The evolving dynamics of immigration and its impact in this area are fascinating to observe. Taking a ride on the local bus system in Alexandria, Arlington, Falls Church, or Annandale is like shuttling between events at the United Nations. The spectrum of languages, attire, appearances, and more is a potent demonstration that this region contains one of the nation’s most broadly diverse populations. Some excellent research and analysis of this has been done by George Washington University’s Marie Price and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Audrey Singer (see, for example, The World in a Zip Code). As they have noted, the extraordinary heterogeneity and dispersion of the foreign born here don’t fit neatly into patterns and norms of settlement, past or present.

What does, however, ring familiar is a counter response to the growing non-native population. Interestingly, the locus of intensity for this reaction isn’t to be found in Fairfax and Arlington Counties, with the greatest number and percentage of foreign born, but in neighboring Prince William County, on the outer ring of suburban DC. And intense it has been. In October of last year, the county board enacted measures aimed at curtailing illegal immigration, including a policy that directs police to check the residency status of any criminal suspects they believe might have entered the country unlawfully. Almost no day goes by without some news coverage pertaining to this decision, its after effects, and its varied reception by locals. (For a couple of the most recent items in the Washington Post, see:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/27/AR2008042702432.html
and
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/20/AR2008042002136.html.)

As I sat down to make note of these circumstances, I received in the mail a little piece of analog comfort food to offset what sometimes feels like an unrelenting electronic diet – the latest publication catalog from the University of Illinois Press with history-related titles. Besides being thankfully reminded that knowledge still, indeed, can come from books and not just new media, I felt a little tinge of sadness to think, I believe accurately, that so many of the really exceptional-looking volumes listed will be read only by other specialists. How many of the newer Latino/a immigrants and those who live among them in Northern Virginia will read the new book Memories and Migrations, which has the promise of “introducing readers to the ways in which Latinas have shaped history?” The historical insights in a book like Making Lemonade out of Lemons, on Mexican American labor and leisure, could likely bring substance to ideas and attitudes as they continue to be shaped in places like Prince William County. Will such insights be discovered and learned in such places where the contest has been joined? It appears that the extraordinary new compendium American Dreaming, Global Realities, edited by Donna Gabaccia and Vicki Ruiz, has the true potential to help readers re-think immigration history, as the sub-title says, something that could be profoundly important in the way the general populace approaches today’s migration developments. Will this fresh approach to the subject be experienced and absorbed outside of the scholarly guild?

Probably the answers to these questions, as they long have been, are that ultimately the pure research and scholarship does wind its way down to the larger public, through the media, through adaptations in other forms directed at more general audiences, or through the gradual updating and reshaping of pre-collegiate education. But these forces are indirect and eventual. Of course, the disconnect between town and gown is nothing new, and I should add that few academic institutions I know of have worked harder to address this than the IHRC, with the very active engagement of staff, supporters, and advisory council members in historical documentation efforts, local community-driven research initiatives, and public history student projects, to name just a few.

I believe that people who make enforceable decisions about immigration do so with some notion of history. The past -- their sense of it -- is almost always invoked as a basis for their thinking. This happens inside the beltway, near the beltway, and beyond. Professional historians have a huge challenge to find better, more immediate ways to get their informed sensibilities directly into the minds of these people. It’s a challenge worth persistent response and attention – and maybe even some rethinking.

Earning the Latino vote has become a main target for all Presidential candidates. Although it is not viewed by the public as important as arguments over Iraq and the war on terrorism, immigration law reform has become a priority in the political agenda. In 2006 and 2007 President Bush failed to gain Congressional support for new legislation. This political fiasco was only partially solved with the 26 October 2006 signing of the Border Secure Fence Act. This law authorizes the construction of a 700 mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border in order to deter individuals from illegally entering the United States.

In the debate over the reform of immigration law candidates have differed. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/us/politics/19candidates.html?scp=2&sq=immigration+presidential+candidates&st=nyt; http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805EFD91038F933A25751C1A9619C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2; http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/us/politics/05debate.html; http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/23/opinion/23brooks.html
Among the Democrats, Hillary Clinton, strenuously searched out the Latino support, and obtained the endorsement of Antonio R. Villaraigosa, mayor of Los Angeles and one of the most outstanding figures of the Hispanic community. Senator Clinton endorsed a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the United States who have a job, pay taxes, and have a clear command of English, whereas she proposed hard penalties to employers who exploit illegal workers. Yet, in Spring 2007 she opposed a bipartisan bill to reform immigration law because it did not include a measure for immigrant family reunification. These positions have mostly been shared by the two other main Democratic candidates, Illinois Senator Barack Obama and South Carolina Senator Johnny R. Edwards.
In the Republican field, candidates’ voices were less homogeneous. Arizona Senator John McCain maintained the most moderate stance. He has called illegal immigrants sons of God who compassionately deserve a chance in the United States. But, seeking votes among a conservative electorate, he has also emphasized the reinforcement of the Southern border over reform of immigration law.
Italian-American candidate Rudolph Giuliani was even more ambiguous. A moderate Republican when he was mayor of New York City, Giuliani adopted policies against the criminalization of illegal immigrants, who become eligible for the city’s educational and medical public services. In 1996, he even intervened to impede public officials and physicians from denouncing illegal immigrants. Giuliani welcomed to New York any immigrants - even if illegally in the United States – who wished to work hard. However, in search of conservative voters Giuliani too switched his former stance, emphasizing instead the need to fight illegal immigration through the introduction of identification card. Pointing out the importance of a “safe” border and recalling his mayoral policy of using policemen to end criminality in New York (“Zero Tolerance”), he endorsed an increasing allocation of Patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexican border to deter further illegal accesses.
Giuliani was harshly criticized by another Republican candidate, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who made the fight against illegal immigration a cornerstone of his presidential campaign. Despite talking positively of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in 2005, during his bid for Republican ticket he accused Giuliani of having transformed New York City into a illegality “sanctuary”. Romney then proposed severely curtailing Federal funds to cities, such as San Francisco, which avoid criminalizing immigrants without documents. Both Giuliani and Romney had criticized the bipartisan bill in 2007: the former considered it as a compromise, the latter remained adamantly against the idea of conceding temporary visas to individuals illegally residing in the United States.
Two minor Republican candidates, Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, had tough anti-immigrant stances as well. Thomson even proposed to curtail funds to cities and states which did not turnover illegal aliens to the Federal authorities and he requested to officially declare English as the national language. Huckabee advocated for curbing immigration from countries which sponsor terrorists. Furthermore, although during his governorship he provided support to illegal students, he proposed a national plan to expel illegal immigrants within 120 days

