Contemporary Perspectives on Immigration

By Andy Urban, PhD candidate in History at the University of Minnesota. IHRC Affiliated Faculty

A recent article in the Economist [link] attempts to complicate the current debate surrounding immigration by reiterating the point that undocumented immigrants typically do not compete with native-born Americans for the same jobs. The article focuses on Jim Pederson, a Democratic candidate for senator from Arizona. Pederson has been touting a guest worker program as a “sensible” alternative to the impossible task of securing and closing-off the border with Mexico. In part, the Economist article draws from a scholarly report recently published in Foreign Affairs by Tamar Jacoby [link], a member of the conservative Manhattan Institute think-tank. Jacoby critiques the arguments of her conservative counterparts seeking to restrict immigration by asserting that, “The market mechanisms that connect U.S. demand with foreign supply, particularly from Latin America, are surprisingly efficient.” Essentially Jacoby promotes a free market approach to immigration, whereby a cheap labor supply from abroad will provide construction and service sectors with a labor supply that they cannot attract from the native-born American population.

While these economic arguments surrounding immigration are appealing in part because they provide the empirical evidence for countering claims that “immigrants steal American jobs,” they can also make the historian of migration a bit queasy. Historically, the free market has consistently been invoked as the natural rationale for bringing in foreign labor. While immigrants from across the world benefited from the opportunity to work in American factories and in other jobs, business leaders’ notion of the “free market” also meant that at times immigrant workers were used to weaken unions or lower the wage standard. Today, when a free market scholar such as Jacob invokes efficiency one has to wonder to what extent she is using shorthand for “finding the cheapest labor possible.” Similarly, guest worker programs have the potential to function as a means of regulating immigration in a manner that benefits both undocumented immigrants and their employers – but only if these guest worker programs allow workers the right to negotiate the conditions of their employment, to redress poor treatment, and to join unions and other organizations (by way of snide comment, it would be nice if American citizens had these rights as well).

Switching gears…an interesting article from the Anchorage Daily News [link] looks at the relationship between Mormon missionaries and Anchorage, Alaska’s growing Hmong population. As the article notes, “For the young and converted, taking on Mormon beliefs is often bound up with a desire to fit into American society, and to succeed.” This echoes the argument of the anthropologist, Aihwa Ong, who documented in her book Buddha is Hiding, the manner in which Christian agencies intervened in the lives of Asian refugees seeking to resettle in the United States. Ong points out that refugees first encounter Christian missionaries and social workers when they are still in refugee camps, and this connection continues to the United States, informing the manner in which refugees are socially assimilated to American life. To some refugees, Christianity offers a strategy for social incorporation, albeit a strategy that forces them to make cultural choices that can be at odds with their traditions.

Finally, an article in the Houston Chronicle [link] calls attention to a creative means of overcoming language difficulties, in a manner that benefits both tourists and immigrants. San Francisco is piloting a program where non-English speakers will have instant access to a translator via a toll free number. These translators will be available to help non-English speakers communicate with municipal agencies, as well as to connect with businesses that agreed to help fund the program. Maybe the market is not so bad after all…

________________________

Andy Urban is a PhD candidate in History at the University of Minnesota, and a member of the IHRC Advisory Council. His research focuses on Irish and Chinese domestic servants in the late-nineteenth century United States.
Contact Information: urba0090@umn.edu

Visit us on the Web: http://www.ihrc.umn.edu
To receive email notices about events at the IHRC: http://www.ihrc.umn.edu/about/e-notice.htm

Posted by Sylvie Thao at 11:36 AM | Permalink

By Andy Urban, PhD candidate in History at the University of Minnesota. IHRC Affiliated Faculty

Although such numbers are completely arbitrary as exact measurements, this week the 300 millionth American will be enumerated. For nearly 40 years, Robert Ken Woo Jr. has held the honor of being designated the 200 millionth American. As this article in the Pioneer Press notes ("Quiet reign of 200 millionth American about to end"), his lifetime achievements, such as graduating from Harvard Law School and becoming the first Asian American partner at a prestigious Atlanta law firm, have been documented and shared as public information. Despite Woo’s Asian-American background, his birth in 1967 was celebrated, President Lyndon Johnson was on hand for his entrance into the world, and his accomplishments have generally been feted. If someone is actually declared the 300 millionth American they will not likely be embraced with the same celebratory attitude. Since immigration will likely produce the 300 millionth American, and with widespread concerns that immigrants are weakening the nation’s culture and heritage, as the Pioneer Press notes, “the fraught politics of immigration and population growth may explain why, unlike LBJ, President Bush has no plans to be standing in front of the Population Clock when 300 million rolls into view.”

An article in the Wall Street Journal (“Uphill Climb: Registering Hispanics to Vote”) examines efforts to register Hispanic voters for the 2006 election and the presidential election in 2008. As the article notes, many immigrants from Mexico and Central America are primarily concerned with navigating the hurdles of naturalization, with voting coming as an after-thought. A remarkable 9.4 million Hispanics living in the United States are eligible to become citizens and vote, a number that could dramatically alter the political landscape and the manner in which the two main parties tailor their messages. In 2004, while President Bush failed to capture the majority of the Hispanic vote, the Democrats received a smaller proportion of the total vote then they had in the two previous elections. Younger Hispanic voters, in part politicized by rallies and anti-immigrant rhetoric, are expected to vote more solidly Democrat. As has been the case throughout the United States’ history, unions and community network groups – ostensibly non-partisan due to their non-profit status – will take the main responsibility for organizing Hispanic citizens to vote.

