WE CONCLUDED OUR FIRST CLASS SESSION with a discussion of why one wants to "Come to America" e.g., emigrate to the United States permanently.

Can you think of other reasons why someone would want to emigrate permanently to the United States?

We also discussed how immigration laws generally, are creatures of politics and economics---and are not always based upon sound judgement or common sense, for that matter. Why is this so? You certainly will hear me state this numerous times throughout the semester. Is my statement consistent with your reading this week of Daniels? Geraldo? I also mentioned how 9/11 has impacted U.S. immigration policy and public sentiment towards immigrants. Is there a direct correlation between terrorism and immigration?

Additionally, we discussed the four (4) ways in which one can obtain lawful permanent residency (and someday United States Citizenship), via: (1) a family sponsor; (2) job sponsor; (3) political asylum; (3) the visa lottery. (There are a few exceptions such as the amnesty program of the 1980s for example, or if one is here without lawful authorization (here "illegally") for 10 years and has a green card or citizen family member and must be in removal ("deportation") proceedings). How do you feel about these 4 ways? Should there be any others? Are there too many? Is this a fair and reasoned approach to allowing one to "come to America"? And for those who come to the United States on a temporary basis--on non-immigrant or "NIV" visas--we discussed how they are similar to a frog on slowly sinking lily pad...

Finally, we discussed how the road to a "green card" (or lawful permanent residency) never leads down the NIV path. Why is this so? Should it? Should a student studying here later obtaining a degree in the United States be permitted to stay here and someday become a U.S. Citizen? Why or Why not? What are some of the inherent problems of telling someone to pack their bags, take their cap and gown and leave the United States immediately--after living here, studying here (sometimes) for many years?

---Christopher Helt


Aida said...

Of course immigration laws are creatures of politics and economics. And it seems to me that perhaps they are first creatures of economics before being that of politics.
Let’s take the example of the Chinese Exclusion Act.
When Chinese immigrants first came to the United States to work for the transcontinental railroad, they were welcome and employers were happy to have a cheap labor force. But then as Daniels puts it in chapter one, the “completion of the Union-Central Pacific Railroad […] in 1869 threw some 10,000 Chinese railroad builders onto the California labor market and pushed the Chinese immigration issue to the top of western workingmen’s political agenda” (p.12).

Another example is given on pages 16 and 17 when in June 1870, 75 Chinese workmen came to Massachusetts to replace striking shoemakers who happened to be members of a union. As a result, the National Labor Union changed its policy about immigration arguing that “the presence in [the] country of Chinese laborers in large numbers is an evil… and should be prevented by legislation”.

In both cases, it was first an economic issue, American workers feeling threatened by Chinese ones. Then it became political with the intervention of the unions or other lobbying groups. Finally, legislation was enacted.

And as we said in class last time, whenever there is a recession (as it was later the case during the Great Depression) the scapegoats are immigrants. So, for me immigration laws are first and foremost creatures of economics.

Teresa said...

This summer, I worked with middle school students in a school enrichment program. One boy, at the beginning of the summer, had a hard time getting along with the other kids. He could be considered to be “strange” as he liked Pokemon and Dungeons and Dragons more than football or poker. Kids, in response to his level of being different, were mean to him. He struggled emotionally and psychologically. In the middle of the summer, however, he began to shift his placement on the social ladder. He began to find a place within a group of other boys. This newfound empowerment gave him the supposed right to be mean to another boy on the outskirts of “cool.” He had achieved his placement and could now further ostracize others who were without higher social placement. I struggled with this event. I asked him what it felt like when kids called him names or didn’t include him. Did he not think this other boy was feeling similar feelings he once felt? He could not seem to grasp the concept.

As I did the readings for this week, I realized immigration law in the United States is similar to the story of the boy. Noncitizen immigrants are always going to be the scapegoat for problems until they achieve citizenship. Those on top have to keep people on bottom in order to maintain their superiority. Those who were once discriminated against become those who speak out against immigration. Geraldo Rivera writes about signs of discrimination which existed against immigrant groups. The Irish who once could see signs on businesses saying “Positively No Irish Need Apply” later became government officials in political and economic power who sought to further limit immigration on other ethnic groups. Is this logical? No. Immigration laws fluctuate with the rise and fall of the economy and the current state of political affairs.