Realizing (again) its lack of understanding of non-Western societies and cultures after 9/11, the US government designated several languages as critical for its national security and launched the National Flagship Language Initiative (NFLI) in 2002. NFLI provided funding to major US universities to develop institutional and national infrastructure required to produce highly proficient language graduates in strategic languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Hindi/Urdu, Korean, Persian/Farsi, and Eurasian languages (Russian, Central Asian). http://www.nflc.org/nfli/languages.asp; http://www.nflc.org/projects/recent_projects/nfli; http://www.iie.org/programs/nsep/flagship/ In 2006, President Bush launched the National Security Language Initiative (NSLI) which was designed to increase the number of Americans learning strategic languages through new and expanded programs from kindergarten through university and into the workforce. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2006/58733.htm; http://exchanges.state.gov/nsli/fact_sheet.htm

With China’s fast economic development and increasing global influence, Mandarin Chinese has been given intensive attention as one of the critical languages. In 2005, the National Security Education Program chose Chinese as the prototype for a new major development of the NFLI: the Chinese K-16 Flagship http://www.actfl.org/files/public/NFLIChineseK-16PilotProjectPR.pdf In Congress, Senators Joseph Lieberman and Lamar Alexander introduced the US-China Cultural Engagement Act in May 2005 which aimed to provide $1.3 billion to enhance Chinese-language education in K-12 schools, expand the exchange of artists, scientists, and students between the US and China, and promote scholarly studies on contemporary China. http://www.nccaonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=36

This surging public interest in Chinese language and culture contributes to Chinese immigrants’ interaction with and integration into the American society. In the Twin Cities, social and cultural events organized by Chinese immigrants have attracted more and more Americans not of Chinese origin (http://www.caam.org/modules/wfchannel/index.php?link=home;
http://www.mn3c.org/home.php). The Ha Family Entertainment, a local troupe performing Chinese dance, has witnessed increasing demand for Chinese cultural performances in American schools and local festivals (see this audio slideshow of its lion dance in the New Year’s party of Yinghua Academy, the first Chinese immersion school in MN: http://www.startribune.com/slideshows/15475716.html). During the late December 2007 and mid-May 2008, it has been scheduled for 18 performances in various circumstances including the grand opening of a law firm and other cultural activities of large corporations such as Target, Best Buy and the Marriott Hotel (http://www.ha-family.com/)

While the surging American public interest in Chinese language and culture has provided unprecedented opportunities for Chinese communities in the US, a historical reflection cautions us about the potential challenges and risks as well. There had been similar American public interest in the Russian language in the 1950s and 1960s and in the Japanese language in the 1980s, and both cases remind us that American interest in foreign languages and cultures had been usually triggered by the fear of the US government of those cultures as existing or potential challengers: the Soviet Union as an “evil” communist rival and Japan as a formidable economic competitor. In the current case of China, things may be even more complicated as China may be perceived as a combination of both. This in turn will place Chinese Americans in a trap of being perceived as potentially disloyal and harmful to the US national interest.
Recent history indicates that this potential risk is not imagined but is lurking right around the corner. In 1982, with increasing Japanese economic competition, Vincent Chin, a Chinese American, was mistaken as Japanese and beaten to death by two white Americans working in the declining auto industry hit hard by its competitive Japanese counterpart. In 1999, Dr. Wen-ho Lee, a Chinese American scientist from Taiwan, was falsely charged as a spy for mainland China, a case clearly revealing the US government’s fear of the “red China” and its readiness to cast suspicion and exert persecution on Chinese Americans.
This potential risk has been made even more delicate by recent efforts of the Chinese government of boosting Chinese language programs abroad. Since 2004, the Office of Chinese Language Council International (Hanban), a government agency promoting the spread of Chinese around the world, has started opening Chinese language and cultural centers (Confucius Institutes) abroad. It has sent over 2000 voluntary teachers abroad and up to July 2007, there had been more than 170 Confucius Institutes established in more than 50 countries. The US has the largest number of Confucius Institutes (18), followed by Thailand (13). http://www.hanban.org/en_hanban/index.php

While current American attitude towards the spread of Chinese language programs is welcoming in general, there has been no lack of concerns and suspicions about China’s political influence and expansion of power (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0104/p17s01-legn.html, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89350477) Therefore, while emphasizing its purpose of promoting cultural exchanges and friendship, the Chinese government needs to be cautious about both guarding against any tendency to misuse its energy for unwarranted purposes and avoiding being mistaken by other countries as disguised expansionism or neocolonialism (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10853534). Also importantly, the Chinese government needs to be cautious about the delicate impact of its increasing global influence on Chinese immigrants and their descendants abroad.

On the part of the US, a more efficient way seems to be supporting the learning of Chinese and other foreign languages not simply for national security but for long-term solid cultural understanding. Its support for foreign languages cannot be just responsive to constantly rising and ever-changing crises but should be based on sincere respect for and acceptance of different cultures. A fundamental guiding principle for foreign language programs in the US should not be “clash of civilizations” but be cultural coexistence, mutual enrichment and co-prosperity. By enlarging foreign language programs, the US also gains a great opportunity to engage and understand its own diverse ethnic communities and to better integrate them into the mainstream society rather than single certain groups out as suspicious aliens when needed or convenient.

The importance of one person in the family getting a foot in the door to citizenship through military service has become obvious since 9-11 when it became possible for “non U.S. citizens” to earn the right to become citizens through active duty and honorable service. During the past 6 years, more than 37,000 “green card warriors” have achieved citizenship through this program; more than 7300 requests are pending the 7-10 month review process; and 20,500 non citizens are estimated to be currently serving in the armed forces. In some cases, soldiers have served 2-3 tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan before making application.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/27/greencard.marine.folo/

Although one or more family members may be citizens, that does not guarantee that immigration laws and judges will treat other family members who are not citizens with the best interests of the family in mind. In a lecture focusing on this topic Professor David Thronson reports that some “mixed status” families, where a child has one parent who is not a natural born or documented American citizen, can be problematic when it comes to deportation. Although he argues that family and immigration laws are closely related, the family part is “often missing” from debates about immigration reform. When one aspect of immigration policy encourages family reunification and another aspect promotes family separation, it is clear that the systems are not working well together.
http://www.unlvrebelyell.com/article.php?ID=11788

There are numerous examples in the news every day. Because Congress has failed to act on reform and it is politically popular in the post 9-11 environment, more than 40 states have been busy trying to crack down on undocumented immigrants whether they are parents or minors. Under the guise of the rule of law, families are separated when parents are pulled away from jobs, arrested, and deported. An estimated 2 million mixed families are living in fear that their breadwinner won’t be home for dinner if stopped for an auto violation or found to be working without appropriate documentation.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2008/Mar/20080328Feat002.asp

Another example of a family who has played by all the rules but still found themselves in a difficult situation is a South African family living in Ohio who were recruited to teach in the U.S. and later applied for permanent residency. Although the married couple’s application has been processed and their pathway to citizenship made clear, this is not the case for their 18 year old son. Due to immigration law stipulations, they were not able to apply for their son’s residency until after theirs was approved in 2005. Meanwhile, the son was becoming ineligible as a minor as he waited for the delayed paper work to be reviewed and approved. The parents are worried that he could be picked up and deported since technically he is no longer a minor and does not have documentation.
http://www.limaohio.com/story.php?IDnum=51001

