, it introduced a systemof selective immigration by giving preference to workers whose skills were ingreat demand.

Lifting the iron bar facilitated an increase in Indian immigration. Between1946 and 1964, the U.S. admitted about 5,500 immigrants from India (U.S.

Department of Commerce 1975: 107). Often, the number of non-quotaimmigrants (spouses, children, and other dependents of American citizens)equaled, and sometimes even exceeded the number admitted under the annualquota. Te majority of those who immigrated under the new law were profes-sional men and their families. Te growing Indian community now consistedof both unskilled laborers, who had migrated earlier, and the newcomer pro-fessionals (Hess 1974). Te actual number of Indians in the U.S. in the 1950s

and 1960s is not known since the U.S. census included them in the othercategory.

Te enactment of the 1965 Immigration Act ushered in the most impor-tant phase of Indian immigration. Tis act placed Asian nations on an even


4/18

542 R. Varma / PGD 6 (2007) 539-556

plane with other countries. Te 1965 Act set a 20,000 immigrant per year/per

country limit. It called for the allocation of all immigrant visas on a first-come,first-serve basis, subject to the preference system: First Preference to unmar-ried sons and daughters under age 21 of U.S. citizens; Second Preference tospouse and unmarried sons and daughters of alien lawfully admitted for per-manent residence; Tird Preference to professionals, scientists, and artists ofexceptional ability; Fourth Preference to married sons and daughters over age21 of U.S. citizens; Fifth Preference to brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens;

Sixth Preference to skilled and unskilled workers in occupations for whichlabor is in short supply; Seventh Preference to refugees or other displacedpersons fleeing as a result of political, religious, or racial persecutions; andNon-preference to any applicant not entitled to one of the above preferences.

One of the most important aspects of the 1965 Act for the Indian immi-grant was that it explicitly gave priority to the economic needs of the U.S.by admitting immigrants based on their technical knowledge or ability to do

jobs that U.S. employers had been unable to fill with U.S. workers. Tischange in immigration policy coincided with the advent of the Sputnik pro-gram in the Soviet Union, the growth of high-technology industries and itscorresponding demand for technically proficient labor, and a perceived short-age of skilled workers in the U.S. Te justification for U.S. immigration shiftedfrom skin to skill. Tese requirements made it difficult for unskilled orsemiskilled workers to come to the U.S. unless they had relatives willing to

sponsor them.Te number of Indian immigrants admitted grew from 467 in 1965 to

2,293 in 1966; 4,129 in 1967; 4,165 in 1968; 5,205 in 1969; and 8,795in 1970 (U.S. Department of Commerce 1975). Between 1971 and 1980,164,134 Indians were admitted and between 1981 and 1990 another 250,786

were admitted (U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service 2003). Te 1980Census recorded 387,223 Indians, and the 1990 Census recorded 815,447

Indians, an increase of 125% from 1980 (U.S. Census Bureau 1983, 1993).Te vast majority of Indian immigrants, who arrived after 1965 were professionals.

Te final phase of immigration began with the Immigration Act of 1990when the government approved the high-skilled temporary worker visa(H-1B) program. In the 1980s, high-technology companies in the U.S.suffered intense competition from Japan and Europe, which had rebuilt their

war-ruined economies. Te U.S. industry could not remain dominant techno-

logically or commercially in the race to manufacture high-technology goodssuch as transistors, radios, televisions, videocassette recorders, steel, automo-biles, fax machines, and numerically controlled machine tools (Reich 1988;Dertouzos, Lester, and Solow 1989). Foreign suppliers increasingly provided


5/18

R. Varma / PGD 6 (2007) 539-556 543

high-technology products to the U.S. domestic market. Skilled labor was seen

as an essential factor for the U.S. to remain competitive in the now-globalmarket of high-technology products (Johnston and Packer 1987). Te U.S.industry and government officials called for immigration to be more respon-sive to the countrys labor needs for skill work.

