"[N]ever underestimate a person's ability to survive..." a profound statement by Cuitlahuac in his blog entry this week! Well said! His observation, made in the context of the success (or failure) of current and future tough immigration laws, often epitomizes the American immigrant's plight--their stuggle for survivial amidst overwhelming obsticles. You will see that in next Thursday's screening of Avalon. You will see it when we cover Asylum and refugee law (one of the "four ways" to obtain a green card in America, generally), and you saw undercurrents of it in the debate on "immigration in a free society" the internet web debate at the University of Louisville last Thursday. Keep in mind this statement when we watch the rest of the debate, especially comments made about the shortcommings of immigrants ("they don't know how to throw away their trash", etc.). Keep this in mind after our discussion of the myths and realities of immigrants "not spending money". Keep in mind also that the benefit branch of the immigration department, Citizenship & Immigration Services (CIS) is entirely fee driven. In otherwords, the agency pays its bills by immigrants! How much does it cost to run that department? Do the immigrant's filing fees really susidize the entire agency?
For this weeks' blog entry, review this material, last week's lecture, and Chapter 3 of Daniels. Offer your summary, critique and commentary!
See you Thursday!
CH
For this weeks' blog entry, review this material, last week's lecture, and Chapter 3 of Daniels. Offer your summary, critique and commentary!
See you Thursday!
CH
17 comments:
On the theme of the "shortcomings of immigrants," this article about suburban overcrowding appeared in the Chicago Tribune today. Note that the debate seems to include arguments over culture and safety, but not affordable housing or low wages.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/living/chi-0701260234jan26,1,2859439.story?page=1&ctrack=1&cset=true&coll=chi-living-hed
Georgiann Bruton
Immigrants do not necessarily spend their money in ways we may view as “normal.” Some are possibly sending money back to their homeland to support family members. Some may be saving until they can return to their home.
There may be some things we are overlooking when we make the judgment that they do not spend money as we do – they grew up with different values and in different cultures. A new car, big house, nicer clothes, etc are things that may not be important. Anyone with grandparents or older family members who grew up during the depression or World War II understand how that generation may be more frugal than most. That still have the fear that it can be taken away. I had great uncles never trusted banks again after the depression.
For groups like Mexicans or Asians, they tend to be family orientated. It is their nature to have many generations living in one house. If a member of their family or friend does immigrate to the United States, they often take that person in and help them get acclimated. Many generations in one home are common and not necessarily a way to save money.
An interesting point I noticed from President Bush’s State of the Union address. In the link provided by Kate, one of the key elements was that anyone who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas would have to pay a “substantial penalty” and pay back taxes as well as other requirements before they could become eligible to become citizens. The cost could deter some from applying. They may feel that they have survived this long with out being “legal,” they can continue with out being caught.
In reading the third chapter of Daniels, it is interesting how the arguments for Mexican immigrants have not changed. On page 63, there is a quote from an official who investigated the Mexican worker. “The Mexican…is today a principal source of farm labor in California…He does tasks that white workers will not or cannot do…He works under…conditions that are often too trying for white workers…”
Interesting article from CNN’s website:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/01/26/canada.apology.ap/index.html
The first thing which came to my mind when reading the article “Overcrowding Stirs Tension in Suburbs” that Julie mentioned was the recent push of minorities out of the city and into the suburbs of Chicago by the city government. Long term residents complain about immigrants moving into the suburbs causing over crowding but they seem to be fine with all the new high rises that are being built in the city that are taking over the once immigrant neighborhoods. The community of Chicago cannot have it both ways. If they do not like the new residents of their suburbs then they should either move or do a bit more research on why these immigrants are moving into the suburbs.
The article stated “neither Berwyn nor Cicero could break down precisely how many homeowners have been forced to pay fines this year, but Mark Jarnagin, Berwyn's director of Neighborhood Affairs, said the city had assessed $100,000 in fines in 2006”. This contradicts the idea that was discussed in the previous class on where immigrant money is going. Not only does their money go to trying to become legal citizens but when they try to live peacefully in neighborhoods they are charged fines for their living conditions. These fines go straight to the city and supporting the economy that the complaining residents are used to.