The problems confronting children and immigration agencies are the topic of a forthcoming conference in Chicago that is addressing the absence of communication and collaboration between child welfare and immigration systems. One sponsor of the program pointed out that “many families today are dealing with both the immigration and the child welfare system - –yet the professionals representing these systems rarely work together.” The hope is that the conference will bring together both parties to stimulate dialogue and cooperation for the benefit of families and communities.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-28-2008/0004782136&EDATE=

There are other ways that families and communities can benefit from dialogue about immigration and what kind of nation we want this to become. Since the winnowing of the more extreme candidates who were running for their party’s nomination for the presidency, we are less likely to be hearing nativist and reactionary rhetoric about immigrants from the remaining three candidates. In the absence of comprehensive reform some states (New Jersey and California) are trying to make a positive contribution by passing state versions of the Dream Act—a proposal to enable children of immigrants to pay in-state tuition at state colleges and universities even if there parents are not documented. In other states (Minnesota is an example), the governor and some legislators are arguing against state Dream Act laws as a way of enforcing the rule of law while punishing the children of parents who came to work in the U.S. without papers. Depending on the outcome of the November elections, it may be possible to reintroduce a federal Dream Act that would make it possible for all children, regardless of parental heritage, residency, or legality to achieve a higher education.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/80643/

In a op-ed column entitled “disorder at the border”, Timothy Egan applauds the fact that the political demagogues have left the stage, leaving the three most moderate voices on comprehensive immigration reform still standing. This fact may well put an end to the seemingly futile and very expensive effort to build a wall across the Mexican-U.S. border. Property rights seem to conflict with where the wall needs to run and not many are seeking to have their agricultural land, back yards, or college campus divided by a wall topped with razor wire and patrolled by armed borders guards and minutemen vigilantes. The deportation of undocumented immigrants and the separation of families that results is also not going very well in Arizona—a state with an estimated half million undocumented workers. Although a new state law has been passed placing penalties on the businesses who hire them, not a single person has been found, despite numerous reports and profiles that have been followed up on by police. Whatever the results of the fall election, it is likely that persons from Arizona and the southwest will be involved in brokering a deal that leads to comprehensive reform.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/opinion/29egan.html?ref=opinion

Although I appreciate Egan’s point about infusing the holiday with “real” Irish and Irish American history, he misses the point that from its very beginnings, St. Patrick’s Day in the United States was about playing up the good and ignoring the bad. In the nineteenth century, Irish American leaders praised Protestant Scots-Irish who contributed ideological ammunition to the American Revolution alongside the Irish Catholic foot soldiers who died for the Union Army.

I think that St. Patrick’s Day would best be refitted as an ecumenical holiday celebrating all immigrants and their contributions, as an editorial from MIT’s newspaper argued a number of years back [http://www-tech.mit.edu/V118/N14/ring.14c.html]. Irish Americans could maintain their special connection to the holiday by presenting their forbearers as the first significant non-Anglo, non-Protestant, and non-coerced migrant group to come to the United States. In this regard, the Irish had to bear many of the burdens (although not all) that immigrants from around the world would later face.

If activism can be introduced into this new-fangled holiday: even better. Although in the past decade a greater number of Irish immigrants have left the United States to return to Ireland and take advantage of the country’s thriving economy than have come here, as an article in the San Francisco Chronicle notes, there are still approximately 50,000 undocumented Irish immigrants living in the United States [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/03/15/IRISH.TMP]
. Activists in San Francisco have sought to use St. Patrick’s day as a forum and opportunity to discuss immigration reform and the fact that undocumented immigrants do not only come from Mexico and other Latin American countries, despite popular conceptions. I’ll drink a beer to that.

Soon after diplomatic relations were established in 1950, the first tiny wave of Vietnamese students arrived in Poland. Due to the protracted armed conflict in Indochina many of them decided to stay. The failures of Poland’s so-called “real socialism” did not offer many economic opportunities in Poland, but it did offer hope for change. Over the next twenty years the numbers of Vietnamese students and professionals increased. But the major influx of the Vietnamese people to Poland came later, along with democratic changes in Poland in the 1990s.

In 2001 the Polish Office for Repatriation and Foreigners counted as many as 40 thousand Vietnamese living in Poland. Today's estimates suggest their number from 30 to 50 thousand, third only to France (500 thousand) and Germany (100 thousand). However, in a recent census, only 1,808 declared their nationality as Vietnamese and only 436 as having Polish citizenship. (A total of 775,000 people in Poland did not declare any nationality at all.) http://www.stat.gov.pl/cps/rde/xbcr/gus/PUBL_PUBL_Demographic_yearbook_of_Poland_2007.pdf

The reasons for giving ambiguous answers are complex but the single most important factor is Polish government’s very restrictive visa policies. Although the numbers of deported Vietnamese nationals are relatively low, the threat of forced repatriation to Vietnam is enough to influence any “head count” of this group. Especially that the repulsive immigrant policies resulted in the increase of the illegal immigration. At the same time, Poland’s attractiveness was further elevated with the country’s accession to the European Union. http://www.cafebabel.com/en/article.asp?T=T&Id=8039

For some, Poland is just a transit point en route westward but for many others Poland is “a promised land”. The European Commission’s report of 2003 informs us that only Ukrainians were granted more permits for settlement in Poland than the Vietnamese, followed by Russians, Armenians, and Belarusians. (http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/asylum/statistics/docs/2003/country_reports/poland.pdf )

Migration and trade have developed in tandem. The single largest Vietnamese company in Poland sells its products not only in EVERY Polish grocery store but also Europe-wide. (http://www.tan-viet.com.pl/index.php?mod=ofirmie&kat=&id=&lang=en).

The Vietnamese embassy in Warsaw points to an increase in bilateral trade from $20 to $330 million between 1992 and 2006. http://www.vietnamembassy-poland.org/nr070521165956/news_object_view?newsPath=/vnemb.vn/cn_vakv/euro/nr040819110934/ns070919142436

How are the Vietnamese perceived by Poles? The majority of Poles regard the Far East newcomers as hardworking, intelligent and honest (E-polityka; TNS OBOP, Jan. 2008). An article by Nguyen Thi Hoa, Wiktor Kaspian and Pham Viet Anh found the Vietnamese immigrants are predominantly highly educated professionals, not always able to secure a job that would enable them to employ their professional skills (http://nigdywiecej.org.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=93&Itemid=15). Many have been trained in engineering and art. Some even hold Ph.D.s in Polish language arts!

The first poll that asked Poles about their attitude towards the Vietnamese people (not the immigrants) was conducted in 1998. It showed that among various nations, they were close to the middle of the ranking, the most liked being the Americans, the least – the Gypsies (Chart on page 2 http://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/1998/K_158_98.PDF ) The same poll in 2007 showed that Polish attitudes towards the Vietnamese had become less favorable ( Chart on page 3 http://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2007/K_144_07.PDF ), perhaps as a result of increased immigration.