Te 1990 Immigration Act placed an annual numerical ceiling of 65,000on admissions of temporary specialty occupation workersaliens enteringunder the H-1B nonimmigrant visa to fill jobs requiring a baccalaureate degree

or equivalent work experience. Te temporary visas are valid for three years,but can be extended for stays of up to six years. In 1997 and 1998, the U.S.quota of 65,000 H-1B visas for temporary employment of foreign workers

with technical skills was exhausted well before the end of each of those fiscalyears. U.S. high-technology sector, especially the Information echnology

Association of America, a trade association representing about 11,000 compa-nies, led an aggressive campaign to increase H-1B quota. Congress responded

by twice increasing the numerical limits. Te American Competitiveness andWorkforce Improvement Act of 1998 increased H-1B visa quotas to 115,000for the fiscal year 1999; 115,000 for the fiscal year 2000; 107,500 for the fiscalyear 2001; and 65,000 in each succeeding fiscal year. Te American Com-petitiveness in the wenty-First Century Act of 2000 increased H-1B visaquotas to 195,000 for each of three fiscal years (2001, 2002, 2003), and thenreturned them to the original 65,000 per-year limit thereafter.

According to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Indianworkers have been taking half of the H-1B visas. With Indians traveling onH-1B visas to fill high-technology jobs in the U.S., they doubled their popula-tion in the U.S. Between 1990 and 2000, the Indian population as a wholeincreased from 815,447 to 1.9 million (Barnes and Bennett 2002). Almost70% of these Indians are foreign-born. Most Indians in the U.S. are well edu-cated and skilled; almost 60% of all employed Indians in the civilian work-

force are in management, professional, and related occupations (U.S. CensusBureau 2000: able 86).

Tis section has shown that the immigration of Indians has been inimicallyconnected to commercial and economic concerns of the U.S. Te risingdemand for a technically savvy workforce for the U.S. industry to competesuccessfully in the global market has vaulted the Indian immigrant scientistsand engineers into the ranks of the desirable foreigners.


6/18

544 R. Varma / PGD 6 (2007) 539-556

Scholarly Views on Immigration: A Critique

Over 150 years ago, Karl Marx argued that the imperatives of capitalist pro-duction inevitably made the bourgeoisie to invest in new methods of produc-tion, improve technical developments, and establish connections all over the

world. Despite capitalist exploitation of workers at home and colonies abroad,industrial expansion compressed geographical locations and increased humaninteraction across borders. Scholars building on the Marxist framework have

argued for one world capitalist system in which the core (developed countries)and the periphery (developing countries) have gone through different stages ofdevelopment leading to the growth of the core and the degeneration of theperiphery into distorted underdevelopment (Frank 1967; Griffin 1969; Rod-ney 1974; Amin 1976; Wallerstein 1980). Without a strong internal market,the periphery remains dependent on the core for its development; the core, onthe other hand, enjoys a strong internal market and therefore has an exclusive

capitalistic mode of production.With the unequal development of capitalism at the global level, scholars use

what can be best characterized as the push-pull model to explain the causes ofmigration of people from developing to developed countries (see Sjaastad1962; Burki and Swamy 1987; Portes 1987; Khadria 1999). Te key assump-tions of the push-pull model are: (1) individuals desire a better life; (2) indi-viduals will move away from places where economic, political, and social

environments are poor; (3) individuals will move to places where better eco-nomic, political, and social environmentscan be gained; (4) better economicconditions mean high wages and the higher standard of living; (5) the betterpolitical environment is democratic; and (6) better social conditions are those

which foster personal freedom. Based on such assumptions, the typical push-pull model postulates that migration of people is a function of incomedifferentials, job opportunities, the working environment, living conditions,

and the cost of travel.Tough applicable till the 1970s or so, the push-pull model has become

outmoded under globalization. First, unskilled poor people are not the onlyones who leave their countries; developed countries seem to be competing

with each other for skilled labor in much the same way that they previouslycompeted for raw material from the colonies (Glanz 2001). Second, there isevidence that economic factors do not always dictate the migration of skilled

workers. For example, both Mexico and India have highly unequal incomedistribution patterns, yet the number of Mexican scientists and engineersmigrating to the U.S. is much smaller compared to India (Alarcon 1999).Tird, developed countries like Canada and Australia also experience large-scale emigration of skilled workers (Saravia and Miranda 2004). Fourth, there


7/18

R. Varma / PGD 6 (2007) 539-556 545

are several non-economic factors like changes in immigration laws, compa-

nies policies for recruiting skilled workers from abroad, and national securityconsiderations that play an important role in immigration.