The best way to keep an ethnic group or an immigrant minority on the bottom of the social ladder is through the weapon of fear. This explains the direct correlation between terrorism and immigration. If we fear and hate immigrants because they are responsible for terrorist attacks on the United States, then the white privilege of the United States can be maintained. Those who are safe, with the insurance of their citizenship, feel free to judge and accuse those who are not safe, without the proper papers of registration or a different skin color. As a nation largely comprised of immigrants, how do we fail to see our own often personal roots in immigration? How do we become a land of diversity strong with various immigrant roots and not a land where “It should be legal to kill illegals” (Rivera 32) or “This is the USA, don’t fuck with us” (Rivera 33).

dlewis1 said...
By virtue of the Constitution providing Congress the power and responsibility of determining naturalization laws, the political process determines immigration policies. By nature of our political process being shaped by more often by self and not social interests, economics plays a key role in shaping the political processes determining immigration policies. Daniels details how manipulation by political agendas and trade regulations created immigration policies and current problems. Anti-immigration legislation was born in administrations such as Adams’ who attempted to “keep out” those who might support his political opponents while continuing to support self-interests such as the forced immigration of slaves (pg. 7). Later anti-immigration legislation focused on keeping those out deemed to be “undesirable” due to their race or ethnicity, perceived threat to economic status, or assumed ability to assimilate in American culture. Daniels’ history of immigration policies was supported by Geraldo’s book. Additionally, Geraldo discusses immigration policies on a social level, depicting anti-immigration supporters/hate groups as being often misinformed, usually racially insensitive and always divisive who’s passionate but misguided stance is to protect homes, families, jobs and the American way of life.

nh said...
In reply to the paragraph on fear above...
I remember going to a guest speaker a few years ago that talked about immigration and the fear embedded in Americans. This has been analyzed through many advertisements about the crossing over Illegal immigrants from the mexican border. Many say, we are scared they are going to steal our jobs and money. We feel very insecure, and are scared of change and not proud to be a nation full of diversity. Rivera states that it is, "fear of America's changing face" (6). I enjoy the challenge that Rivera offers, as he states that many people who put down immigration and the change for immigration laws, are in fact, families of immigrants, too.

Also in response to the question of students studying in the US...should this lead to citizenship? This is a very complicated issue, because a person studying here for many years and devoting much time and energy learning about a subject matter in a language, probably not of their first, should not have to pack their bags and get right out of the US. I think that after their higher education is completed they should have the opportunity to apply for citizenship having met certain criteria (that of which I don't know) and if they can not become a citizen, I don't think that they should be allowed to stay or extend their visa.


Michael said...
I just got back from spending the year studying abroad in the south of France. As a part time English tutor, I made a quite a few Euros in order to make ends meet; the Euro/Dollar ratio was not in my favor. I found that not only was English teaching in high demand and well paid, but that I could multiply the number of Euros I had earned by about 1.6 and have that many more in dollars. From my standpoint, I could find myself in a very comfortable position if I were to earn my wages in Euros, and, perhaps, begin paying off student loans with the dollar weakened as it is.

I quite enjoy France and French culture, and would not be against the idea of spending more time there. However, my motivations are more or less based on the financial edge that the strong European economy and the world’s drive to learn English give me in this situation. Should I choose to move and spend my days in France, I would have to accept that I was an expatriate and a foreign immigrant to a new country who came for economic advantages. I would be in the same position as an unskilled Hispanic laborer, yet having followed a different path to get there.

Based on this personal experience, I understand for the first time the allure of opportunity that a foreign land can offer economically, and can only begin to imagine the drive of those who are actually in desperate need of it. Should France ban me from her country, so be it, she’s French; should America close her doors to those seeking a better life, she would be turning her back on those who shaped her history.