The most prevalent stereotype of the Vietnamese in Poland is that of a market stall merchant, fast food bar or restaurant owner. The image comes from the single largest Vietnamese community in Poland residing in Warsaw. Dariusz Bartoszewicz and Tomasz Kwaśniewski of Gazeta Wyborcza estimated that in the "Deccenary markeplace Stadium” alone there are over a thousand trading booths operated by Vietnamese retailers. There are over 30 big restaurants and 300 bars in Warsaw operated Vietnamese immigrants. As a result, a majority of Warsaw residents incorrectly believe Asians to be the single biggest immigrant community in Poland. (In fact it is peoples from the former USSR.) Three-quarters of respondents to a poll admitted that they either shopped or ate at the Asian facilities. http://miasta.gazeta.pl/warszawa/1,34862,2956397.html

According to Teresa Halik, many poles perceive Vietnamese migrants as a tight, hermetic and isolated group. (In fact, she titled her book--written with Ewa Nowicka--The Vietnamese in Poland. Integration or Isolation?). Warsaw is still not London; Vietnamese people admit they do feel they are outside the mainstream of Polish society. 


Still, one can find Polish initiatives aimed at discovering and promoting Vietnamese culture. One of the major Polish dailies „Gazeta Wyborcza” helped to promote an event organized by Polish young artists’ organization. A cultural project “Viet Nam at Play” included a “Vietnamese village” staged in the Warsaw Mokotów Fields. The event promoted the painters, photographers, musicians and naturally - the cuisine of Vietnam. Poles attended a “Vietnamese week” in October of 2005 and a film documentary by Anna Gajewska “the Warsavians” about the Vietnamese living in Warsaw. (http://www.warszawiacy.art.pl/film.php) (The trailers from a Vietnamese movie festival can be viewed at http://www.arteria.art.pl/5smakow/smak_gorzki.php ).

Scholarly research on the Vietnamese in Poland has followed. Teresa Halik has recently published The Migrant Vietnamese Community in Poland, which focuses on state policy and public opinion. She concluded that the Vietnamese are not only a “stable element of ethnic landscape of Poland, but also present one of the major and better-organized communities of immigrants aiming to stay in Poland”.

Krystyna Iglicka of the Center for International Relations in Warsaw has even observed that: “Today, Poland is probably the most striking example of a Central European country that is gradually shifting from a major sending country into a country of net-immigration and transit migration.” (http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=302 )

Clearly, Poland is undergoing rapid change. Many Poles are ready to open their homeland to strangers. However, 65% of them state that they have not yet personally met an immigrant. It can only be hoped that they will not change their attitudes to foreigners as they do so.

Immigrants have many reasons for becoming citizens. Some want to sponsor the immigration of relatives. Others want to act now in order to avoid paying fees for naturalization that have increased rapidly in the past few years. Others want to share the citizenship of their children or to express loyalty to their new home.

At least some recently naturalized citizens also admit that an important motive has been the desire to participate in American politics and especially to express their choices in the upcoming presidential election. Historically, naturalizations have increased during presidential election years.

Newly naturalized Latino voters are particularly concerned about immigration policy in this year’s elections. Recent news reports quote immigrants as feeling upset by local and federal campaigns that target illegal immigrants: they maintain that too often the result of these campaigns is hostility expressed against all Spanish-speakers or against any person who “looks Mexican,” regardless of legal status or citizenship. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/us/politics/05hispanic.html?em&ex=1202360400&en=90b43483ea8b4d1f&ei=5087%0A

Even more than other Americans, newly naturalized citizens pay attention to candidates’ positions on immigration policy. Some claim not to find much difference between front-runners Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain, all of whom favor some version of the immigration reform bill that failed to gain Congressional approval in 2007. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup5feb05,0,50671.story Still, Hillary Clinton seems to be doing particularly well in attracting the votes of Hispanic voters, both old and new: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18718803

Overall, too, those candidates who focused most intensively on the threat to Americans of illegal immigration have not done well in this primary season. Cuban-Americans in Florida were especially vigorous in supporting for McCain over Mitt Romney, who ended his presidential campaign last week. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120217267552142823.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Ironically, it appears that newly naturalized immigrant voters are in other ways not all that different from longer-time American citizens. Polls in 2007 showed that between half and four-fifths of all American citizen support the creation of a pathway to legalization for undocumented workers.

The University of Minnesota has good claims to having actually “invented” the scholarly study of immigration way back in the 1920s. Here at the U, it was historians who began the study, focusing on some the groups that made their own state distinctive. Blegen Hall, on the University of Minnesota west bank campus, is named after one of these historians, Theodore Blegen, the son of Norwegian immigrants who specialized in the study of Norwegian migration to the United States. His colleague in history, George Stephenson—a descendant of and specialist on Swedish immigrants--offered what may have been the first immigration history course in the country in the early 1920s and published one of the first general introductions to the history of immigration his book in 1926. Blegen and Stephenson were early practictioners of what is today called “transnational” history. Both lived and taught for in the homelands of their ancestors; they also attracted graduate students from abroad during their long careers at Minnesota.

By the 1960s, younger historians hired by Blegen’s and Stephenson’s generation took up the study of immigration anew, focusing on the immigrants from southern and Eastern Europe who were attracted at the turn of the twentieth century to the mines, industries and cities of the Great Lakes economy. These new historians—Rudy Vecoli, Hy Berman, Clarke Chambers, Timothy Smith—helped to found important research collections, including the Immigrant Archives which eventually became the Immigration History Research Center (IHRC). The IHRC soon also began to collect documents and encourage scholarship that focused on the shift from labor migrations to refugees arriving from war-torn Europe after 1945.

As new waves of refugees began to re-shape Minnesota’s population in the 1970s and 1980s, a third generation of scholars quickly recognized scholarly opportunities and organized the Center for Refugee Studies. During its two decades existence, the center collected rich materials both on refugees from Southeast Asia and on the organizations that worked with these newcomers. Its archives are now housed in Andersen library at the IHRC.

Today, over 100 scholars at the University of Minnesota study migration or the cultural pluralism that accompanies histories of migration. For over 90 years, a distinctive “Minnesota” school of scholarship on immigrant and refugee life has used the changing population dynamics of its home state to grapple with issues of continuing importance not merely to the region but to the nation.

Interested in reading more about the “Minnesota school? http://ihrc.umn.edu/publications/pdf/MinnesotaSchool-1.pdf

In March 2007 the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs asked the Institute of Public Affairs to prepare a socio-demographic analysis of Polish job migration within the European Economic Area before and after Poland joined the EU (May 1st 2004).
http://www.msz.gov.pl/files/docs/DKiP/ekspertyza-isp-finalny%2024%2004%2007.pdf
The results are the same. For the last 3 years, it has been is the young, the educated, and the articulate that leave Poland. Open job markets in the West (except for Germany, Austria, Belgium, Luxemburg) lure the young. According to a study cited in the UKIE’s report 32% of Polish respondents under age 24 declared a willingness to leave Poland. By contrast, only 20% of Poland’s unemployed and 22% of Poland’s blue collar workers declared their willingness to seek employment abroad.