Most importantly, the push-pull model assumes that the migration ofskilled workers is similar to those of unskilled labor. Tough there may besimilarities between the migration of unskilled labor and that of skilled, thereare important differences as well. Migration of the latter is related to develop-ing countries economic well being in the global economy, as well as to the

phenomenon of science becoming global in its access and application. Tiscomplicated relationship has generated extensive debates among scholars inboth developing and developed countries, as well as in international organiza-tions such as the United Nations.

Accordingly, the brain-drain model postulates that developing countries arenegatively impacted by the emigration of their best brainsthe scientists,engineers, and medical professionals. Te brain-drain is understood as a one-

way movement or exodus that points to migratory flows of highly skilled pro-fessionals from the South to the North, or from the developing to the developedcountries, and benefits only the developed (host) countries (Gaillard 1991).Te brain-drain model holds that the flow of skilled labor from developing todeveloped countries creates a paucity of skilled and professional expertise forthe continued development of the country, thereby making a poor countrypoorer. Returning to the home country has been viewed as part of the normal

sequence of international immigration. Not returning is considered a breachof duty, lack of nationalism, and just short of being unpatriotic (Gaillard,Krishna, and Waast 1997). Nevertheless, only a few skilled workers return. It

was, therefore, asserted that developing countries were in reality subsidizingthe developed countries by educating and training workers who then tooktheir skills elsewhere.

Although the brain-drain model speaks from a developing countrys per-

spective, it is still grounded on assumptions similar to the push-pull model.Te thrust of the brain-drain argument is that developed countries are unfairlyusing their economic power to lure skilled labor like scientists, engineers, andmedical professionals from developing countries. Further, the brain-drainmodel presents the situation from one side only; it does not take into accountpotential benefits for source countries resulting from brain-drain such asremittances, transfer of capital and technology, and reverse return of skilled

labor. Also, with underemployment among skilled laborers in several develop-ing countries, it is not clear whether migration of skilled personnel can beviewed as an exodus. Most importantly, international immigration has becomefar more complex for both developing and developed countries. Many coun-tries (e.g., aiwan and South Korea) are experiencing a reverse flow of skilled


8/18

546 R. Varma / PGD 6 (2007) 539-556

labor (Finn 2003). Canada loses a lot of its skilled workers to the U.S., while

it gains skilled workers from other countries. Similarly, Brazil also has many ofits doctoral graduates emigrating, but this is balanced by an influx of profes-sionals from other countries in the region (Saravia and Miranda 2004).

In recent years, scholars have recognized the important role of migrantsocial networks, interpersonal ties that bind migrant and non-migrant people

within a maze of mutual responsibilities that make possible entry, employ-ment, and adaptation at the destination in international migration (Portes

1995). People within a migrant social network exchange ideas, information,and resources that are not available in other systems of information transfer(e.g., contracting companies, lawyers, and immigration services). Knowingsomeone who has migrated creates a migratory information feedback loop(Boyd 1989). New members feel indebted to others in the migrant social net-

work for sharing with them information and resources, so they extend thesame courtesy to incoming members of the migrant social network.

Tough social networks play an important role in international immigra-tion, it is not clear if this is the leading cause of immigration. Instead, socialnetworks impart information, which makes the movement of people and theiradjustment to a new place rather uncomplicated. Apart from the effectivepresence of kinship, caste, ethnic, linguistic networks to smoothen the immi-gration process and the subsequent adjustments, new types of professionalnetworks have come to operate among the Indian immigrants in the US, par-

ticularly among the scientific and technical professionals. Te most conspicu-ous among these are the networks of alumni of IIs (Indian Institutes ofechnology). Te ex-IIians not only formally maintain alumni associations,at respective IIs, but also meet in regular intervals in the US. Even thesenetworks flourish in extending cooperation to fellow IIians for professionaland employment purposes. Of course, this itself could be a subject matter ofsystematic sociological investigation.