Probably the biggest thing that strikes me most about
overwhelming opinions on immigration is that many
people seem to think the driving motivation of the
immigrant is to steal a piece of American soil. More
outrageous is the instant label of criminal attached
to those who come to this country, regardless of their
methods of entry. One assumes that their experience
is universal and thus is it impossible to fully
understand the experiences of others. That being the
case, the laws in place regarding immigration, laws
that make the process of coming to this country and
finding a better life (the supposed idea on which this
country was founded) a complex and arduous process,
which claim to welcome the immigrant work in the
opposite way. It is not a far leap to speculate that
the purpose behind an immigration system, fueled by
political trends and xenophobia, exists in reality to
make the process more difficult and further subjugate
this already marginalized part of society. Of course,
as Cuitlahuac says in this quote, you can’t
“underestimate a person's ability to survive” and the
immigrants will climb these difficult walls, despite
extra hurdles put in place by powerful hands.
test
The myths and realities of immigrants "not spending money".
In debating this issue it is important to remember that immigrants could be people who came here temporary or who came here to stay..
For the last category, adjustment and acceptance is a continuous struggle and the distinction between cultural and structural assimilation is crucial for understanding the asisimilation process in American life. The willigness to assimilate, which implies the entrance into American institutions, influences the immgrants to slowly change their cultural patterns to those of the host society. But very often the complete assimilation is unattainable to the first generation, unless by intermarriage.
This persistently frustrating feeling of not being fully accepted or assimilated has two major consequences: renouncing their heritage and accumulating material possessions.
The second consequence is revealed in the immigrants' endless attempt to improve their material lives by accumulating an impresive number of possesions, which in their oppinion will anchor them more firmly in the American life-style and make them becommore "American".
Over the years a large percentage of those who have newly-made money attempt to achive or surpass their original social class, and in their effort often they try to mask the sign of past immigration as well as to buy a way for their children into the middle class of American society.
If "back home", immigrant's posesions and money were not necessary a goal, but a way to assure a decent life, in American society the newcomers change their perspctive on how to spent money. Many are willing to work extended hours in order to earn more money, in the first place to feel "more secure", to assure a legal status and the legal right to work, and in the second place, to possess things they could not afford back home, to help other family members left in the native country, or any other reason that could motivate them. This is not simply consumerism, but it does reinforce the pattern of seeking money rather than appreciating other aspects of personal life.
Bledsoe said something insightful when she wrote that “the community of Chicago cannot have it both ways.” Her comment speaks to many of my feelings about the debates over immigration. As the “Overcrowding Stirs Tension in Suburbs” article describes, neighbors and city officials are complaining that immigrant families are doubling-up, resulting in 12-15 (or more) people living in a single home. Clearly substandard and dangerous housing conditions are a problem, as is school over crowding, but no one in the article mentioned the issue of affordable housing. If housing units were available at a price Mexican immigrants in the suburbs could pay, it is likely over-crowding would be less of an issue. Affordable housing raises two issues: the price of housing and wages. If these suburban immigrants made higher wages or if suburban housing (or city housing for that matter) were less expensive, they would be able to afford their own housing units and still save money for a return to Mexico or to send back to their families. But few critics seem willing to argue for higher wages in low-skilled, service sector jobs. After all, higher wages in the service sector would result in higher prices for those services. It seems to me, however, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot have both low prices for immigrant-supported goods and services AND a world without working-poor families that must join forces to afford market-rate housing. Without higher wages or subsidized affordable housing, city officials should not be surprised by these trends and should not expect fines or other sanctions to end the problem. Overcrowding (or other complaints about immigrants’ way of life) is less of an issue of immigrants not knowing how to behave appropriately in our society and more of an issue of immigrants simply trying to meet their needs given the resources available to them.