Is this a “brain drain”? With higher education still free in Poland, many get their diplomas and leave in order to wash dishes in British, Irish, Swedish or Spanish restaurants and bars. Conversely, Polish news magazines feature stories of the most successful migrants who have begun careers in engineering, banking, and science.

Some Europeans have even suggested that the EU create a “Blue Card” policy. (Does that sound familiar to American readers familiar with “green cards”—which are actually not green at all?) It should--for the blue card proposed by the European Commission on October 23rd would offer two years legal residence and work permits in any EU country but only for a highly-qualified non-EU citizen. Upon the completion of the two year period, it would be possible to move to another EU country, provided a job offer is secured, or one would have to return to his/her country of origin. Hence the big difference between green and blue.
http://euro.pap.com.pl/palio/html.run?_Instance=cms_euro.pap.pl&_PageID=1&s=szablon.depesza&dz=szablon.depesza&dep=72291&data=&lang=PL&_CheckSum=1799484197

It is not easy for the European Union to compete with the U.S. or Canada to attract well educated immigrants. For example, EuroPap found 85% of well-educated immigrants from the Maghreb countries residing either in the U.S. or Canada. At the same time highly qualified immigrant employees constitute 1.72% of EU’s workforce (the comparable figure is 9.9% in Australia 9.9%, 7.3% in Canada).

Many Poles see this “blue card” proposal as restrictive in yet another way since it protects but also potentially drains the educational resources of newly admitted member-countries such as Poland. If a company receives a job application from an engineer from India, it would be able to employ him with a “blue card” only if no Polish or Hungarian engineer applied. Poles do apply for such highly qualified jobs since they can earn 10 times what they would for the performance of similar tasks in their country of origin.

To read more on this initiative go to European Commission’s webpage

So is Polish exodus to Western Europe just another wave of Polish emigration, comparable to early migrations of laborers to France or the United States. Not quite. Today’s departers often expect to return and it is easy for them to do so. Migrating within the EU they need not give up their Polish citizenship. Maintaining close family ties poses no major troubles. In my view, a person moving from Gdansk to Dublin is little different than an American moving from Detroit to a better job in Seattle.

Over the next few weeks the new cheap airlines, that have opened direct connections between the Old and New Europe, will once more carry loads of people who want to be HOME for Christmas. Some will soon return for good. Others will choose to remain in the West and thus add to the new wave of well educated, predominantly young people who no longer tend to think of themselves as Poles only, but rather consider themselves Europeans of Polish origin.

In Europe, the times are definitely a-changing!

The case is not an unusual one. Recent raids have revealed that about two-thirds of unauthorized immigrant workers are parents. About two-thirds of those children are citizens who cannot be deported with them. Experts estimate that three million American children have deportable parents. Unlike other citizens, furthermore, these children cannot sponsor their parents’ applications for family reunification visas: only adults can do that.

Deporting large numbers of “illegals” sounds easy but it isn’t. When deported parents cannot support their American-based children from abroad, as many cannot, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/11/18/AR2007111800871.html), the children inevitably become dependent on social services.

Angry commentators who insist “illegal immigrants” are using their children as “human shields” must either accept American responsibility for the long-term care of the citizen children of deported parents or insist that children inherit their parents’ guilt.

Few Americans will easily accept the punishment of children for parental errors, especially when most evidence suggests children of foreign-born parents are meeting or exceeding the integration of earlier generations into the American mainstream. The vast majority possesses strong English language skills. Immigrants’ children do as well in school as other low-income American children. Recent reports note immigrant children’s involvement even in mainstream groups like the Boys Scouts and Girl Scouts.

In fact, the angriest few are willing to punish children. To date, however, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution—passed to guarantee birthright citizenship to emancipated slaves—has been upheld by the courts for the children of even hated and excluded foreigners. Denying or revoking the citizenship of the children of unauthorized immigrants would require constitutional amendment. It’s unlikely that many Americans would support this kind of tinkering with the 14th Amendment.

A case in point is my own research, which focuses on transatlantic marriage migration. But can we really talk about ‘marriage migration’? Can it be distinguished from other forms of migration? In my view, in most cases it cannot. There are migrants who first move to a country to study or pursue a career on a temporary basis and who meet their future life-companion during that stay. As a result, the temporary stay evolves into a permanent one. Should this migration be categorized as work or family-related? An ever-increasing number of people move from one country to another because of work, study, or travel. Consequently, unions between people from different cultures are becoming all the more common. In many cases, the result is not sedentary family life in one location but a transnational life that, especially in the case of professional migrants, often involves several migrations from one location to another. Therefore, rather than viewing migration as a one-way and one-time movement, it should be seen as a process that often has no definite end.

Even in cases in which the migrant is categorized as a ‘marriage migrant’ by the state, the separation or ranking of motives on an individual level may prove impossible. Take the case of brokered marriages, for example unions formed through Internet-based marriage brokers or matchmaking sites. As an interview with a Russian ‘mail-order-bride’ Nataliya Robertovna Yamayeva reveals, in the decision to look for a foreign partner, multiple motives are at play (http://www.star-telegram.com/600/story/297522.html). In Yamayeva’s case, her disappointment with Russian men, feelings of marginalization, and the dream of having a financially stable life all contributed to her decision to submit a profile on match-making agencies’ websites and finally to migrate and marry an American man. Is this decision to migrate motivated more by economic or other considerations? Even Yamayeva herself could probably not decipher.

Migrants moving because of family or economic reasons are not easily separated in public discussions on immigration either. It is not uncommon to label marriage migrants as opportunists looking for economic advancement. In my native Finland, for example, Russian women marrying Finnish men are often stigmatized as fortune-hunters who want to exploit Finnish welfare services. The possibility that the union between the Finnish man and the Russian woman could be based on reciprocity and equality is dismissed, and the complexity behind every human decision is ignored. In a Western society that idealizes marriage based on romantic love, marrying for economic reasons is condemned. This viewpoint, however, shows a remarkable historical amnesia as throughout most of the history of the Western world, ‘marriages of reason’ have been the norm rather than the exception.

States passing immigration legislation are not prepared to deal with these complexities in migrants’ lives. Most countries make a clear distinction between family and labor migration, often preferring the former to the latter. Sometimes states do realize that people’s motives are not that easily separated. However, this realization often emerges as a concern stemming from the potential misuse of the family reunification law; the use of family ties as a strategy for bringing economic migrants. An extreme example of this concern is, I would say, France’s decision to use DNA tests to ensure that family ties are authentic (http://www.star-telegram.com/468/story/304782.html). This case also raises the question what constitutes a family? Is it merely a biological unit as this decision suggests? The decision is based on a narrow biological construction of the family that does not correspond with the reality of transnational family lives and different cultural constructions of the family.