Embedded within the push-pull, brain-drain, and social network modelsof international immigration is the assumption that the world is a distinctlyfragmented composite of nations, isolated from one another through all-encompassing geographic borders. Globalization, however, has brought mul-tiple fundamental changes in economic, social, and political arena. It hasspread new forms of social activities via telecommunication, digital comput-ers, audiovisual media, rocketry and the like irrespective of the geographical

location of people (Scholte 1996). Further, it has transformed the humanorganizations by expanding and linking human activities across the world(Held, McGrew, Goldblatt and Perraton 1999). Most importantly, globaliza-tion has proliferated high-speed communication, information, and transpor-tation technologies in human activities (Eriksen 2001).


9/18

R. Varma / PGD 6 (2007) 539-556 547

Globalization has created opportunities for technical immigrants to be con-

nected with people in their home country as well as for the reverse and tem-porary immigrations: In the global society, brainpower flows relatively easilyacross national boundaries, seeking promising opportunities (Singhal andRogers 2001: 151). Te mobility of scientists and engineers is now referred toas brain circulation, since a cycle of study and work abroad is followed by areturn to the home country to take advantage of emerging high-level oppor-tunities (Cao 1996). Brain circulation creates specific international epistemic

communities, which allows them to serve as conduits for the diffusion of newideas and paradigms back to the home countrys domestic sphere (Kapur2004). Even without brain circulation, immigrant scientists and engineersremain available as a valuable resource to their home country in the form ofintellectual, monetary, trade, and moral support.

International immigration has become an essential part of globalization.Te case study of Indian scientists and engineers in the next section shows that

the development of advanced communication technologies like the Internet,faster and safer transportation, and multinational trade scenarios have blurrednational boundaries and created a virtual global scientific and engineeringcommunity. Indian scientists and engineers maintain ties with India; insteadof assimilating completely, they are creating transnational culture in the U.S.

Diaspora of Indian Scientists and Engineers

Tis section draws immigration-related findings from Varmas book, Harbin-gers of Global Change: Indias echno-Immigrants in the United States(2006). Itis based on in-depth interviews with 120 Indian scientists and engineers that

were conducted in the years 2002 to 2004, including 82 Indian scientists andengineers working in the public and private sectors inside the U.S. Te sample

includes 26 respondents from 24 academic institutions, 39 respondents fromfour high-technology industrial companies, and 17 respondents from twonational laboratories. In addition, 38 interviews were conducted with Indianscientists and engineers who studied and worked in the U.S. for some timeand then moved back to India and worked in three academic institutions andone research laboratory.

Respondents were asked why did they choose to come to the U.S.? Teir

reasons for emigration ranged from greater educational and career opportunitiesto social networks. Each of these reasons is in itself a complex subset of reasonsbound by historical factors, the current social, economic, and political climatein India, as well as major development strides in science and technology. Asable 1 shows, the existence of greater educational opportunities was the main


10/18

548 R. Varma / PGD 6 (2007) 539-556

reason cited for migration by the majority of respondents (65%), and was

cited as the sole reason by 39%. Even though the sample of female respon-dents in academia was small, all of them cited greater educational opportuni-ties as their reason for moving to the U.S. Another noteworthy fact is that80% of the respondents who returned to India said that seeking greater edu-cational opportunities was one of their main reasons for going to the U.S.,

with 45% saying it was the sole reason. Most of these respondents wanted togo to cutting-edge schools in the U.S. for advanced degrees; after they earned

a masters degree in a science or engineering field in India, going to the U.S.was the natural thing for them to do. Over 40% of respondents offered bet-ter career opportunities as a key reason to go to the U.S., with 23% citing it asthe sole reason. Tis motive was more predominant among respondents fromnational laboratories (59%) than from academic institutions (47%) or indus-trial companies (43%). Although few respondents (10%) mentioned socialconnections as a sole motivation to immigrate to the U.S., an additional 15%

mentioned education and career opportunities along with knowing someonein the U.S. or in India who had ties in the U.S.

Table 1

Why Indian Scientists and Engineers Move to the U.S.

Reasons to

come to U.S.

