Using Dominicans in New York City as a case study, Ramona Hernandez challenges the old belief that workers necessarily migrate from one region to another because of supply and demand or because of a de facto government policy to make people leave or stay. As a result, she shows that the traditional correlation between migration and economic progress does not always hold true.

Workers migrating from one place to another has always been explained by one of two macroeconomic paradigms. The equilibrium theory views the migration process as the result of the individual worker's own rational choice. The historical-structural theory emphasizes macro socioeconomic changes that are beyond the worker's control and forces them to migrate. Using the Dominican labor force in New York, the author argues that: (1) the post-1965 migration of surplus labor force from the sending society to the host country did not always mean that it was needed or wanted, (2) emigration from the Dominican Republic was the result of a de facto government policy to have people leave, (3) the United States participated in this de facto policy to rid the Dominican Republic of individuals opposed to US economic interests and political dissidents and (4) the traditional correlation between migration and economic progress does not always hold true.

Introduction The Mobility of Labor in Response to Demand An Alternative Reading of Labor Mobility The Changing Economy: No Need for Extra Hands Emigration as an Expulsion of Workers Life in the Metropolis Part 1. Leaving the Land of the Few 1. The Great Exodus: Its Roots 2. Economic Growth and Surplus Population Part 2. Settling in the Land of Dreams 3. The Perception of a Migratory Movement 4. Dominicans in the Labor Market 5. On the International Mobility of Labor 6. Conclusion: Assessing the Present and Auguring the Future