Restrictive laws that distinguish between types of migration, as if they were completely different, encourage scholars and the public to do the same. But how different are they really?

All this “news” does not encourage understanding but rather vilification of people looking for a better life. These people are human beings, not simply statistics or criminals, but rather valuable parts of our society and economy. Dehumanization of migrants leads to exploitation of them, (such as this recent case in Florida or this one in California ). It pushes migrants further into the shadows to allow further exploitation to occur or it outright drives them away. I’m sure it doesn’t help matters much, that some members of the ICE take their jobs lightly, as at least one recent story suggests.

This week, there was only one prominent piece that handled the effects of the changing political debate on immigrant culture. It details the immigrant reaction to New York Governor, Eliot Spitzer’s wavering on his promise of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. The article enlightens the reader on how immigration policy and debate actually affects the real people that the politics are geared towards. Readers need more of this kind of media coverage in order to form balanced opinions. Stories like this one bring the humanity back into immigration coverage and tell the story of how policy and political debates actually affect the people it is designed to regulate. If there were more stories like this one, maybe migrants wouldn’t seem so different from the rest of a society that has been historically constructed of people just like them--immigrants.

_________

Dan Ott is a Senior Undergraduate of History at the University of Minnesota. He has worked at the IHRC for the past 11 months as a blog coordinator.

Myth #1: Most immigrants come to the US for economic motives
Reality: About two thirds of immigrants come to the US to be reunited with family members.

Myth #2: Contemporary immigrants to the US ‘don’t assimilate’ as rapidly as immigrants who came in the 1900’s
Reality: Large percentages of European immigrants who came to the US in the early 1900s returned home to Europe. Among those who stayed, many did not give up their home language, religion, food or dress until the third or fourth generation.

Myth #3: Americans do not welcome new immigrants/ Americans do welcome new immigrants
Reality: These statements are both true. America takes pride in being a nation of immigrants and accepts more immigrants and refugees than most other countries. However, Americans are divided in their attitudes toward immigrants.

Myth #4: Immigrants are not as healthy native-born Americans
Reality: Numerous studies have shown that first generation immigrants are actually healthier than US-born residents on a wide variety of measures (fewer disabilities and chronic health conditions and risk behaviors; better birth outcomes and longer life expectancies). However, these health advantages are lost over time in the US.

Myth #5: Immigrants are less educated and less skilled than US-born residents
Reality: In fact, there are higher proportions of immigrants at both extremes: among the highly skilled and highly educated, and among the lower skilled, less educated.

Myth #6: Immigration hurts the economy
Reality: To summarize a recent report by the national Council of Economic Advisors, “careful studies of the long-run fiscal effects of immigration conclude that it is likely to have a modest, positive influence.” Furthermore, a young, foreign-born workforce is essential in a country that is rapidly aging.

Myth #7: Immigrants cost more than they contribute.
Reality: As the National Research Council reminds us, ‘studies often over-state the cost of immigration by measuring costs before adults reach working age.’ Furthermore, many Americans don’t realize that, while immigrants use services, just as US residents do, they also pay taxes –income taxes, property taxes, business taxes and sales taxes.

Myth #8: Immigrants don’t learn English as rapidly as European immigrants did.
Reality: There is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, it took many generations for some European immigrants to learn English, while today the vast majority of children of immigrants are fluent in English.

Myth #9: Immigrants are ‘criminals’.
Reality: A number of studies have shown that contemporary immigrants (including undocumented immigrants) are less likely to commit crimes or to be in prison than are US-born residents

Myth #10: A border fence will solve the problems of undocumented immigrants
Reality: There are millions of undocumented immigrants in the United States for a simple reason: companies need young workers and recruit immigrants to take many jobs, but the federal government issues almost no visas to low skilled immigrants. Until this ‘mismatch’ is fixed, the current trend will continue-- increases in border spending that coincide with increases in the number of undocumented residents.

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

Katherine Fennelly is Professor of Public Affairs at the Hubert H.
Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota, and the 2006-2007
Fesler-Lampfer Chair in Urban and Regional Affairs. Her research,
teaching and outreach interests include immigration and public policy,
leadership in the public sector, the human rights of immigrants and
refugees in the United States, and the preparedness of communities and
public institutions to adapt to demographic changes. Recent projects and
publications focus on the determinants of attitudes toward immigrants
and their successful integration into US communities.

In Japan, for example, where 8.1 million foreigners regularly enter the country, mainly as tourists, fears of terrorism have risen along with Japan’s continued support for U.S. military action in the Middle East. The solution? Borrowing from the U.S., Japan will require all adults to be photographed and fingerprinted. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gAdFCReRS6bvBkZwVcg7X3qIWkgQD8SGP0P80

Syria meanwhile has announced it will close its border to persons fleeing from nearby Iraq. More dramatically it will require 1.5 millions Iraqis residing in Syria to return home again. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/world/middleeast/21syria.html
Syria’s decision may please Iraq’s government but it’s unclear whether the Iraqis fleeing their war-torn country will show proper respect for the new law.

Certainly that’s something that worries France. There, a new law requires far more of potential immigrants than merely demonstrating knowledge of the French language or knowledge of French political customs. France proposes DNA testing for visa applicants. Why? The French fear that families sponsoring their relatives lie about their biological connections. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071025.FRANCEDNA25/TPStory/TPInternational/Europe/. In Switzerland, this mingling of biological with security concerns recently found even more direct expression. A right-wing political poster featured an image of three white sheep kicking a black sheep off the Swiss flag in order to “produce security.”

Even European proposals that acknowledge the region’s growing need for labor reveal high anxiety about migration increases. The “blue card” recently suggested for the EU would be available only to the highly skilled. And it would impose such high income restrictions that few engineers or computer technicians could meet them. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2726912.ece

Is it any surprise, then, that in Ireland, even a sympathetic public official in city struggling to cope with the educational needs of growing numbers of immigrant children concluded “We're just victims of our times, really"? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/23/AR2007102302162_2.html

In a world where the rich consider themselves the victims, the poor will find their own alternatives. Perhaps, as one recent report suggests, they will increasingly chase their dreams not to Europe, Japan or the U.S. but to China: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpyn/content/article/2007/10/20/AR2007102000530.html

In many ways, this was a simple case for the court. There was a clear cut procedure to follow when implementing a new rule, the Department of Homeland Security failed to follow it, and the Social Security Administration could show that thousands of legally authorized workers would be adversely affected if the new rule went into effect. Most issues surrounding the recent zealous attempts at enforcing immigration law are much murkier. At the heart of this murkiness is the question of to what extent do immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, have the same legal protections as citizens?

When Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents conduct immigration raids, they not need warrants to detain or to enter the home of individuals suspected by the agency of being in this country illegally. They do not need to read these individuals their rights when detaining them. However, as raids by ICE get more aggressive, and more and more state and local law enforcement agencies are teaming up with ICE to enforce federal immigration standards, or passing legislation creating their own immigration enforcement standards, the constitutionality of a separate standard for immigrants is being questioned. Federal lawsuits have been filed against county law enforcement agencies in, among other states, Connecticut, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Virginia, and against the state of Oklahoma. Two separate lawsuits have been filed against ICE, in New York and Texas; the latter by individuals who say ICE violated their rights during the raids at a Swift meatpacking plant.

While most of these suits have just recently been filed, in July of this year the first case of this type was decided by a federal district court. The district court in Pennsylvania struck down the town of Hazleton’s local immigration ordinance as unenforceable under federal law, and in the process noted that the court’s analysis “applies to illegal aliens as well as to legal residents and citizens. The United States Constitution provides due process protections to all persons.”

---------

Claire Urban is a Law Student at the Boston College Law School

The costs/benefits of immigration have been estimated by nearly 30 different studies over the past 10 years, and the results have largely been mixed—some find a net gain from immigration, others a net loss. A recent and widely cited report from the Center on Immigration Studies (CIS: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal.html) finds that households headed by undocumented immigrants generate $26.3 billion in costs for the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per undocumented household.

When the public hears this number, it is largely seen in black and white terms: immigrants cost, it is unjust for us to be subsidizing them, kick them out. In policy debates, this also leads to a fairly simple set of assumptions: immigration is a net cost, to control costs we must have urgent policy reform. Unfortunately for those who are quick to use these figures as reason to clamp down on immigration, the estimation of costs and benefits is far more complex.

There are many assumptions people have about undocumented immigrants that are simply incorrect—that these are low-skilled workers—for instance. The reality is that there are many undocumented immigrants in the country who are highly skilled—they overstay work, study, or tourist visas. What I am more concerned with here are the assumptions regarding how to fix the problem of immigration costs. The implicit assumption of most cost/benefit studies is that shutting off the flow of lesser-skilled (less than a high school education) labor, and only allowing H-1b visa holders (highly skilled) immigrants to arrive, would fix, or at least move towards fixing the problem. This assumption follows general economic theory, and is held not only be economists, but the general public. The underlying logic runs as follows: shutting off the flow of low-skilled labor would force employers to hire native-born labor. This, in turn, would raise wages and reduce unemployment (as employers would have to pay more to hire fewer workers). This in turn would reduce the public sector costs of undocumented immigrants, because we would have native born workers earning good wages and not relying on public service programs. The problem, however, is that there is not strong enough evidence that removing immigrants raises the wages dramatically or reduces the public sectors program dependence of native-born workers. Could we really imagine retail sales clerks, cashiers, janitors, and landscapers seeing wages increase from $8.00/hr to $12.00-14.00/hr (the rates at which full time workers become ineligible for most public programs)? Even the most extreme labor market models do not suggest that there would be such a dramatic wage increase. The other problem is that most low-wage workers on public assistance in the United States are native born.

What people fail to recognize is that regardless of nativity or citizenship status, low-wage workers simply earn too little to move off of many forms of public assistance. Hypothetically, even if we could expel the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, and then kept any more from arriving, we would still need a growing pool of labor to work in the lowest paid sectors of our economy—retail sales persons, customer service representatives, janitors, waiters/waitresses, food service workers, and so forth. These are just some of the occupations with the greatest job growth projected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the next 10-15 years, yet none of them pay adequate wages to move people off of public assistance, even when working full time.

Using 2002 data, I worked on a study that found that low-wage workers—those households earning less the minimum wage are eligible for up to $23,417 per year in public assistance through programs like food stamps, supplemental insurance, and section 8 housing, while paying $3,454 in total state and federal taxes.(http://www.onlinecpi.org/article.php?list=type&type=62 ) This leaves a potential gap of approximately $20,000 per minimum wage household. This is an amount far greater than the estimated $2,700.00 per household that undocumented immigrants are estimated to cost in public assistance. Fortunately, very few workers actually earn the minimum wage in the United States, and those that do are not taking full advantage of the public services available to them. If we move higher up the wage scale, however, the rates of public service utilization and the costs remain very high for low-wage workers.

Using a similar methodology, the Institute on Labor and Employment at UC Berkeley found that in California, two million working families received public assistance in 2002. The price tag for this assistance was $10 billion per year, with most support going to families with full-time workers who earned near the minimum wage. (http://repositories.cdlib.org/ile/scl2004/01) This is a cost of approximately $2000.00 per working family—a significant subsidy on average per household, but far less than the amount that the working poor qualify for. Significantly, the majority of households have a high-school degree or higher and working full time—that is to say, they are not dependent on public assistance because of less than a high school education or failure to work, but rather because of the low wages and benefits available through employment. What this means is that the other side of the coin on the immigration costs/benefits debate is the costs of the native-born working poor. In fact, the costs to subsidize native-born working poor are higher than undocumented immigrants who are working and poor.

As the CIS study notes, on average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than that of other households (the reason they are a net cost is because their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households). However, is this cost differential because the immigrants are undocumented, or because they are employed in low-wage occupations that do not pay enough to move beyond public assistance? Even CIS acknowledges that if undocumented immigrants were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for total net cost of $29 billion. What this figure represents, assuming their model is accurate, is the total subsidy to low-wage households would increase because of their greater access to public sector programs. In other words, it is far cheaper to keep workers undocumented! What this study and other fail to recognize is that we already subsidize low-wage households by billions of dollars each year who are citizens—welfare reform has not eliminated the need for health care, shelter, subsidized meals and other vital programs.

So then are undocumented immigrants really such a great burden? Looking at Current Population Survey data for 2003, if we compare immigrant men to native born men, they tend to have higher rates of labor force participation, earn less, and use far less in public services. This represents a boon to employers—a cheaper labor force, one with a lower rate of unemployment than native-born workers, and they use less in public services than native born workers. The total costs for taxpayers—assuming it is roughly $2,700 per household—is really a subsidy to the employer to the extent that these are households which are working, but don’t earn enough to be disqualified for public assistance programs. We could add to this the massive subsidy to the economy that lower labor costs provide in keeping inflation down, and the additional economic activity generated by immigrants.

What the public should be concerned with is not that they are footing the bill for undocumented immigrants, but for low-wage work, that is, for employers. Hiring native-born workers would not fix the problem—the costs would still largely be there because low-wage workers do not earn enough to move beyond the need for public assistance regardless of citizenship. But as rates of employer provided health insurance continue to fall, wages for less than high-school educated workers are stagnant and falling, yet we have massive growth in the low-wage sector of the economy, it is time to take a hard look at the direction of the US economy overall—immigrants have just become a convenient scapegoat, and a smokescreen for the problem—an economy that isn’t working well for the working poor.
__________

David Karjanen is a Professor at the Institute for Global Studies at the University of Minnesota

What I have learned through their profound example is something I already knew yet had not fully integrated with experience, and that is that we are in this together. That is, that our destinies are intertwined. Despite the dramatic media characterizations of an ongoing cultural, social, and political battle, I believe that on the ground level most people aren’t invested in maintaining this war, nor do they live their lives in fear of change. This is not to say that fear and ignorance don’t exist and don’t drive the creation of absurd policies, such as the local ordinances that would outlaw the hiring or renting property to undocumented immigrants. Nor am I blind to the fact that the people I meet may be a self-selecting population of more tolerant or progressive folks because anti-Latino hate mongers don’t go out of their way to speak with me, but too much experiential, anecdotal, and data based evidence exists to deny the facts that change is indeed occurring.