Industry Academia National Lab Returned to

India

otal

M F M F M F M F

% % % % %

Education 33 33 45 50 31 25 47 25 39

Career 30 22 41 0 38 0 9 0 23

Network 10 33 0 0 0 50 9 25 10

Education andcareer

10 0 9 25 23 0 9 25 11

Education andnetwork

7 0 0 25 0 0 21 0 8

Education,

career andNetwork

7 11 0 0 8 25 6 25 7

Other 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2

Number ofrespondents

30 9 22 4 13 4 34 4 120


11/18

R. Varma / PGD 6 (2007) 539-556 549

Reasons why Indian scientists and engineers move to the U.S. show the glo-

balization of science and engineering (S&E) education and work. Te stan-dard for educating and training scientists and engineers in India is modeledafter that of Western countries. Science and engineering departments in Indiarely on Western curricula and standards, use Western textbooks, and adopt

Western scientific methods. After World War II, the U.S. emerged as the pre-eminent destination for S&E higher education, with the enormous financialresources to attract and retain foreign graduate students in S&E. In addition,

the globalization of science and industry has transformed scientists and engi-neers in India into a highly mobile work force. It is relatively easy for Indiansto find employment in the U.S. because their S&E knowledge can be trans-ferred across national borders. Also, they are well versed in English, and closelyconnected with American society through their studies at U.S. universities oremployment in American companies in India. Te globalization of S&Eallows Indian scientists and engineers to study or work anywhere in the

world.

Table 2

Attitude of Indian Scientists and Engineers on Returning to India

Intending toreturn to India

Industry Academia National Lab otal

M F M F M F

% % % %

No 23 22 45 50 85 75 43

Yes 53 44 23 0 8 25 33

Undecided 23 33 32 50 8 0 24


30 9 22 4 13 4 82

A question of importance is, why do Indian scientists and engineers continueto live in the U.S. after completing their studies or acquiring their initial goals?Respondents working in the U.S. were asked if they would like to move backto India to live. As able 2 shows that even though a large majority of respon-dents (43%) did not want to go back to India, a significant number of respon-dents (33%) did want to return, while 24% of respondents were undecided.Te national laboratory respondents were most likely not to want to moveback to India, followed by the academia respondents. Conversely, more indus-try respondents preferred to move back to India than did academia and


12/18

550 R. Varma / PGD 6 (2007) 539-556

national laboratory respondents. Te academia respondents (35%) had the

highest percentage of being undecided compared with industry (26%) andnational laboratory (6%) respondents. Slightly more female respondents wereundecided (29%) than male respondents (23%). Tese responses show thatthe emigration of Indian scientists and engineers is still not permanent.

Table 3

Attitudes of Indian Scientists and Engineers on Not Returning to IndiaReasons for not

wishing to returnto India


M F M F M F

% % % %

Family assimilatedin U.S.

57 100 80 50 55 66 66

Better opportuni-ties in U.S.

71 0 60 0 45 66 51

Connection toIndia from U.S.

86 50 40 100 27 0 46

Other 0 0 10 0 18 33 11Number ofRespondents

7 2 10 2 11 3 35

Respondents provided more than one response, thus percentages do not add up to 100.

Respondents who did not want to return to India to live were further asked

reasons behind their choice. As able 3 shows, respondents did not want tomove back to India because their family members were assimilated in the U.S.(66%), the U.S. offered better educational and career opportunities for themand for their children (51%), and they believed in a shrinking physical dis-tance with India (46%). Almost all respondents in industry said that havingstrong connections to India kept them from feeling the need to return; only21% of national laboratory respondents offered the same reason. Most respon-

dents were able to maintain their Indian connections while remaining in theU.S. Tey indicated that they make periodic visits to India, attend conferencesand workshops held there, and give lectures and short courses at Indian insti-tutions. Some even have collaborative projects with their peers in India fundedby U.S. organizations.


13/18

R. Varma / PGD 6 (2007) 539-556 551

Table 4

Attitudes of Indian Scientists and Engineers on Yes Returning to India

Reasons forwishing to

return to India


M F M F M F

% % % %Family in India 63 75 60 0 100 100 66

With better jobin India

38 0 60 0 100 0 37

Better social lifein India

31 0 40 0 0 0 26

Give back toIndia

13 25 20 0 0 0 15

Other 0 25 0 0 0 0 4


16 4 5 0 1 1 27

Respondents provided more than one response, thus percentages do not equal 100.

Respondents who did want to return to India to live were also asked reasonsbehind their choice. Among those with intentions to return to India, as able4 shows, 66% mentioned family obligations, 37% said better career prospect,26% glorified India for social/cultural values, and 15% expressed patriotism.Family obligations were more prominent among female (80%) than male(60%) respondents. Similarly, 46% of males gave better jobs in India as a

reason for returning, yet no females cited this motivation. While 32% of malescited a better social life as their reason for wishing to return to India; nofemales cited this as a reason. Interestingly, most respondents said that if theymoved back to India, they wanted to return for work in the U.S. at regularintervals. Many respondents also expressed their desire to accept a temporary

job for a short duration in India. Respondents who returned to India afterworking in the U.S. did so because they were offered faculty or research posi-

tions in prestigious institutes.In addition, respondents who worked in the U.S. and then moved back to

India were asked if they would like to return to the U.S. Te overwhelmingmajority of respondents (over 70%) reported that they did not want to moveback to the U.S. Tey valued the work and social life in India, and had the best


14/18

552 R. Varma / PGD 6 (2007) 539-556

of both worlds with the ability to travel to the U.S. regularly to attend confer-

ences and workshops or take interim summer work. If not visiting the U.S.,they regularly kept in touch with their American colleagues via electronicnetworks.

One of the main reasons why Indian scientists and engineers in the U.S. donot feel a need to move back to India or those who had returned to India donot want to move to the U.S. has to do with the advances in transportationand communication technologies. In the last decade, there has been an expo-

nential growth in electronic networks in India, so those outside India caneasily connect with those inside India. Te electronic network has opened newspaces for people to communicate and collaborate. Unlike unskilled or skilledmanual laborers, scientists and engineers are highly connected with their peersin the U.S. and India. Electronic networks have not only facilitated commu-nication and the exchange of information between American and Indian sci-entists and engineers but have also led to collaborative projects. Further, they

have face-to-face contact through conferences and workshops sponsored byprofessional associations to which scientists and engineers in the U.S. andIndia belong. With the emergence of new ways of networking, communicat-ing, and collaborating, the return of scientists and engineers to India no longerseems imperative. Indian scientists and engineers in both countries believedthat electronic networks have brought India and the United States closer.

Discussion: A Postmodern Approach

Indian scientists and engineers have been migrating to the U.S. in significantnumbers since 1965. Tey have long enjoyed some connection with theircolleagues in India. However, earlier linkages were not well developed andinstitutionalized. Te communications revolution and changes in the Indiangovernments attitudes have forged systematic linkages between national and

expatriate scientists and engineers. At the beginning of the twenty-first cen-tury, this process has accelerated, with Indias desire to become what JosephNye, dean of John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University,has called a soft power. India is hoping to play a major role in internationalaffairs through its culture, ideas, and people. It is actively mobilizing to recon-nect with its scientists and engineers living in the U.S. and other countries.Indian scientists and engineers are living in the country of their choice, butbeing sought to contribute to India in some way.

Immigration, in a postmodern sense, is a process of attaining a sociallyascribed identity, finding its expression in financial and legal rules and regula-tions, even while discovering a personal identity that transcends national


15/18

R. Varma / PGD 6 (2007) 539-556 553

boundaries. Immigration is blurred by presence through virtual communi-

cation networks and frequent travel to the home country. ransnational socialspaces are configurations of social practices, artifacts, and symbol systems thattranscend constructs of nation-states or bi-nations, and remain just thattransnational. ransnational space for a community is defined by its geograph-ical nodes, like the cultural hearth (or the origin of the community), diasporanode (or the node in a geographical space other than origin), and new center(when a migrant community moves away from the hearth and develops a new

center of cultural affiliation) (Voigt-Graf 2004). What is assumed is that nego-tiation of physical realities of space creates transnational connections for themigrant community. But with the spread of information technology, the veryconcept of space is blurred. Tus, a person may be in the U.S., but due to dailycommunication via telephone, Internet chats, or through web cam, that personparticipates in the everyday life of his/her family in India. In the mental world,the nation-state space collapses and a form of long-distance nationalism

emerges. It is, therefore, no surprise that many respondents interviewed sawthemselves as global citizens rather than Indian citizens or U.S. citizens.