Providing context to the previous article, a recent piece in the Dallas Morning News ("Mexican, American - or both?") attempts to explain why Mexicans living in the United States have not aggressively pursued United States citizenship. One reason is that Mexican law allows Mexicans living abroad to vote in national elections. Perhaps a deeper reason why Mexicans who have lived in the United States for multiple decades, yet do not seek to become citizens, has its roots in the cultural sense of belonging. Although legal citizenship may not require sole allegiance to the English language and a withdrawal from the politics of an immigrant’s homeland, cultural forces typically attempt to frame citizenship in such a manner. Legal citizenship in the United States is often viewed as a practical measure for Mexicans, but one that has little meaning in terms of becoming assimilated. As a Mexican American businessman in Dallas commented, “I don't think it is so easy to change to a citizenship one doesn't really feel. Very few do it with conviction; they do it for migratory reasons.”

______________________________________

Andy Urban is a PhD candidate in History at the University of Minnesota, and a member of the IHRC Advisory Council. His research focuses on Irish and Chinese domestic servants in the late-nineteenth century United States.
Contact Information: urba0090@umn.edu

Visit us on the Web: http://www.ihrc.umn.edu
To receive email notices about events at the IHRC: http://www.ihrc.umn.edu/about/e-notice.htm

Posted by Sylvie Thao at 10:55 AM | Permalink

By Louis Mendoza, associate professor and chair of the Department of Chicano Studies at the University of Minnesota. IHRC Affiliated Faculty.

This week’s immigration news was dominated by proclamations either celebrating or condemning President Bush’s signing into law a new homeland security bill that includes a 1.2 billion dollar appropriation for building 700 miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border to stem unauthorized immigration.

In statements made upon signing the bill, the president continues a rhetorical strategy that walks a tightrope between liberal and conservative views on immigration reform by claiming a middle ground that links border security and terrorism and ignores the underlying social and economic issues that undergird the ongoing national debates on immigration reform: "It's what the people in this country want," Bush said. "They want to know that we are modernizing the border so we can better secure the border." (Bush signs homeland security bill). What he also fails to acknowledge is the international disdain for the U.S. precipitated by this extreme measure that threatens to strain not only U.S.-Mexico relations (U.S. Border Fence Plan Upsets Mexicans), but the U.S.’s reputation throughout Latin America and the rest of the world. Though the total number of deaths of immigrants crossing the border extra-legally was down from 446 to 426 this past year, numerous news reports noted the potential of the law’s passage to have deathly consequences for immigrants who, as a result of the new wall, are likely to be forced to try evermore dangerous routes through the desert to cross into the U.S. (Migrant deaths down along border).

Perhaps due to the inability of national leaders to provide leadership by finding a middle ground in the debate and passing legislation representing the broad range of perspectives, new strategies have emerged at the local level to try and address the controversial issue. Like the debates in Congress, local enforcement initiatives in Carpentersville, Illinois and Escondido, California, expose a seemingly irreconcilable social divide that raises more questions than they answer—questions that are not easily addressed if looked at only through the lens of enforcement. This is especially true, when legislation like those in these initiatives seem to be driven by a desire to return to an era preceding this last great wave of immigration. Both communities passed legislation this past week making it a crime for landlords to rent to undocumented immigrants. The Carpentersville initiative takes enforcement to a new level by including provisions that punish businesses and landlords who employ, do business with or rent to undocumented immigrants. Needless to say, local commercial interests are not supportive of the ordinance, and believe that it will hurt the village’s financial standing in a variety of ways (Concerns Grow Over Village's Immigration Ordinance). In both cities, the ordinances sparked great controversy about the “inhumanity” of such restrictions. In Escondido, a city of 142,000 where 42% of the population is Latino, “residents, businesses and city officials can file written complaints with the city if they suspect a landlord is renting to illegal immigrants. Complaints based ‘solely or primarily on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, or race shall be deemed invalid,’ the ordinance says.” In contrast, the mayor of nearby National City declared the city an immigrant sanctuary last week. (Escondido council OKs immigration ordinance).

Rapid demographic change has obliged many regions of the country that were once primarily bi-racial or racially homogenous to reflect on the social and cultural changes occurring around them. In some parts of Georgia, where the racial divide has traditionally been black and white, the enormous influx of Latino immigrants, has resulted in tension between these two communities as they compete for jobs and confront media stereotypes and ignorance about each other despite a shared history of racial discrimination from mainstream society (A Racial Rift That Isn’t Black and White). Whether it is in Baptist churches in Georgia or in the Church of Latter Day Saints in Utah, in religious leaders across the country are discovering that they have an important role to play in facilitating respectful and cohesive relationships within congregations that are becoming increasingly diverse. For congregations like the LDS, the changing population is to be embraced, not shunned. "Latinos will represent more than 50 percent in the LDS Church by the year 2020" (After a 'culture of continuity). Unlike many places in the country where intense xenophobia has emerged due to rapid change, an otherwise conservative Utah has, until now, mostly welcomed new arrivals with open arms. However, some of the socially progressive policies they have adopted like driving privilege cards and in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants are under attack by the local Minutemen chapter (Immigrants turn Utah into mini-melting pot).