From the many Latinos I met who are active agents in change, I heard about victories, about successes in building allies across terrains of struggle, about the emergence of a critical mass of activists struggling to counter conservative politicians. From many small town residents I’ve seen and heard about how the industriousness and entrepreneurial spirit of new immigrants has saved the local economy. In a strange irony, it is the new immigrants who have made it possible for white elders of these communities to maintain their way of life even as the local culture is undergoing a profound cultural shift.

My journey is only half complete, and I cannot assume as I head to through the south that what has been true of the Northwest, Midwest, and Northeast will hold true in the new geography of Latino immigration, but I believe that the immigrants of today are extraordinarily aware of their human rights and are prepared to defend and advocate on behalf of their community as needed even as they maintain a strong sense of their continental American identity.

I invite you to join me on this adventure by following updates of my ride that I am maintaining on a blog: http://journeyacrossouramerica.blogspot.com/. Here you can read more detail about my encounters and challenges.

Part of this denial of our national heritage is the denial of the history of colonialism that this country was built upon: first in decimating and displacing the indigenous peoples of the continent and secondly in denying that the Latino presence in North American precedes the establishment of the U.S.; we have been here for centuries shaping, building, and contributing in myriad ways to this country. Debates have reached such fervor now that a bedrock principle of the US, birthright citizenship, is in danger of being discarded.

Much of the hysteria around unsuccessful immigration reform revolved around enforcement, resistance to what is being labeled as amnesty, and making sure that strong provisions are in place to ensure that Latinos culturally integrate into society as quickly as possible. If you listened only to the media and politicians you would think that all recent Latino immigrants do is drain the social service and educational systems even as they go out of their way to “steal” jobs and live in isolation from the mainstream.

Most of these claims are overblown and don’t withstand scrutiny. I believe we have to search out ways to discover the truth about this nation, about our past as well as our future. The U.S. is not made up of a single culture, language, or point of view. Not now. Not ever. For that reason, I decided to use my research sabbatical to travel the country by bicycle to talk to people about their perspective on how immigration from yesteryear and today has made us who we are.

On July 1st I departed from Santa Cruz, California to begin an 8,500 mile journey that will take me across 35 states and into Canada and Mexico. I write this from Richmond, Virginia, about halfway through my trip. Along the way, I have been speaking with people from all walks of life (young and old, rural and urban, minority-non-minority, and across economic class, immigrant and non-immigrant) about their views on the emergence of Latinos as the nation’s largest ethnic minority and the impact this is having on the United States’ national identity and culture.

The inspiration for my trip was an 1891 essay by Cuban patriot and poet-journalist José Martí. In this essay titled “Our America,” he called for a distinctively American culture, one that embraces rather than denies, the dynamic and organic relationship between place, language, and experience that shapes the American continent. It is this America that I have been re-discovering and affirming in my encounters with people—even as I know that I am bound to meet people who would like nothing more than for all of us to “go back where we came from.” For me, this would be Texas.

(Watch for the second installment of this blog - it will be posted in a few days)

Well….not always. Often enough U.S. immigration policy is driven by international concerns. And that is when the executive branch—today that means mainly the President and the Department of Homeland Security—become important decision-makers. Anyone who explores the Liberian story through recent reports will be impressed with the complex system of categories and rules that Congress and Executive branch have together created for the most desperate of immigrants-- those seeking refuge from persecution in their homelands.

The 1948 U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 13) asserts it is the right of every person to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country as he pleases. Alas, there is no corresponding human right to enter any other country. No one is more aware of this paradox of human rights than the person who flees from home.

Refugees are persons living outside the U.S. who fear persecution at home. They can of course apply for visas under this fixed quota. But under current U.S. policy only about 10 percent of visas are made available to refugees. The application can take time. Many flee without a visa.

They become asylees—yet another category of U.S. policy. Asylees are persons who have entered the U.S. as tourists, or even without proper documents, but who have requested refugee status upon arrival. (There are no fixed limits for such applications but the decision-making process can be very slow, requiring years.)

In human rights emergencies—typically war or revolution--speed matters. Congress has also empowered Presidents to respond quickly by creating yet another category—that of the “parolee.” Parolees typically come from countries the U.S. regards as important in some way to its national interest. Parolees admitted to the U.S. between 1988 and 1904 from the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia were allowed to adjust their status and to obtain green cards as permanent residents.

Not for the Liberians who were in the news last week. They held yet another--and even more tenuous status –that was granted them by Executive decision. In 1991, when civil war broke out in Liberia, George H.W. Bush granted “temporary protected status” to Liberians already living in the U.S. and seeking asylum. Like many of the countries from which parolees have been admitted, Liberia had a long-term relationship with the U.S. (It was originally settled and governed by emancipated slaves from the United States). Unlike those from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, temporary protected status precluded adjustment through acquisition of a green card and permanent residency.

Unfortunately for the Liberians, the Department of Homeland Security recently declared the emergency in Liberia to be over, thus suspending their temporary protected status and ending their right to continue to live in the U.S. Last week, George W. Bush extended their temporary protected status—but temporarily. Persons who have lived for 16 years in the U.S. may still face forced returns. Like many people who have lived so long in the U.S. many Liberians affected by the decisions have citizen children or spouses; they have jobs, homes, churches, and communities. They otherwise differ little, if at all, from immigrants from Liberians who now possess green cards. Some may want to return; many want to stay.

Recent debates over U.S. immigration policy that American citizens are beginning to recognize what many foreigners already know-- that U.S. policy is confusing, impossibly slow and broken, and broken as an expression of concern for human rights.

Still, any promises to “fix” what is broken will need to acknowledge that immigration policy is not a strictly domestic matter to be settled by Congress. So long as the U.S. remains actively involved in global politics, the Presidents of the U.S. will want to use immigration law as an instrument of foreign policy, especially in decisions regarding refugees in parts of the world the U.S. regards as strategically important. And that makes finding a quick or simple solution quite unlikely.

From the perspective of immigration scholars and historians, the global garden program is interesting because it offers one possibility—there clearly are many more—for balancing an active and informative elementary curriculum with a sensitivity to the complicated role that mandatory state-run education often plays in the lives of immigrants to the U.S. and their families. For the non-English speaking parents of elementary age youth, their child’s school can be an unwelcoming institution despite the best intentions of educators and school officials. Yet a curriculum based on gardening allows such parents to share their ow