Some scholars dispute the concept of unbounded transnational nation-states and argue that recent Hindu nationalist discourse of the motherlandand her estranged sons rhetorically creates boundaries within the existingnation-state identities (Walton-Roberts 2004). Others have disputed the con-cept of the unbound transnational state in light of post 9/11 policies and

political rhetoric, and theories that these concepts are experiencing a kind ofrebound. Tey have also argued that borders are real because first, transnationalcommunities are more the exception than the norm of current global orderand, second, crossing international borders remains a very difficult proposi-tion for much of the worlds population (Cunningham 2004: 332, 333).

Te U.S. has been employing many techniques to regulate immigrant selec-tion and exclusion. Te term migrants itself creates an image of an outsider

coming inside and disrupting the sovereignty of the country; immigrants walka tight rope between the national self and the foreign other. Yet, the U.S. issimultaneously relaxing barriers to the flow of legitimate skilled labor to com-pete successfully in the global market. Consequently, migrants have beenmoving faster than ever because the U.S. is more interconnected with othercountries than ever before. Te Smart Borderscomplex advances in securityand surveillance technologiesdeployed in the U.S. mark the integration

of countries into the global information systems that surpass them. Irrespec-tive of the politics of the process of U.S. immigration, the boundaries ofthe nation state have been materially altered and blurred, at least in the case ofa privileged migrant population who generally face few difficulties obtaining


16/18

554 R. Varma / PGD 6 (2007) 539-556

work permits and visas, and whose mobility is not strictly regulated by

nation-states.o sum up, immigration as characterized for the past several centuries no

longer applies to the scientific- and technology-driven culture moving betweenIndia and the U.S. Te movement of Indian scientists and engineers is nolonger a one-way journey, as information, money, resources, and people travelfreely and frequently from the new or temporary home to the country of ori-gin and back again. Te decreased distance and better communication facili-

ties have in turn created a postmodern identity for the Indian immigrants,in which not only are they never socially completely identified as Americans,but also their personal identity is complicated by the real influence of bothcountriesIndia and the U.S.

Acknowledgments

Tis research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation(0136467). I would like to thank all scientists and engineers who gave theirvaluable time.

References

Alarcon, R. 1999. Recruitment Processes amongst Foreign-born Engineers and Scientists inSilicon Valley.American Behavioral Scientist42(9): 1381-1397.

Amin, S. 1976. Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social ransformations of Peripheral Capi-talism.New York: Monthly Review Press.

Barnes, J. S. and C. L. Bennett. 2002. Te Asian Population: 2000. Census 2000 BriefC2KBR/01-16. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Press.

Boyd, M. 1989. Family and Personal Networks in International Migration: Recent Develop-ments and New Agendas. International Migration Review23(3): 638-670.

Burki, S. J. and S. Swamy. 1987. South Asian Migration to U.S.: Demand and Supply Factors.Economic and Political WeeklyXXII(12): 513-517.

Cao, X. 1996. Debating Brain-drain in the Context of Globalisation. Compare26(3): 269-284.Cunningham, H. 2004. Nations Rebound? Crossing Borders in a Gated Globe. Identities:

Global Studies in Culture and Power11: 329-354.Dertouzos, M. L., R. K. Lester, and R. M. Solow. 1989. Made in America.Cambridge: MI

Press.Eriksen, . H. 2001. yranny of the Moment: Fast and Slow ime in the Information Age.London:

Pluto Press.Finn, M. G. 2003. Stay Rates of Foreign Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities, 2001. Oak

Ridge: Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education.Frank, A. G. 1967. Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America: Historical Studies of Chile

and Brazil. New York: Monthly Review Press.Gaillard, J. 1991. Scientists in the Tird World.Lexington: Kentucky University Press.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0002-7642()42:9L.1381[aid=8131423]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0002-7642()42:9L.1381[aid=8131423]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0197-9183()23:3L.638[aid=7979945]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0197-9183()23:3L.638[aid=7979945]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0305-7925()26:3L.269[aid=2857080]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0305-7925()26:3L.269[aid=2857080]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0002-7642()42:9L.1381[aid=8131423]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0197-9183()23:3L.638[aid=7979945]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0305-7925()26:3L.269[aid=2857080]