On a related note, I would also like to add to the “shortcoming of immigrants” discussion that many similar complaints have been made about Chicago Housing Authority residents who are moving into the CHA’s new mixed-income housing in Chicago. Residents who have known nothing other than over-crowded, poorly maintained, and completely city-run housing are now being asked to live in and around market-rate housing. Yet, many are now complaining that CHA residents spend too much time on their porches or balconies, that they mis-use public space by throwing BBQs in the parks or simply lounging in the green areas, and that they don’t know what to do with their trash. But when you have never lived in a community without trash shoots, have never seen a rolling trash bin before, and were never told that trash pick-up would only happen on a certain day of the week at a certain time, how are you supposed to know how to throw away your trash? It is tough to even know what question to ask when coming from such a drastically different community environment. What is missing from these discussion about immigrants and CHA residents are comprehensive community education programs that do not take for granted the life skills many of us developed in our youth. Trash does not accumulate because people want to share their living space with rotten food, dirty diapers, and empty boxes, but because people do not know what to do with it. Again, social problems like these are not about inherent shortcomings or deficiencies of immigrants, but a lack of information.
I’m finding this class really interesting, especially, the history of immigration and the mentality that many Americans had about people who wanted to move and start and new life in the United States. Last week, we discuss that many Americans think that immigrants don’t spend money in the United States. I really don’t think this is an accurate statement. Immigrants, we do spend money, however, we spend it in a different way because we have a different mentality. For example, during my first Thanksgiving in the U.S., I remember that everyone was going to malls and was spending all their money because everything was on sale. We don’t have that mentality because we do not have something similar in our culture, especially in the Mexican culture. Although many immigrants don’t have the same financial status than many Americans have, we do spend our money, especially by providing money to our families and also by spending money on vacations.
Something that surprised me about chapter 3 of Daniels was the passivity that FDR had regarding the immigration of European Jews coming to America. Nowadays we have NGOs that deal with this type of issues and that put a lot of pressure to our Government; we also have the media that puts a lot of pressure to the White House. Back then, the few interest groups, if any, did not have as much power as interest groups have nowadays.
One part of chapter three that I found interesting was the section about the attempted repatriation of Mexican immigrants during the 1930’s, and particularly the quote on p. 65 about the value of Mexican immigrants, which said, “early in the century the pioneer historian of California, Hubert Howe Bancroft, had argued that using Mexican laborers to pick California’s crops would better serve the state because, unlike Asians, they would go home when the crops were picked.” I think this one-dimensional idea about immigrants, that they can simply be let in as workers when workers are needed and then easily detached from America and sent back to their home country when the economy takes a turn, is one that still exists today and is a misconception that leads to a lot of immigration issues. Realistically, I think people know that whenever human beings leave their homelands and go to a foreign country for work, they’re bound to form attachments that cause many of them to want to stay. Still, when speaking of economic incentives for bringing in immigrants and initiating temporary worker programs, politicians often speak of immigrants as though it’s reasonable that they’ll simply contribute to our economy, gain from the exchange and then leave. There’s still a tendency in America to think of immigrants only in terms of their economic contributions and their roles in the labor force. But this narrow definition leads people to disregard the human realities at the core of immigration issues and can compound a lot of the problems in thinking about immigration (illegal immigration, resentment of immigrants, ideas that immigrants don’t contribute to society) when the idea of immigrants as economic tools doesn’t line up with the reality.
Kathy, in response to your comment about "immigrant spending" being qualitively different than that of natural citizens, I agree. I'd like to add that in many ways, immigrants actually pay more for day-to-day necessities like food and shelter. Perhaps this has already been noted, but we know from survey data (especially the Census) that recent immigrants in particular live in larger households and have lower rates of home ownership. Unfortunately,(and Julie, you can probably attest to this), there is a longstanding tradition among landlords to overcharge immigrant tenants, especially those who are not documented and thus unlikely to complain. Fear of deportation also makes many illegal migrants run on a cash-only basis, meaning they get none of the benefits associated with home mortgages, home equity loans, etc.
In fact, we read a book last semester in Soc 461 (America's Newcomers and the Dynamics of Diversity, by Frank Bean & Gillian Stevens) which includes a cost-benefit analysis of immigration over the past 3 decades and concludes that in the end, America wins. Immigrants create a modest surplus. See: http://www.russellsage.org/publications/books/0-87154-124-6.
Finally, check this out: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003550598_immigfees01.html. Given what we now know about the CIS's funding, does anyone else find this ironic? Maybe they want to redecorate. :)
What struck me in "overcrowding stirs tension in suburbs" is the stress of the situation is causing people to fear "throw each other under the bus" to save each other. Rather than demand a more comprehensive solution from their lawmakers.
Yes overcrowding in housing is dangerous and overcrowding in schools causes is bad for our school system. But those are also problems that need better solutions than just removing all illegal residents, thereby creating more tension and putting us farther away from a comprehensive, humane solution. Chicago citizens should be pushing for more (and much better quality) schools for their children, not kicking others out. For more affordable housing, instead of simply turning their neighbors in. It is probably not in the best interest of voters to rally around city council members, who may not respond to those issues so passionately if they couldn't present an oversimplified answer (expelling illegals). The only way to keep the peace is if we ask more of our representatives and from each other.
It is so sad to me that throughout history, the people of many nations, including our own, have made other people the scapegoat for their own problems and fears. On pages 68-69 of Daniels there are several comments that refer to the morality, intelligence levels, and human value of Filipino's and thier mates. It really reminds me of the atrocities during the holocaust and how the Jews were blamed for Germany's problems during that time. I think it's a natural instinct to be proud of individual heritage and nationality, but it's sad that there is also a link to fear of change and inclusion of other people because of that pride. I can see a correlation between that fear and globalization going on around the world today. Even here at Loyola I encounter many people who are offended by America's involvement in other people's cultures, but I see it as a natural process that always has been happening and always will be happening because of the various interactions between countries around the world. I think a lot of racism and fear of "the other" would dissipate if more people just accepted culture as a process that is constantly evolving, instead of thinking about it as something to cling to and protect from outsiders.
I think Daniels portrayal of President Roosevelt in Ch.3 really illustrates the concept of dualism. Roosevelt's speech to the DAR reminding everyone that all Americans are immigrants and revolutionaries seems very accepting of immigrants. But, politically he continued Hoover's poliicies and even furthered them through policies towards Filipinos. I think the Filipino situation described in the book is interesting because they were American nationals, which I think means they were technically citizens, but they were still viewed and treated as outsiders. I think the bill paying for travel expenses for Filipinos to return to the Philippines sounds good on the surface, but the motives behind enacting the bill and the concept of swearing to never return to the U.S. shows the true motivation of Roosevelt and politicians at the time. I would have liked the book to go into more detail about how an independent Philippines hurt or harmed Filipinos.
Your comments on housing lead initally by Julie, and the issue of immigrants spending money and on what composed most of your comments--are are well-taken. Kate discusses CIS' own issues in her seattle times link. This week, we will see even more problems facing immigrants who come not only for ecomnic reasons. Their struggle litterally involves a life or death situation. One man faced being sent to death by his President, another was burned beyond belief in Africa..You will also learn about a child who would have been placed in a cage or the "Pagel Khanna" (crazy house) for his severe autism. Safe haven or opening up the flood gates? You be the judge.
I found this article. It is related to the discussion about how immigrants spend their money in America. Well, if this bill passes, we are going to be spending a lot more!. Note the argument: “America thinks that by raising money it will solve our immigration problem”. Do you agree with this?
http://media.www.thecampuspress.com/media/storage/paper1098/news/2007/02/08/News/U.s-Proposes.Raising.Immigration.Costs.Others.Fear.ShutOut.Of.LowIncome.Familie-2707070.shtml?sourcedomain=www.thecampuspress.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com
Post a Comment