It’s fairly clear that we can’t create the world we want to live in by legislative decree alone. Though policy is the purview of politicians, we must be mindful that they should be taking the lead from those they represent and not get mired down by myopic media sound bites and the next election on the horizon. Bridges connect, walls divide. The legal and material questions at stake in the immigration debate are worth our most serious consideration; so, too, are the kind of culture and society we create as we redefine ourselves in relation to others through this process.
____________________________________________________

Louis Mendoza
Associate Professor
Department of Chicano Studies Chair
University of Minnesota
19 Scott Hall
72 Pleasant Street, Minneapolis 55455
Office: 612-624-8031
Email: lmendoza@umn.edu

Visit us on the Web: http://www.ihrc.umn.edu
To receive email notices about events at the IHRC: http://www.ihrc.umn.edu/about/e-notice.htm

Posted by Sylvie Thao at 09:25 AM | Permalink

By Andy Urban, PhD candidate in History at the University of Minnesota. IHRC Affiliated Faculty

As the November election approaches, immigration remains a key topic of debate. It can be a bit disconcerting how decisions and policy changes that will potentially affect millions of humans, seem to be implemented with an immediacy that belies months of inaction. There is nothing quite like the fear of losing office to get politicians to act; unfortunately, campaign politics do not always display the type of nuance that would best serve such important decisions.

The New York Times describes Congress’s recent bill to allow for $1.2 billion to be allocated to the Department of Homeland Security, which will use the money to build a 700-mile fence and a “so-called virtual fence made up of cameras and sensors” along the United States-Mexico border (Lawmakers Agree to Spend $1.2 Billion on Tightening Border). Absent from this article, and perhaps from Congressional discussions on the border, is whether the fence will be more effective in preventing immigrants from entering the country, or will it simply make crossings more dangerous. Robert Frost’s poetic statement that “good fences make good neighbors,” has often been misinterpreted. A deeper reading of the poem reveals that “good fences” allow neighbors to avoid confronting the issues that they mutually must address.

Locally, Governor Tim Pawlenty and other Republicans in Minnesota have alleged that undocumented immigrants are illegally voting in elections, and have proposed measures to require voters to show picture identification when voting (State Republicans turn spotlight on immigrants). According to Pawlenty, 32 non-citizen immigrants have registered to vote in elections since 2004 and 11 have actually voted. The DFL has accused Pawlenty of using this as an election-year “gimmick,” and point out that 32 voters represent 0.00103 percent of registered voters in the state. One might add that the Republican Party’s recent involvement in various incidents of disenfranchisement in national elections hardly makes it the moral stalwart when it comes to fair democratic processes.

Also of local interest, the Homeland Securtiy Department recently declared Liberia to be stabilized, meaning that Liberians living in the United States will lose their temporary protected status as refugees. The Twin Cities have one of the largest Liberian populations in the country, and many seem to think that the designation of Liberia as being “stable” is a bit premature (Many Liberians to lose their status to stay in the U.S.). The capital, Monrovia, is still without electricity or running water and displays many of the lasting effects of the Civil War that killed more then 250,000 people in that country. An interesting article in the Liberian Times takes a more historical look at the significance of the return of Liberians living abroad. The article notes how the intial colonizers of Liberia, freed African slaves from the United States, were at odds culturally and otherwise with the native inhabitants. The article speculates whether Liberian emigres returning with greater capital, education, and experience might be greeted with similar hostility (Liberia: Back to Africa).

From the “sick to the stomach” department, an Indiana University editorial rightly denounces conservative student groups at Michigan State and the University of Michigan that have created a “Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day,” where students hold a contest to see who can capture a student pretending to be an “illegal” immigrant quickest ('Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day' ). Yuck. To end on a positive note, there are people out there doing more creative and positive things in regards to immigration. A recent exhibit that opened in Arizona displays photos taken along the border. Artists with the “Border Film Project” distributed 600 disposable cameras to would-be immigrants in Northern Mexico, as well as to Minutemen border “volunteers” in Arizona (Arizona photo show snaps immigration in the raw). The resulting photos literally show two sides of the issue, and the stark desert terrain that separates them. The exhibit will be on display in Phoenix until late-January at which point it will be travelling nationally. Let’s hope it makes it to Minnesota.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andy Urban is a PhD candidate in History at the University of Minnesota, and a member of the IHRC Advisory Council. His research focuses on Irish and Chinese domestic servants in the late-nineteenth century United States.
Contact Information: urba0090@umn.edu

Visit us on the Web: http://www.ihrc.umn.edu
To receive email notices about events at the IHRC: http://www.ihrc.umn.edu/about/e-notice.htm

Posted by Sylvie Thao at 09:10 AM | Permalink