17/18

R. Varma / PGD 6 (2007) 539-556 555

Gaillard, J., V. V. Krishna, and R. Waast, eds. 1997. Scientific Communities in the Developing

World.New Delhi: Sage Publications.Glanz, J. 2001. rolling for Brains in International Waters. New York imes, April 1, p. B1.Held, D., A. McGrew, D. Goldblatt, and J. Perraton. 1999. Global ransformations: Politics,

Economics and Culture.Stanford: Stanford University Press.Helweg, A. W. and U. M. Helweg. 1990.An Immigrant Success Story.Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press.Hess, G. R. 1974. Te Forgotten Asian Americans: Te East Indian Community in the United

States. Pacific Historical Review43 (4): 577-596.Johnston, W. and A. Packer. 1987. Te Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century.

Washington DC: Hudson Institute.Kapur, D. 2004. Ideas and Economic Reforms in India: Te Role of International Migration

and the Indian Diaspora. India Review3(4): 364-380.Keith, G. 1969. Underdevelopment in Spanish American: An Interpretation.Cambridge: MI Press.Khadria, B. 1999. Te Migration of Knowledge Workers.New Delhi: Sage Publications.Portes, A. 1987. One Field, Many Views: Competing Teories of International Migration.

Pp. 53-70 in Pacific Bridges: Te New Immigration from Asia and the Pacific Islands, edited byJ. . Fawcett and B. V. Carinos. New York: Center for Migration Studies of New York.

. 1995. Te Economic Sociology of Immigration: Essays on Networks, Ethnicity, and Entrepre-neurship. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Reich, R. 1988. Te Next American Frontier. New York: imes Books.Rodney, W. 1974. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Washington DC: Howard University

Press.Saravia, N. G. and J. F. Miranda. 2004. Plumbing the Brain-drain. Bulletin of World Health

Organization82: 608-615.Scholte, J. A. 2000. Globalization: A Critical Introduction.New York: St. Martins.Singhal, A. and E. M. Rogers. 2001. Indias Communication Revolution: From Bullock Carts to

Cyber Marts.New Delhi: Sage Publications.Sjaastad, L. A. 1962. Te Costs and Returns of Human Migration.Journal of Political Economy70(3): 80-93.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1913. Tirteenth Census of the United States: Population.Washington DC:U.S. Government Printing Press.

. 1922. Fourteenth Census of the United States: Population.Washington DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Press.

. 1933. Fifteenth Census of the United States: Population.Washington DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Press.

. 1943. Sixteenth Census of the United States: Population. Washington DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Press.

. 1983. 1980 Census of Population: Characteristics of the Population. Washington DC: U.S.Government Printing Press.

. 1993. 1990 Census of Population: General Population Characteristics. Washington DC:U.S. Government Printing Press.

. 2000. Census 2000 Summary File 4 (SF4)Sample Data. Retrieved March 12, 2004.(http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/Dable).

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1975. Historical Statistics of the U.S.: Bicentennial Edition, Colo-

nial imes to 1970.Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. 2001. Statistical Yearbook. Washington DC: U.S.

Government Printing Press.Varma, R. 2006. Harbingers of Global Change: Indias echno-immigrants in the U.S.Maryland:

Lexington Books.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1473-6489()3:4L.364[aid=8131425]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1473-6489()3:4L.364[aid=8131425]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0042-9686()82L.608[aid=7423930]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0042-9686()82L.608[aid=7423930]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0042-9686()82L.608[aid=7423930]http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTablehttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTablehttp://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1473-6489()3:4L.364[aid=8131425]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0042-9686()82L.608[aid=7423930]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0042-9686()82L.608[aid=7423930]


18/18

556 R. Varma / PGD 6 (2007) 539-556

Voigt-Graf, C. 2004. owards a Geography of ransnational Spaces: Indian ransnational

Communities in Australia. Global Networks4(1): 25-49.Wallerstein, I. 1980. Te Capitalist World Economy.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Walton-Roberts, M. 2004. Globalisation, Autonomy, and Non-resident Indians. Contempo-

rary South Asia(13)1: 53-69.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1470-2266()4:1L.25[aid=8131427]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1470-2266()4:1L.25[aid=8131427]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1470-2266()4:1L.25[aid=8131427]

Documents

PGDT_Border.pdf