Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 25 Sep 1992 21:34:01 CDT
From: Shyamala Parameswaran <U11983@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Secularism? (was: Not entirely about Islam & Rushdie)
 <Sep23.032710.43808@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
 <1992Sep24.052518.16703@u.washington.edu>
 <Sep25.190011.24807@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>

In article <Sep25.190011.24807@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>,
kannan@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Kannan Subramanian) says:
>
>
>Actually, the question is quite specific and representative of the choices of
>Indian (and maybe other) expatriates. The oil-rich Middle East offers salaries
>that are comparable to and often better than "First World" salaries. If
>economics were the sole criterion ("MAINLY" [sic]), immigrant workers would
>head to both countries without any particular preference. This is not the
>case.
>
>It seems to me, though apparently you reject the notion, that the secular
>character of the west (or specifically, the United States) is less
>intimidating
>(and even more welcoming) to immigrants as compared to less secular states and
>that this may have something to do with migration patterns. Yes, there is a
>longer waiting list to get into the United States and the reason in not just
>money.
>

No. The flux of 'seasonal' (loosely speaking, an ecapsulated time
period averaging less than five years) migrants to the mid-east
has been less beneficial than may appear. This is with reference
to the third-world 'sojourning' migrant seeking economic
advantages.

First, the host countries in the gulf, oil-rich but man-power
deficient, have attracted more skilled than professional
categories in labor. Recruitment patterns in the post-pearl market
economy and the first oil boom (1932-52) and the second oil boom
(1973/4-84) show Indians hired largely by American and British
owned oil companies (BAPCO, APOC, BOC, KOC, AIOC, ARAMCO) as artisans,
clerical and technical staff, general laborers and domestics.

Renumeration in host currency was seen as attractive by labor
being imported given its exchange value, but in fact were
nominal concessions by oil-rich or western standards.

Certain host country regulations in preferring some religious
denominations over the others, i.e, muslims, though all the
four main groups -Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and Muslims were
represented (as the case in Saudi Arabia and Quatar which did
not permit Hindus to reside) pretty much defined who was to
'stay' and 'how.' Of the 'how', it is learnt that while
recruitment of skilled and even unskilled Indian laborers
was disproportionately high, a near-ghettoised and curfew
type situation occurred at non-working times.

Given conditions of import, i.e. the 'gastaarbeiten' -
guest-worker status, Indians lived minus their families
in less than happy situations, but in the knowledge of
a short-stint and an opportunity to get 'rich' quick,
be close to home and have a month's holiday paid, yearly.
Under these circumstances, remittances seemed quite feasible.
This fact, I suspect, gives a general impression of
salaries on par with the west but as documented,
were not so. However, migration was high for reasons above.

The case of immigrants to the U.S. in its non-guest
worker type import is at least in lucrative and
substantive terms, considerably better. Not to say,
that the immigrant labor-market is a cake-walk here,
but that both the spectrum of Indian labor to this
country and its concomittant circumstances are
definitely more convenient. Self-selection mechanisms
invoked by INS regulations pretty much determines
how this labor-market operates.

So, in effect, the temporary lures to the mid-east
and the the not-so-temporary lures to the west are
apples and oranges.

Shyamala
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian