|
IMMIGRATION . .
MARCH 2008
STUDY: CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANTS COMMIT
LESS CRIME
DECEMBER 2007
IMMIGRATION: WHAT ARE WE REALLY WORRIED
ABOUT?
Sam Smith
Best estimates of unsanctioned immigration
to this country puts the total at 3-4% of the total American
population, or roughly twice as many people as support Mike Gravel,
who can't even get into the presidential debates, let alone become
a major topic of them.
While it is clear that immigrants are being
used by conservatives as a target to deflect criticism from themselves
- much as southern whites used blacks in the days of segregation
- it is possible that something else is happening as well.
What if large number of Americans are afraid
- consciously or not - of something that their leaders, most
environmentalists and the media won't discuss at all: the real
consequences of population growth? Immigrants make an easy substitute
for dealing directly with this issue for in the end they commit
only one real sin other than not following regulations: adding
to the competition for human existence by an ever increasing
population.
Ten years ago, I wrote about it this way:
|||| We know it took about four million
years for humans to populate the earth with its first billion
humans. It took just a hundred years for the second billion.
Thirty-five years for the third. Fifteen years for the fourth
and twelve for the fifth.
The world is growing by 10,800 people an
hour, adding the equivalent of a city the size of Newark, NJ
every day
Former Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson,
counselor of the Wilderness Society, has a good way of describing
it. At the current rate of growth, he says, the population of
the United States will double in 63 years. So at some point around
the middle of the next century, we are likely to have (or need)
twice as much of everything we have now. Twice as many cars,
trucks, planes, airports, parking lots, streets, bridges, tunnels,
freeways, houses, apartment buildings, grade schools, high schools,
colleges, trade schools, hospitals, nursing homes, prisons.
Imagine your city or town as it would look
with twice as much of everything. And, oh yes, don't forget to
add twice as much farmland, water and food if you can find it.
And twice as many chemicals and other pollutants in the air and
water, twice as much heat radiation from all the new construction,
twice as much crime, twice as many fires, twice as big traffic
jams and twice as many walls with graffiti on them.
Not that everyone accepts this scenario.
There are those who think we can, with the help of science and
technology, feed tens of billions more people. Some of them are
scientists who admit that life will be degraded but think it
still physically possible. Some are Roman Catholic bishops who
said a few years ago that the earth could support 40 billion
people.
Some are the voices of industry or in think
tanks. Their argument is based on the economic notion that growth
is an unmitigated virtue and that anything opposed to growth
is wrong. And many of them are economists who, as Amory Lovins
has said, "are people who lie awake nights worrying about
whether what actually works in the world could conceivably work
in theory."
Gaylord Nelson suggests some questions
for them: "Do the unlimited growth folks really believe
that the more crowded the planet becomes, the freer and richer
we will be? Do they think a finite planet with finite resources
can sustain infinite economic expansion and population growth?
If not, where do they draw the line? They don't say." ||||
The number of foreign born - legal or not
- now comprise the same percentage of the population was the
case in 1930 and considerably less than between 1860 and 1910.
Looking back, those weren't such bad times. Why are American
so worried now, even discounting for all the politicians and
media George Wallacing the issue?
One answer is that people are really worried
about something they know is happening and no one will talk sensibly
to them about it.
NOVEMBER 2007
AP - The executive
director of the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism
says Oklahoma's new immigration law does little to make the state
or country safer from terrorism. "We should remember that
the 9/11 terrorists ... all had visas and entered this country
legally," Don Hamilton said Wednesday in an interview after
speaking to members of the Council of State Governments. . .
About half the illegal immigrants in the United States entered
legally but overstayed their visas, he said. "If you put
death rays on the border with Mexico that were 100 percent effective,
you would only have solved less than half of the illegal immigration
problem," he said.
MAY 2007
WHY THERE ARE FAR BETTER THINGS
TO WORRY ABOUT THAN IMMIGRATION POLICY
RUSSIL WYONG, CAN POLITICS 1997 - Costs:
Direct expenditures consist of (among other things) increases
in AFDC and food stamps, SSI, health costs, and prison costs.
. . Estimates of tax payer burden range from an annual surplus
of $27 billion to a deficit of $40 billion depending on the assumptions
made. A "reasonable" estimate of tax accounting provided
by (immigration critic George) Borjas shows that immigrants received
$23.8 billion in government entitlement and paid $85.4 billion
in taxes. This statistic seems to suggest at first glance that
immigrants are more than paying their way for welfare benefits.
However, as Borjas points out, on average only 8.9 percent of
taxes goes towards entitlement programs. Thus, only $7.6 billion
of immigrant taxes went on average to entitlements. This results
in a $16.2 billion fiscal burden on native taxpayers. Therefore,
it is likely that immigrants impose a net burden on native taxpayers
on the order of $16 billion annually.
Displacement costs occur when immigration
either reduces the wages of native citizens or results in native
citizens being laid off or forced to move from the area. The
various estimates conclude that the elasticity of the native
wage with respect to the number of immigrants is at most -0.1.
This implies that a city with 10% more immigration than another
will have wages that are 1 percent lower. In other words, a $10.00
per hour wage will fall to $9.90. . . If the number of workers
in the US has increased by 10 percent due to immigration, then
native wages and salaries fall by 1 percent to 62.37 percent
of GDP. In a $7 trillion economy, this works out to just over
$44 billion. In an economy the size of the U.S., this effect
is small.
The same result is found for unemployment.
The great majority of studies conclude that immigrants rarely
force a native worker out of a job. The effects are statistically
insignificant.
In sum, direct expenditures result in a
net loss of $16 billion, and loss of native wages add another
$44 billion for a total cost from immigration of $60 billion.
Benefits from immigration include increases
in economic welfare, increase in cultural diversity, and increases
in the standard of living of immigrants.
A 10 percent rise in immigration lowers
native wages by up to 1 percent, or possibly $44 billion per
year. However, these wage reductions don't just disappear. To
the extent that immigrants provide low-cost labor, either more
income accrues to the employers, or cost reductions are passed
on to the consumer. Therefore, the host economy benefits by an
equal amount that native workers lose from the cheap labor of
the immigrants. In other words, the $44 billion is simply redistributed
to other people in the economy, and the net effect washes out.
But the gains from the low wages go beyond
the $44 billion from lower wages. The goods produced by immigrant
workers also generate additional profits for employers because
they are able to sell more of their products at the lower price.
Borjas estimates this gain to be $7 billion per year.
Increase in cultural diversity: This aspect
of life is difficult to quantify but consumers benefit at a minimum
by the increase in product diversity (for example, ethnic restaurants,
cultural centers in cities, and so on). However, diversity also
leads to costs including more crime, ethnic violence, and so
on. Since these aspects are so difficult to quantify, we will
take the easy way out and simply assume that the positive and
negative aspects of diversity cancel each other out.
The economy gains $44 billion is lower
costs and/or prices from immigrant labor, and gains $7 billion
more on top of that by generating more profits for employers.
Thus the total benefits to immigration are on the order of $51
billion annually.
The cost-benefit analysis suggests that
the costs ($60 billion) outweigh the benefits ($51 billion) by
$9 billion annually. Therefore, current immigration policy is
not as efficient as it could be, though the inefficiency is small.
What do we make of all this? First, immigration
(legal and illegal) has become more costly in recent times because
the number of immigrants has increased, and the relative skills
of immigrants have decreased. Therefore, the economic burden
of immigration has surely increased in the last two decades.
Second, the "stealing of natives' jobs" is mostly a
myth and simply does not happen on a large scale.
An important distinction must be made again
between efficiency and equity. We have tentatively concluded
that the costs of immigration outweigh the benefits by $9 billion
annually. From an efficiency point of view, the solution is to
reduce the number of immigrants until the benefits equal the
costs. Another possibility is to only admit the more educated,
wealthier immigrants. This is what some countries such as Canada
has done. This lead to a more "efficient" immigration
policy. But is such a policy fair?
From an equity point of view, even if the costs of immigration
outweigh the benefits, this tells us nothing about what type
of immigration policy the United States should have. There are
strong moral arguments for allowing immigrants into the US given
our history. After all we are a nation of immigrants. Moreover,
immigration to the United States has improved the lives of most
that have arrived here. Do we have the right to shut that opportunity
off to those who live in poorer countries? Most of our ancestors
took advantage of that opportunity. Why can't others?
Finally, though the tax payer burden of
supporting immigration may be $16 billion annually, this is about
one percent of yearly federal tax revenue. Therefore, while immigration
may certainly contribute to federal budget deficits, they are
not the major source of the fiscal deficits in the US.
USA TODAY - Foreign-born workers make up
about 11% of the U.S. population and 14% of the labor force.
But their impact is outsized, accounting for more than half of
total workforce growth from 1996 to 2002. In the western Midwest,
New England and Mid-Atlantic regions, foreign-born workers accounted
for more than 90% of employment growth from 1996 to 2002. "When
employment was growing, we wouldn't have been growing as quickly
without immigration," says Pia Orrenius, researcher at the
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
TPR - Between the 1880s and the 1920s immigrants
represented 12-15% of the population. This sank to 5% in the
1960s but has been rising since.
USAT - The immigration agency estimates
about 7 million people were in the country illegally in 2000,
with the number of illegal immigrants doubling in the 1990s.
Recent estimates peg illegal residency at 8 million to 10 million.
Paul Harrington of the Center for Labor
Market Studies at Northeastern University, says a study this
month found immigrants, legal and illegal, displaced U.S. workers
during the past three years, continuing a trend. Harrington argues
immigrants are taking jobs from teenagers in particular. . .
His research shows immigrants have revitalized
cities that would have otherwise lost population. Despite the
changes, nearly two-thirds live in California, New York and Texas.
Two-thirds of illegal immigrants come from Mexico. . .
Immigration can hurt state and local governments
by increasing demand for education, health care and some social
service programs. At the same time, it can help federal budgets
as workers pay taxes to shore up such programs as Social Security.
. . Immigration could help Social Security, at least in the short
term, given the relatively young ages of immigrants and the rapidly
aging native population. . . .
The U.S. Chamber's Donohue argues that
the U.S. economy is projected to create 22 million jobs by the
end of the decade but has a projected workforce growth of only
17 million. . .
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2004-01-22-immigration_x.htm
DONALD J. BOUDREAUX, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
- Each immigrant comes to America to make himself better off.
Suppose government no longer redistributes income to immigrants.
. . Absent government welfare payments to immigrants, immigrants
who do not seek work burden no one other than family or friends
who voluntarily assume this burden. I here ignore such non-working
immigrants who receive no government handouts. These immigrants
do not raise the ire of anti-immigrationists. Opponents of immigration
object most vehemently to immigrants who are eager to work. .
.
Productively employed immigrants invariably
increase the nation's wealth by intensifying competition and
expanding the division of labor. Immigration restrictions, in
contrast, reduce economic growth. . .
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4733
ANA VINAS, NM STATE U - Researchers and
academics from several Texas universities agreed at a conference
conducted by Federal Reserves Bank that immigration in the short
run costs U.S. taxpayers, but in the long run the effect is beneficial
for the country once immigrants start working and paying their
taxes.
Immigration effects in the U.S. economy
were analyzed by specialists, among them Jeffrey Passel, director
for Urban Institute Migration Politics Research; Robert Cushing,
academic at University of Texas in Austin; Jorge Santibanez,
researcher for Northern Mexico Border College.
Santibanez commented that the big operations
implemented at the borders, such as "Gatekeeper" in
Tijuana, and "Hold the Line" in El Paso are not the
answer to stopping illegal immigration. "They are just a
key to control the flows," he added and explained that these
operations in urban areas direct the flow of illegal immigrants
to the mountains and the deserts. In turn, this causes women
and children to stay behind and the ones who successfully make
it to the U.S. are young males.
He also said, "The borders are the
observatory for the immigration flow." According to the
specialists, last year a total of 916,000 legal immigrants, while
close to 300,000 came into the United States illegally.
According to George Borjas, public politics
professor at Harvard University's School of Government, illegal
immigration has a short period cost to each tax paying family
in the U.S.--in states such as Texas the cost is about $1,000
per year. "However, in the long run the effect is reversed
once the immigrant starts working and paying taxes," said
Borjas.
For example, an immigrant without average
education will cost the state about $13,000 per year; however,
one who has at least two years of college education generates
$198,000 in taxes over his lifetime. . .
http://www.nmsu.edu/~frontera/old_1997/dec97/1297imm3.htm
ROGER LOWENSTEIN, NY TIMES 2006 - Borjas's seemingly self-evident premise - that
more job seekers from abroad mean fewer opportunities, or lower
wages, for native workers - is one of the most controversial
ideas in labor economics. . .
Easily the most influential of Borjas's
critics is David Card, a Canadian who teaches at Berkeley. He
has said repeatedly that, from an economic standpoint, immigration
is no big deal and that a lot of the opposition to it is most
likely social or cultural. "If Mexicans were taller and
whiter, it would probably be a lot easier to deal with,"
he says pointedly.
Economists in Card's camp tend to frame
the issue as a puzzle - a great economic mystery because of its
very success. The puzzle is this: how is the U.S. able to absorb
its immigrants so easily?
After all, 21 million immigrants, about
15 percent of the labor force, hold jobs in the U.S., but the
country has nothing close to that many unemployed. (The actual
number is only seven million.) So the majority of immigrants
can't literally have "taken" jobs; they must be doing
jobs that wouldn't have existed had the immigrants not been here.
. .
It baffles some economists that Congress
pays so little heed to their research, but then immigration policy
has never been based on economics. Economic fears played a part
in the passage of the exclusionary acts against Chinese in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries, and in the 1920's of quotas
(aimed in particular at people from southern and eastern Europe),
but they were mostly fueled by xenophobia. They were supplanted
in the Civil Rights era by the Immigration and Nationality Act
of 1965, which ended quotas and established a new priority based
on family reunification. . .
With the exception of a few border states,
the effect of immigration on public-sector budgets is small,
and the notion that undocumented workers in particular abuse
the system is a canard. Since many illegals pay into Social Security
(using false ID numbers), they are actually subsidizing the U.S.
Treasury. And fewer than 3 percent of immigrants of any stripe
receive food stamps. Also, and contrary to popular wisdom, undocumented
people do support local school districts, since, indirectly as
renters or directly as homeowners, they pay property taxes. Since
they tend to be poor, however, they contribute less than the
average. One estimate is that immigrants raise state and local
taxes for everyone else in the U.S. by a trivial amount in most
states, but by as much as $1,100 per household per year in California.
They are certainly a burden on hospitals and jails but, it should
be noted, poor legal workers, including those who are native
born, are also a burden on the health care system. . .
Americans who are unskilled must compete
with a disproportionate number of immigrants. One of every four
high-school dropouts in the U.S. was born in Mexico, an astonishing
ratio given that the proportion of Mexicans in the overall labor
force is only 1 in 25. . . .
But economists have had a hard time finding
evidence of actual harm. For starters, they noticed that societies
with lots of immigrants tend, if anything, to be more prosperous,
not less. In the U.S., wages in cities where immigrants have
clustered, like New York, have tended to be higher, not lower.
Mississippi, on the other hand, which has the lowest per-capita
income of any state, has had very few immigrants.
That doesn't necessarily mean that immigrants
caused or even contributed to high wages; it could be they simply
go where the demand is greatest - that their presence is an effect
of high wages. . .
Card decided to study the 1980 Mariel boat
lift, in which 125,000 Cubans were suddenly permitted to emigrate.
They arrived in South Florida with virtually no advance notice,
and approximately half remained in the Miami area, joining an
already-sizable Cuban community and swelling the city's labor
force by 7 percent.
To Card, this produced a "natural
experiment," one in which cause and effect were clearly
delineated. Nothing about conditions in the Miami labor market
had induced the Marielitos to emigrate; the Cubans simply left
when they could and settled in the city that was closest and
most familiar. So Card compared the aftershocks in Miami with
the labor markets in four cities - Tampa, Atlanta, Houston and
Los Angeles - that hadn't suddenly been injected with immigrants.
That the Marielitos, a small fraction of
whom were career criminals, caused an upsurge in crime, as well
as a more generalized anxiety among natives, is indisputable.
It was also commonly assumed that the Marielitos were taking
jobs from blacks.
But Card documented that blacks, and also
other workers, in Miami actually did better than in the control
cities. In 1981, the year after the boat lift, wages for Miami
blacks were fractionally higher than in 1979; in the control
cities, wages for blacks were down. The only negative was that
unemployment rose among Cubans (a group that now included the
Marielitos).
Unemployment in all of the cities rose
the following year, as the country entered a recession. But by
1985, the last year of Card's study, black unemployment in Miami
had retreated to below its level of 1979, while in the control
cities it remained much higher. Even among Miami's Cubans, unemployment
returned to pre-Mariel levels, confirming what seemed visible
to the naked eye: the Marielitos were working. Card concluded,
"The Mariel influx appears to have had virtually no effect
on the wages or unemployment rates of less-skilled workers.".
. .
PROGRESSIVE POPULIST, 2006 - It is no accident
that an estimated 11 to 12 million people have come into the
US in search of a better life in the 20 years since the last
immigration reform, during the Reagan administration. That migration
accelerated with the implementation of the North American Free
Trade Agreement in 1994.
Ross Perot predicted in 1993 that as manufacturing
in northern Mexico expanded, hundreds of thousands of Mexican
workers would be drawn north. "They will quickly find that
wages in the Mexican maquiladora plants cannot compete with wages
anywhere in the US. Out of economic necessity, many of these
mobile workers will consider illegally immigrating into the US,"
Perot wrote. . .
Roger Bybee and Carolyn Winter noted in
the [Progressive Populist] that the movement of US agribusiness
into Mexico has pushed more than 2 million Mexicans off the farms
and into the cities, looking for jobs. Retailers such as Wal-Mart
have moved into Mexico, displacing an estimated 28,000 small
and medium-sized Mexican businesses. And Mexican factory wages
actually have fallen, as multinational firms force them to compete
even cheaper manufacturing costs in China and other lower-cost
nations.
The US economy largely absorbed those immigrants
through the boom years of the 1990s. Even with the Bush recession
after 2001, their presence was little noted outside service industries,
building trades and meat-cutting industry, where immigrants were
employed to keep down the pressure for higher wages. But this
year Republicans were looking for an issue that could excite
working-class whites, since it was apparent that tax cuts for
the rich weren¹t doing anything for them.
http://www.populist.com/06.11.edit.html
WARREN HOGE, NY TIMES - Secretary General
Kofi Annan said that the rapid growth in global migration should
help, not harm, all countries but that broad international cooperation
would be necessary to ensure it. "We now understand better
than ever before that migration is not a zero-sum game,"
Mr. Annan said. "In the best cases, it benefits the receiving
country, the country of origin and migrants themselves.".
. .
From 1990 to 2005, the numbers of migrants
in the world rose to 191 million from 155 million, the report
said. It estimated that migrants sent $232 billion home in 2005.
Of that, $167 billion went to developing countries, Mr. Annan
said. The report said that migration sometimes reduced the wages
of low-skilled workers in advanced economies, but that it more
often freed citizens to perform high-paying jobs.
Listing demographic statistics that will
make a continued rise in migration inevitable, the report said
that in developed countries there is an average of 142 young
entrants to the labor force for every 100 people about to retire,
but that in 10 years, the ratio will be 87 young entrants for
every 100 who leave the labor force. This trend, it argued, creates
a deficit that only migrants can close. At the same time, developing
countries will have 342 candidates for every 100 jobs that open
up.
PATRICE HILL, WASHINGTON TIMES - Immigrant labor -- both legal and illegal -- has
been an important force propelling U.S. economic growth for years.
Growth in the native population has been in decline since the
1970s, so immigrant workers have filled in, providing half of
the growth in the U.S. labor force since 1990. . .
While the role of immigrants in the U.S.
economy already is substantial, it promises to be even more important
in the future as baby boomers retire and the number of American
workers shrinks more rapidly. "Immigration will be vital
for long-run economic growth in the United States," said
Augustine Faucher, analyst with Economy.com. He estimates that
average yearly economic growth will fall to about 2 percent in
the next 30 years from 3 percent today -- even with a continued
flow of about 800,000 new legal and illegal immigrant workers
a year -- because of retirements. . .
Periods of high immigration have been associated
with periods of high economic growth in the United States. Most
recently, during the late 1990s, when immigration surged to a
peak of 1.5 million new entrants a year, economic growth picked
up to more than 4 percent a year and the unemployment rate fell
to below 4 percent, the lowest level in a generation.
By contrast, when immigration dropped dramatically
after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to about 1 million
a year, economic growth stagnated and the job market sank into
a recession and sluggish recovery. The jobs recession finally
receded in 2004 -- about the time that immigration picked up
again to 1.2 million, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. .
.
To prevent the economy from overheating,
the Fed has raised interest rates almost four percentage points
since 2004, citing concerns that inflation will pick up if not
enough workers are available to fill jobs, driving up the cost
of wages and benefits and ultimately the prices consumers pay.
Worker shortages already are apparent or
projected in key areas that have attracted immigrants, including
construction, restaurants, hotels, nursing and home care. Technology
and life-sciences businesses that depend on foreign workers to
fill key technical jobs also are reporting trouble finding workers,
in part because of the tough new restrictions and delays imposed
on legal immigration after the September 11 terrorist attacks.
WHO'S AN AMERICAN?
1600s Most of various tribes scattered
throughout the continent didn't know whether they were Americans
as there was no one to tell them
1774 Continental Congress leaves it to
each state to decide who shall be a voting citizen
1776 Full citizenship to white male property
owners, with six states granting it to all white males whether
they had property or not. Some states had higher property qualifications
than others and some even required membership in a specified
religion.
1781-89 Articles of Confederation accept
in principle that the central government should regulate Indian
affairs.
1789 Secretary of War is placed in charge
of Indians
1790 Naturalization of foreign 'free white
persons' permitted. Women carried the legal status of their husbands.
1795 Naturalization denied free whites
unwilling to give up foreign titles of nobility
1812-21 Six western states join the union
with full white male suffrage. Four of the original states abolish
property requirements
1830 Indian Removal Act passes Congress,
calling for relocation of eastern Indians to a territory west
of the Mississippi River. Cherokees contest it in court, and
in 1832, the Supreme Court decides in their favor, but Andrew
Jackson ignores the decision. From 1831-39, the Five Civilized
tribes of the Southeast are relocated to the Indian Territory.
The Cherokee "Trail of Tears" takes place in 1838-39.
1853-56 United States acquires 174 million
acres of Indian lands through 52 treaties, all of which it will
subsequently break.
1856 North Carolina becomes the last state
to abolish the property requirement. Previous barred Catholics
and non-Christians are enfranchised and in a few states even
immigrants not yet naturalized are allowed to vote.
1857 Under Dred Scott decision, no black
person can be a U.S. citizen.
1858 Stephen Douglas debates Abraham Lincoln,
arguing that "I believe the government was made on the white
basis. I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of
white men and their posterity for ever, and I am in favor of
confining citizenship to white men. . . instead of conferring
it upon negroes, Indians, and other inferior races." Lincoln
disagrees.
1866 Civil Rights Act declares all persons
born in the U.S. - except Indians - to be natural citizens
1869 Territory of Wyoming grants women
suffrage in state elections
1870 15th Amendment is passed: "The
right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of
race, color, or previous condition of servitude." South
deals with the amendment by instituting polls taxes, literacy
tests and grandfather clauses that limit the vote to the offspring
of the formerly enfranchised. Naturalization of black immigrants
(but not Asians) is permitted.
1871 Residents of the District of Columbia
lose the right to vote for mayor and city council as a territorial
form of government with appointed governor is installed
1871 - General Sheridan issues orders forbidding
western Indians to leave reservations without permission of civilian
agents.
1874 Supreme Court rules that it is not
unconstitutional to deny women the right to vote.
1875 Page Law bars entry of Chinese, Japanese,
and "Mongolian" prostitutes, felons, and contract laborers
1878 Chinese are ruled not eligible for
naturalized citizenship
1882 Chinese Exclusion Law suspends immigration
of laborers for ten years. Late 19th century exclusion from naturalization
includes prostitutes, convicted felons, lunatics, polygamists
and persons likely to be a 'public charge' Early 20th century
exclusion from naturalization includes anarchists, communists,
and the illiterate.
1902 Chinese exclusion is extended for
another ten years.
1904 Chinese exclusion is made indefinite
1915 Eleven states have given women the
right to vote
1918 Servicemen of Asian ancestry who served
in World War I receive right of naturalization
1919 American Indian soldiers and sailors
receive citizenship.
1920 The 20th Amendment, giving women the
right to vote, is ratified
1923 Asian Indians ruled not eligible for
naturalized citizenship.
1924 Congress gives the right to vote to
original Americans, the Indians.
1940 Congress passes Nationalities Act
granting citizenship to all Native Americans without diluting
tribal authority.
1941 After declaring war on Japan, 10,000
Japanese-Americans along Pacific Coast states and Hawaii are
rounded up and interned in Department of Justice camps.
1943 The Chinese Exclusion Act is repealed.
The annual immigration quota for Chinese is set at 105.
1945 The War Brides Act permits immigration
of Asian spouses and children of American servicemen in the war.
1946 Luce-Celler bill grants right of naturalization
and small immigration quotas to Asian Indians and Filipinos
1949 5000 highly educated Chinese in the
U.S. granted refugee status after China institutes a Communist
government.
1952 One clause of the McCarran-Walter
Act grants the right of naturalization and a small immigration
quota to Japanese.
1957 Utah becomes the last state to permit
Indians to vote
1965 Immigration Law abolishes "national
origins" as basis for allocating immigration quotas to various
countries - Asian countries now on equal footing.
1974 Residents of the District of Columbia
regain the right to vote for mayor and city council lost over
a century earlier but still lack voting representation in Congress
or real power over their budget and criminal justice system.
FEBRUARY 2007
IMMIGRANTS SHOVED INTO INHUMAN CONDITIONS
TO AID PRISON INDUSTRY PROFITS
UTNE - According to Deepa Fernandes of
Corp Watch, immigrants are the fastest growing prison population
in the United States today, with courts processing 350,000 immigrants
in fiscal year 2005. Those numbers translate to dollar signs
for a prison industry that only six years ago was wallowing in
a $1 billion debt. But that, Fernandes reports, was before a
post-9/11 border crackdown, and before the "government began
to target non-citizens with mass arrests during sweeps through
immigrant communities."
Now the increase in detainees is winning
the prison industry contracts to build new prisons to house them.
And the influx of incarcerated immigrants has the added business
value of providing prisons with a cheap labor force; since the
Department of Homeland Security restricts non-citizen prisoners
from earning more than a $1 a day, the prisons get maintenance
workers and janitors for a pittance. "The war on drugs has
conveniently become a war on immigrants," Tucson attorney
and human rights activist Isabel García told CorpWatch,
"and there is a lot of money to be made in detaining immigrants."
Beyond the staggering numbers of incarcerated
immigrants are the equally alarming imprisonment conditions.
Take, for example, the "tent city" that has been constructed
in Raymondville, Texas, to house 2,000 detained immigrants. Within
the confines of the windowless tents, detainees incur a 23-hour-a-day
lock down, and, as Corp Watch notes (citing a recent Washington
Post article), immigrants are "often with insufficient food,
clothing, medical care, and access to telephones." Immigrant
detainees can be held for months, even years, and, as Democracy
Now! reports, many are denied legal assistance.
http://www.utne.com/webwatch/2007_288/news/12455-1.html
JANUARY 2007
AMERICA THE CRUEL: THE ICE RAIDS
RICH
STOLZ, NEW AMERICA MEDIA - In a matter of hours, more than
1,000 federal agents arrested a total of 1,282 workers across
the country, brutally disrupting the daily life of hundreds of
families, the economies of their communities and Swift &
Company's business operations.
Hundreds of families in communities
like Greeley, Colorado and Marshalltown, Iowa endured the holiday
season without their loved ones, not knowing where their relatives
were being taken and fearing for the safety and future of family
members who were driven away in small fleets of white Department
of Homeland Security buses. . .
Those detained are now rapidly
going through a nightmarish and expanding immigrant detention
system. Civil rights advocates have raised serious concerns about
the denial of basic due process, fair trials and appeals processes.
They also questioned expedited removal processes that separate
families with no concern for the consequences on loved ones that
are left behind.
Within the [raided] plants, federal
agents resorted to racial profiling. The Salt Lake Tribune reported
that non-Latinos and people with lighter skin were plucked out
of line and given blue bracelets. The rest, mostly Latinos with
brown skin, waited until they were cleared or arrested. One shaken
witness quoted in the article, a United States citizen, said
she was put in the line because of the color of her skin. Union
leaders said that out of nearly 1,300 workers arrested, federal
authorities held warrants for only 170. Beyond these 170 workers,
ICE actions resembled a racially profiled witch-hunt.
SEPTEMBER 2006
IMMIGRANTS AND THE LABOR MOVEMENT
RUTH MILKMAN BOSTON REVIEW -
The late-20th-century transformation of work through de-unionization
and restructuring, as well as the influx of immigrants into low-wage
employment, were national and global rather than local or regional
developments. . . Contrary to the claims of some commentators
that the influx of impoverished immigrants precipitated the deterioration
of wages, benefits, and working conditions in service, construction,
and other blue-collar jobs, the timing suggests that the causality
runs in the opposite direction: immigrants were hired mainly
in the years after the jobs in question had been degraded by
de-unionization and restructuring. The details vary by industry,
but employers' vigorous efforts to de-unionize workplaces in
the 1970s and 1980s led native-born workers to abandon jobs as
unions were weakened, wages declined and benefits and job security
evaporated. Only then did immigrants move into the now-vacant
positions. And soon afterward, contrary to the conventional wisdom,
the foreign-born work force proved to be a key factor facilitating
union renewal in the region.
Unions have not always been pessimistic
about immigrants - in fact, they have relied on them for leadership
and growth throughout U.S. history. During its formative years,
organized labor's growth was predicated largely on recruiting
immigrants and their offspring, who made up a huge proportion
of the working class in the urban and industrial regions of the
country that were the primary sites of union-building. In the
New Deal years, ironically, U.S. labor leaders were disproportionately
foreign-born themselves, even when anti-immigrant sentiments
within the unions were at their height. . .
But this history had been largely
obliterated from public memory by the 1970s and 1980s, when mass
immigration resumed. . .
However, by the late 1980s, as
more and more organizers began to grasp the potential for immigrant
unionization, the once conventional wisdom about "unorganizability"
began to dissolve. Indeed, in Los Angeles, and sometimes elsewhere
as well, unionists were increasingly persuaded that foreign-born
workers were actually far easier to recruit than natives, and
by the 1990s that revisionist view would be widely echoed in
public commentary as well as inside the labor movement. . .
Moreover, national data suggest
that Latinos have more positive attitudes toward unionization
than most other ethnic groups. In the 1994 national Worker Representation
and Participation Survey, for example, 51 percent of Latino respondents
nationwide (regardless of nativity) who were not union members
indicated that they would vote for a union if a representation
election were held in their workplaces, compared to 35 percent
of non-Latinos. The figures were similar for Asian-American respondents,
49 percent of whom said they would vote for a union, compared
to 35 percent of non-Asians. African-American respondents expressed
even stronger support for unionism, with 64 percent indicating
that they would vote for a union, compared to 32 percent of non-African-American
respondents. Although Latinos are not quite as pro-union as African-Americans,
both groups are consistently more positive toward unionism than
whites.
http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/milkman.html
EIGHT CITIES DECLARE THEMSELVES IMMIGRANT
SANCTUARIES
UPI -
The mayor of a suburban San Diego city says he wants to turn
his city into a "sanctuary city" for undocumented immigrants.
National City Mayor Nick Inzunza said the designation would forbid
all city employees and law enforcement officers from inquiring
into a person's immigration status and from enforcing federal
immigration laws. The proposal has raised the ire of City Council
members, who said they were surprised Inzunza made the announcement
in a National Public Radio interview last week, The San Diego
Union-Tribune reported. "Doing this sanctuary thing, to
me that just sounds like a lot of fluff," said Councilman
Ron Morrison. "What are we, Berkeley?" Berkeley actually
is not among a growing number of cities in California that have
declared themselves sanctuary cities. Others include Maywood,
Pomona, Huntington Park and Coachella. Outside the state, El
Paso, Texas; Tulsa, Okla.; Portland, Maine; and Cambridge, Mass.,
have declared themselves sanctuary cities.
JUNE 2006
THE ECONOMIC ROOTS OF BORDER PROBLEMS
PATRICK OSIO, JR, HISPANIC VISTA
- - The roots of most political problems exist where there is
an economic disparity between the two divided nations. The greater
the disparity, the greater the political problem. Thus when the
problems are not cultural or language, rather economic disparity,
it makes little difference what the names or world locations
of neighboring countries. So North Korea is to China what Mexico
is to the US; Lesotho is to South Africa what Mexico is to the
US; Guatemala is to Mexico what Mexico is to the US, and on it
goes.
When there is no economic disparity,
the political problems between countries are mostly based on
historical issues, commercial rivalries and in modern times,
environmental issues. . . The economic disparity between the
peoples of Canada and the US is of little consequence thus the
political problems based on the border as a dividing line were,
prior to the 9/11 terrorist attack, for the most part non existent,
though there are Canadians living and working illegally in the
US. . .
Along the US-Mexico border the
situations is dramatically different. . . Unskilled or semi-skilled
factory workers in the US earn $11.30 an hour; in Mexico $1.13.
A US skilled factory worker earns $16.90 an hour; in Mexico $2.79.
An office building janitor in the US earns $9.37 an hour; in
Mexico $0.87. A US store clerk earns $8.91 an hour; in Mexico
$1.67. A US plumber earns $26.97 an hour; in Mexico $2.50.
How long do workers in the above
job examples have to work for some basic staples like: half-gallon
milk; 10-tortilla pack; 1-lb butter; 1-lb Cheddar cheese; 1.42-liter
corn oil; 1-lb potatoes; 1-whole chicken; 1-dozen eggs? The US
factory worker: 1-hour 45-minutes - Mexican worker: 9-hours 16-minutes
. . .
For millions of Mexicans their
earnings, if they have jobs, do not provide sufficient income
to provide the basic necessities to support a family, so they
cross the political line without official permission in search
of economic opportunity, and most find it rather easily. Due
to the massive numbers crossing a political problem has been
created in the US. The economic disparity in wages coupled with
job availability in the US are the root problems of the political
problem between the US and Mexico. So what does America, the
country made great by immigrants, propose doing to solve the
root problems? Build fences and militarizes the border, declare
those desperate souls felons, criminalize aiding them in any
way, deny their children education, prohibit renting them shelter
and classify them as terrorists to ease the American conscience.
. .
http://HispanicVista.com
WARNING: FOREIGN VISITORS NO LONGER
SAFE IN U.S.
"Lawyers in the suit. .
. said parts of the ruling could potentially be used . . . to
detain any non-citizen in the United States for any reason."
NINA BERNSTEIN, NY TIMES - A
federal judge in Brooklyn ruled yesterday that the government
has wide latitude under immigration law to detain non-citizens
on the basis of religion, race or national origin, and to hold
them indefinitely without explanation. The ruling came in a class-action
lawsuit by Muslim immigrants detained after 9/11. . . This is
the first time a federal judge has addressed the issue of discrimination
in the treatment of hundreds of Muslim immigrants who were swept
up in the weeks after the 2001 terror attacks and held for months
before they were cleared of links to terrorism and deported.
The roundups drew intense criticism, not only from immigrant
rights advocates, but also from the inspector general of the
Justice Department, who issued reports saying that the government
had made little or no effort to distinguish between genuine suspects
and Muslim immigrants with minor visa violations. Lawyers in
the suit, who vowed to appeal yesterday's decision, said parts
of the ruling could potentially be used far more broadly, to
detain any non-citizen in the United States for any reason.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/15/nyregion/15detain.html
THOSE DAMN ENGLISH-SPEAKING, HARD-WORKING,
FAMILY VALUING IMMIGRANTS
TYLER COWEN AND DANIEL M. ROTHSCHILD,
WASHINGTON POST - Despite claims to the contrary, census data
show that most Latino immigrants learn and speak English quite
well. Only about 2.5 percent of American residents speak Spanish
but not English. . . Only 7 percent of the children of Latino
immigrants speak Spanish as a primary language, and virtually
none of their children do. . .
The family has long been the
core social unit in America, and immigrants share that value.
Census data show that 62 percent of immigrants over age 15 are
married, compared to 52 percent of natives. Only 6 percent of
Latino adults are divorced, compared with 10 percent of whites
and 12 percent of African Americans. Latino immigrants are more
likely to live in multigenerational households rather than just
visiting grandparents a couple of times a year. . .
Immigrants from Central and South
America share the American predilection for hard work and economic
advancement. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate
that Hispanic men are more likely than white men to be in the
labor force. . .
James P. Smith of Rand Corp.
has shown that the children and grandchildren of Latino immigrants
come very close to closing educational and income gaps with native
whites. This is the same as it has always been in American immigration:
Newcomers know what keeps them outside the mainstream and work
hard to make sure that their children do better. . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/11/AR2006061100922.html
WHO'S MORE ILLEGAL HERE? BILL O'REILLY
& GEORGE BUSH OR A DESCENDANT OF AZTECS AND INCAS?
ROBERT MIRANDA, HISPANIC VISTA
- Mexicans come from 10,000 years of human history and all of
it in the conquered lands now known in history books as Mesoamerica
and the United States of North America. Puerto Ricans, Cubans,
Columbians and all the ethnic peoples that make up Latin America
and the Caribbean basin come from native tribes that flourished
long before the invasion of the Spanish Europeans and the introduction
of African slaves into this Hemisphere. . .
Latinos are a people who remember
our ancestry. We know that the lands that were taken after the
Indian Wars and the Mexican - American War, are ancestral lands
that many Mexicans consider to this day as part of their ancient
history.
Who you calling "illegal?"
The Aztecs and Incas, Apache,
the Comanche, Pueblo Indians and all the native people who for
thousands of years harvested these lands and built cities, and
lived free under their own set of laws and rules, thrived and
prospered. . .
These lands stolen by the greed
and manipulations and war of those who arrived on ships from
Europe, and then began stealing land that was never theirs, today
have descendents who have inherited their wealth from this theft
and have turned to the descendents of the native people and have
called them "illegal".
Who you calling "illegal?"
The blood of Geronimo, Orocobix,
Cochise and Pope, of the Pueblo Indians reminds us conscious
Latinos - Chicanos of our legacy and ancient history. I'm supposed
to surrender this history because Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh and
Milwaukee's local right-wing talking heads say that I must? .
. .
Who you calling "illegal"?
http://www.hispanicvista.com/HVC/Columnist/posiojr/051006osio2.htm
MAY 2006
CUT IMMIGRATION, LOSE VALEDICTORIANS
SQUARING THE GLOBE - The Boston Globe website published the
pictures of each valedictorian in Boston's high schools and other
high school programs. As you thumb through the pictures, it is
striking how many of these students are immigrants. . . The Globe
listed the country of birth for each student. For some US-born
students I guessed that they were 2nd generation immigrants (for
instance if they were Vietnamese). Almost 2/3 of the Boston valedictorians
are either immigrants or children of immigrants. From my analysis:
here is the breakdown of the 38 valedictorians:
1st or 2nd generation US 63.2%
Later than 2nd generation US 32.8%
Born in the US 52.6%
Born overseas 47.4%
OVER HALF THE FOREST FIRE FIGHTERS IN
NORTHWEST ARE IMMIGRANTS
KIRK JOHNSON, NY TIMES - The
debate over immigration, which has filtered into almost every
corner of American life in recent months, is now sweeping through
the woods, and the implications could be immense for the coming
fire season in the West. As many as half of the roughly 5,000
private firefighters based in the Pacific Northwest and contracted
by state and federal governments to fight forest fires are immigrants,
mostly from Mexico. And an untold number of them are working
here illegally. A recent report by the inspector general for
the United States Forest Service said illegal immigrants had
been fighting fires for several years. The Forest Service said
in response that it would work with immigration and customs enforcement
officers and the Social Security Administration to improve the
process of identifying violators. . .
Some Hispanic contractors say
the state and federal changes could cause many immigrants, even
those here legally, to stay away from the jobs. Other forestry
workers say firefighting jobs may simply be too important - and
too hard to fill - to allow for a crackdown on illegal workers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/us/28fire.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
WOMEN LEADING MANY IMMIGRATION GROUPS
PUENG VONGS, NEW AMERICA MEDIA - The movement for comprehensive immigration
reform has sent oceans of people to the streets nationwide, and
women have emerged as leaders of this upsurge. "Many immigration
advocacy groups across the nation are led by women," says
Lillian Galedo, executive director with Filipinos for Affirmative
Action in Oakland, part of the National Network for Immigration
and Refugee Rights. . .
Emma Lozano, executive director
of Centro Sin Fronteras in Chicago, has been working for immigrant
rights since 1983. For nine months she asked Spanish-language
radio deejays to speak out against tough anti-immigrant bills.
The result was a Chicago protest on July 1, 2005 that gathered
50,000. That followed later with the first major protest in early
March in Chicago, which drew 300,000 and put the movement on
the map. On May Day she helped turn out 400,000 people in Chicago.
. .
The number of female immigrants,
legal and illegal, worldwide rose from 46 percent in 1960 to
49 percent in 2000, according to a United Nations report. In
Europe, Latin American and North America, women make up more
than half of the immigrant population. The Pew Hispanic Center
says of the 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United
States, 4 million of them are women. That also means that a greater
number of them are being caught in immigration crackdowns.
APRIL 2006
OTHER IMMIGRATION POLICIES THAT HAVEN'T
WORKED
Under penalty of death, no Irish
man, woman, or child, is to let himself, herself, itself be found
east of the River Shannon. - Order of Parliament, 1654
BLAMING IMMIGRANTS FOR GLOBALIZATION
THE IMMIGRATION issue is getting
its legs in no small part from a successful transfer of blame
for job loss from globalization to immigration. Honest statistics
are hard to come by, but you can be fairly certain when a chronic
problem becomes an instant crisis, there is far more than data
driving it.
Consider, for example, a recent
speech by Stewart Acuff, organizing director of the AFL-CIO in
which he points out:
"The passage of NAFTA forced
the Mexican government to end subsidies on the growing of corn
and beans. So farmers couldn't afford to grow basic foods and
workers couldn't afford to buy. And we wonder at the huge increase
in immigration in the last ten years.
"In fact, real manufacturing
wages in Mexico have declined by 9 percent. In the AFL-CIO research
before the FTAA Summit in November of 2003 we found that Mexico
had lost more than 550 factories to China in 18 months, where
wages are 60 cents an hour instead of $2.00 an hour."
But you won't hear about this
in the immigration debate, nor the fact that many of the jobs
that have been lost as a result of the Bush regime have been
the direct result of government laws and not lawless Mexicans.
For example, noted Aucff, "Real
wages for America's workers have been stagnant for 25 years.
In the five years after the passage of NAFTA, the State of Georgia
lost half of its apparel and textile manufacturing jobs destroying
or economically gutting communities like Americus which lost
a 300 job Manhattan shirt plant or Blue Ridge which lost a 500
job Levis plant or Rome which cost a 1,000 job denim plant or
Waycross which lost a 1,000 job Levi plant . . . Finally, our
nation lost three million manufacturing jobs during Bush's first
term - more than in the previous 22 years combined."
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0406-31.htm
HOW MANY IMMIGRANTS?
BRAD KNICKERBOCKER, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR - Based on the
national census in 2000, the US Census Bureau puts the estimate
of illegal immigrants at 8.7 million. As of 2003, the US Citizenship
and Immigration Services put the number at 7 million. Since then,
United States immigration officials have said the number has
grown by as much as 500,000 a year. Those closest to the fight
to protect US borders say the figure is higher. The US Border
Patrol union Local 2544 in Tucson, Ariz., says the total number
of illegal immigrants in the US today is between 12 million and
15 million.
The Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan
research organization in Washington, estimates 11.5 million to
12 million "unauthorized migrants" live in the US today.
It bases its numbers on the "Current Population Survey,"
a monthly assessment of about 50,000 households jointly conducted
by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau because
the government lacks administrative records of their arrival
and departure, and because they tend to be undercounted in the
census and other surveys of the population," wrote the Congressional
Budget Office in 2004. . .
Citing school enrollments, foreign remittances, border crossings,
and housing permits, researchers at Bear Stearns reported "significant
evidence that the census estimates of undocumented immigrants
may be capturing as little as half of the total undocumented
population." There may be as many as 20 million illegal
immigrants in the US today - more than twice the official Census
Bureau estimate, according to Bear Stearns researchers Robert
Justich and Betty Ng.
Whatever the total is, the annual
number of illegal immigrants has exceeded those coming legally
for at least the past 10 years: 700,000 illegally compared with
610,000 legally, according to Pew.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0516/p01s02-ussc.html?s=hns
VOTING AND THE NON-CITIZEN
RON HAYDUK, HISTORY NEWS NETWORK
- Although it's not widely known, non-citizen voting is as old
as the Republic itself and as American as apple pie and baseball.
Non-citizens voted from 1776 until 1926 in forty states and federal
territories in local, state and even federal elections. Non-citizens
also held public office. . .
Historically, voting and citizenship
worked both ways. The right to vote has never been intrinsically
tied to citizenship, which is why women and African Americans
-- who were citizens -- were widely denied the vote until 1920
and 1965, respectively. Voting has always been about who has
a say and who will have influence over the actions of government.
This historical precedent is
making a comeback in some circles today. Currently, non-citizens
vote in local elections in six towns in Maryland and in Chicago
school elections. Over the past decade, non-citizen voting campaigns
have been launched in at least a dozen jurisdictions from coast
to coast, including Washington D.C., California, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Maine, North Carolina, Colorado, Texas, Minnesota
and Wisconsin.
http://hnn.us/articles/24290.html
BLACK AMBIVALENCE ON IMMIGRATION
EARL OFARI HUTCHINSON, NEW AMERICAN MEDIA
- Two things happened
within a day of each other this month that rammed race back into
the debate over illegal immigration. A Field Poll in California
found that blacks by a bigger percentage than whites, and even
American-born Latinos, back liberal immigration reform measures.
The very next day, a spirited group of black activists marched
in front of the Los Angeles office of popular and outspoken black
California House Democrat Maxine Waters, protesting her firm
support of citizenship for illegal immigrants. . .
The Field Poll is accurate, but
only up to a point. The majority of blacks instinctively pull
for the underdog, especially if the underdog is poor and non-white.
The majority of illegal immigrants fit that bill, and much more.
. . .
Blacks also cringe at the thought
that they could be perceived as racial bigots. When pollsters
ask blacks their opinions on issues that deal with civil rights
and racial justice, they reflexively give the response that will
cast them in the most favorable racial light on these issues.
Yet, like many whites, a significant number of blacks privately
express doubts, even animosity, toward illegal immigrants.
The month before the results
of the Field Poll were announced, a poll by the Pew Research
Center found that many blacks were hostile toward illegal immigrants.
The sore point with them was jobs. They blamed illegal immigrants
for worsening the dire plight of young, poor African-American
males. Recent studies by researchers at Harvard, Columbia, and
Princeton, and the Urban League's annual State of Black America
report confirm that black males suffer a jobless rate double
and triple that of white males in some urban areas. Their unemployment
numbers are also substantially higher than those of Latino males.
. .
While civil rights leaders and
black Democrats now firmly support illegal immigrants' rights,
for a long time they were mute on the issue. The Congressional
Black Caucus opposed the Sensenbrenner bill in the House last
December. But it made little effort to expose the punitive and
draconian provisions of the bill, let alone inform and engage
blacks on how illegal immigration impacts their interests. .
.
THE CULTURE OF IMMIGRATION
EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST - I don't think the immigration debate
is about economics . . . It's about culture and it's about fear.Among
other things, it's about this voice-mail message: "Para
continuar en español, oprima el numero 2. To continue
in Spanish, press 2."
Many Anglos in Phoenix and elsewhere
were surprised by the size of the protests two weeks ago, but
the demonstrations were coordinated and publicized in the open,
on Spanish-language radio. Latino immigrants in this recent wave,
whether they intend to stay permanently or just work for a while
and go home, are learning English but also keeping their Spanish
-- and the fact is the United States now has a de facto second
language. That seems to frighten a lot of people. . .
Maybe the real fear is more visceral
. . . Maybe it's that you don't have to extrapolate immigration
and fertility rates very far into the future to see an America
in which minorities -- Hispanic, African and Asian Americans
-- are a majority. To put it another way: an America in which
whites join the rest of us as just another minority. That's already
the case in our two most populous states, California and Texas,
according to the Census Bureau, with others including New York,
Arizona and Florida likely to follow soon. Don't freak out, folks.
It's not the end of the world. You might ask your black neighbors
for advice on how to cope.
JOHN D. GARTNER, WASHINGTON POST If you've been following the big immigration
debate, you might get the impression that the primary economic
advantage of liberal economic immigration policies is that they
supply America with low-wage workers willing to do grueling,
unskilled jobs that native-born Americans won't touch. Not true:
They are the source of America's success.
The secret to America's wealth
is that we were settled by restless, driven, overconfident, risk-taking
dreamers. As I have explained in a book on the subject, these
traits are all signs of a genetically based, mildly manic temperament,
which is not a mental illness, called hypomania. . .
America is an amazing natural
experiment -- a continent populated largely by self-selected
immigrants. All these people had the get-up-and-go to pull up
stakes and come here, a temperament that made them different
from their friends and relatives who stayed home. . .
Not surprisingly, given this
entrepreneurial spirit, immigrants are self-employed at much
higher rates than native-born people, regardless of what nation
they emigrate to or from. . . The four nations with the highest
per capita creation of new companies are the United States, Canada,
Israel and Australia -- all nations of immigrants. New company
creation per capita is a strong predictor of gross domestic product,
and so the conclusion is simple: Immigrants equal national wealth.
. .
Immigrants, [Andrew Carnegie]
wrote, were unusually "capable, energetic and ambitious"
people. They had to be. "The old and the destitute, the
idle and the contented do not brave the waves of the stormy Atlantic,
but sit helplessly at home." . . .
ROLE OF FREE TRADE IN IMMIGRATION INCREASE
IGNORED
CHIAPAS AL DIA, MEXICO - Migrating
from or through Mexico to the United States without visas, 473
persons died last year along the border before reaching their
destination. Most died of exposure to the elements (i.e., they
froze to death in the mountains or died from heat stroke and
dehydration in the desert or they drowned in canals or rivers).
Some were murdered. The 10-year total of border-area migrant
deaths is over 3,000. They died looking for work. Looking for
one of the 4-D jobs (dirty, dangerous, dull, domestic) that Americans
disdain. . .
A fact studiously ignored in
the United States is that the US has promoted the same economic
policies that have wrought disaster. But the chickens have come
home to roost with a vengeance. There has been a significant
upsurge (300% in ten years) of emigration from Mexico and Central
America.
The response in the US has been
a partial gamut of options: beefed-up border security, raising
walls, threats of sanctions to employers who hire undocumented
migrants, persecuting day laborers in Wal-Mart parking lots.
All options are exercised. Except one. The only one that would
make a significant advance in solving the migratory crisis, i.e.,
a thorough revision of economic policies. Open-market, neoliberal
policies enshrined in free-trade agreements make it illegal for
Mexico and the Central American countries to protect certain
strategic and vulnerable parts of their economies. Protecting
economies would entail the use of tariffs and duties to keep
out competing goods from (principally) the United States. Yet
by protecting their economies, countries such as Mexico would
be able to resume successful industrialization programs that
created jobs. Likewise, protecting the rural sector from cheap,
highly subsidized, US agricultural products would help reestablish
livelihoods on small farms, allow people to stay on the land
and preclude the need to migrate to survive.
Yet it appears that exploring
such options, the real root cause of emigration, is verboten
in the United States. It's not even seriously discussed in academic
circles.
http://www.ciepac.org/bulletins/ingles/ing498.htm#tabla1
The immigration myth
IT IS taken as a given in the immigration
debate that our current system for dealing with the issue has
some sort of historical logic. It doesn't. The story of immigration
in the U.S. is a mishmash of hospitality and hatred, encouragement
and restriction.
The Naturalization Act of 1790,
for example, said that "any alien, being a free white person,
may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States."
Blacks, indentured servants, and most women couldn't be citizens
no matter where they came from, but the underlying approach to
immigration would boggle the mind of today's strict constructionists.
If you were a free white male, you came, you saw, and you signed
up. As the Citizenship and Immigration Services describes ti,
"the law required a set period of residence in the United
States prior to naturalization, specifically two years in the
country and one year in the state of residence when applying
for citizenship. When those requirements were met, an immigrant
could file a Petition for Naturalization with "any common
law court of record" having jurisdiction over his residence
asking to be naturalized. Once convinced of the applicant?s good
moral character, the court would administer an oath of allegiance
to support the Constitution of the United States."
The essence of immigration as we
know it today - i.e. the restriction of immigration - didn't
become a major issue until the Chinese exclusion Act of 1882,
hardly something of which Americans should be proud. This was
the period of the great post-reconstruction counter revolution
during which corporations gained enormous power but the rest
of America and its citizens lost it.
The counter-revolution was not only
an attack on would-be immigrants, it was aimed at American ethnic
groups who had proved far too successful at adding to their political
clout in places like Boston and New York City.
Richard Croker, a tough 19th century
county boss of Tammany Hall, grew almost lyrical when he spoke
of his party's duty to immigrants:
"They do not speak our language,
they do not know our laws, they are the raw material with which
we have to build up the state . . . There is no denying the service
which Tammany has rendered to the republic. There is no such
organization for taking hold of the untrained, friendless man
and converting him into a citizen. Who else would do it if we
did not? . . . [Tammany] looks after them for the sake of their
vote, grafts them upon the Republic, makes citizens of them."
Alexander B. Callow Jr. of the University
of California has written that Boston pol Martin Lomansey even
met every new immigrant ship and "helped the newcomers find
lodging or guided them to relatives. James Michael Curley set
up nationalization classes to prepare newcomers for the citizenship
examination . . . Friendly judges, anticipating election day,
converted their courts into naturalization mills, grinding out
a thousand new Americans a day. . . . Flags were waved, prose
turned purple, celebrations were wild on national holidays. .
. . Patriotism became a means for the newcomer to prove himself
worthy."
By 1891 the federal government had
assumed control of admitting or rejecting all immigrants and
one year later Ellis island opened. By 1903 we had a law restricting
Mexican laborers and during and after World I, laws were expanded
greatly including a ban on all Asians save the Japanese.
We did not have the equivalent of
a green card until 1940 and the actual card of that name only
came in during the anti-communist hysteria of the 1950s. What
we think of as our immigration system is in no small part a leftover
from the McCarthy era.
It is common today to discuss immigration
as though it were primarily an employment and economic matter.
The trouble with this claim is that many of the people who are
most anti-immigration are the same who have caused infinitely
more economic harm to the country through globalization and outsourcing.
In truth, what really scares the
exclusionists is the politics of immigrants, potentially more
progressive than they would like. From Nordic populists in the
northern middle west to European socialists, to the right immigration
has meant left.
This, of course, isn't always true
as in the case of Cuba but it helps to make the debate a bit
clearer to understand what it is about.
In the end, we don't really have
an immigration policy but an exclusion policy, outsourcing our
prejudices by not letting their targets enter the country. |