Kip Young said...
While we place a large emphasis on immigration control and restriction, when looking at immigration issues in "immigrant nations" (Lynch) it is just as important to examine immigration laws and policies that encourage immigration. The United States has a long history of attempting to open and close it's doors to immigration without understanding the impact on immigrant populations and the effects it will have beyond national borders. The United States not only tries to restrict the flow of new immigrants, but also has the tendency to deport immigrants regardless of their citizenship status, the contribution they have made, the impact that such an action will have on that individual or the global issues it raises with geopolitics.

While at the same time, the United States has targeted specific nations or groups of people with policies that encourage their migration to the United States. A good example of this is the history of immigration policy directed toward immigration flows from Mexico. The policy of the United States has shifted from opening the borders with policies like the Bracero program (or the "guest worker" program that Bush Administration is promoting) to ending those programs and restricting the flow from of migrants from Mexico.

I challenge everyone to look also at the policies that encourage immigration to the United States, beginning with the Homestead Act of 1862. By looking at these laws and policies, we gain a greater understand of which groups are invited and encouraged to come, the racial dynamics of the laws and policies the United States has pursued, and the broader goals that the United States has attempted to fulfill with it's immigration policies.

anna said...
In the 2008 election, there are several hot topics that have caused arguments not just on capital hill, but also around the dinner tables of millions of people living in the US. Should the US withdraw troops from Iraq? How should my tax dollars be spent? How will we be able to afford our home? Should undocumented workers be welcomed to the US workforce? No matter what argument is given, many of these topics are tightly knit together by US concerns over economics.

As argued by both Daniels and Rivera (and Teresa), the public’s opinion is easily swayed by a fear that is fed by publicity-seeking people such as Lou Dobbs or the Minutemen. In the case of immigration, fear is aimed in several (illogical) directions. People are afraid of another September 11th and therefore are afraid of Middle Eastern immigrants. People are afraid of losing their jobs and therefore are afraid of those who are perceived to have taken them- immigrants, especially Latino immigrants. People are afraid of raising taxes and therefore will blame higher costs on “freeloader” immigrants taking advantage of American social programs.

What is most disturbing about this fear-turned-hatred is its historical roots. Not only has this been happening for decades in regards to immigration, it has been repeating itself among various so called “economic burdens on society,” ranging from single mothers to people with disabilities to those who are on welfare. Instead of looking at why someone needs welfare or is forced to stay on welfare, people write off the entire group as being lazy or taking advantage of taxpayers. Those who disagree with immigration rarely look at how the US has contributed to immigration with poor international policy or unequal economic policies such as NAFTA and the maquiladoras of Latin America. We recognize other countries’ roles through our policy of asylum, but disregard how the US has contributed to economic disparities or international conflicts.

This economically based fear has several negative consequences on immigration law/policy. Stereotypes essentialize and generalize entire groups of people, leading to a similar effect in policy. As was shown in letters to Rivera, many US citizens see immigrants as one monolithic group that needs to be deported or shot. While I (being a “white person”) can easily choose to ignore or embrace my Irish heritage while still being called American, many immigrants do not realistically have this option (the Rivera family included.) No matter how long they have lived or studied in the US, they will always be Mexican, Muslim, Israeli, etc. Because of racist views, they are forced into sometimes illogical classifications with which they do not identify. Similarly in policy, entire groups of people are boiled down into four supposedly neat categories. These categories leave little room for the wide array of nationalities, family types, political beliefs, motivations, etc that exist within immigrants. Politicians must appease their constituents so as to keep their jobs and thus begins a vicious cycle of exclusion and illogical policies. When policy is based on illogical anxiety, it will never be just.

Diana Guelespe said...
In response to the statement about economics coming before politics in the case of immigration, I disagree and think that if we look at the reasons why people of some countries are legally allowed to enter the U.S. at higher rates than people from other countries you can see it is for political reasons. I don’t negate the idea that immigrants come to the U.S. to earn higher wages and make a better life for their families, but from my point of view, the U.S. has also implemented certain policies that make life in other countries more difficult, thus leading to a decision to migrate.

An example would be the different policies the U.S. had for allowing Central Americans to enter the U.S. during their ongoing civil wars. During the 1980’s, the countries of Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala were each engulfed in civil wars. The U.S. supported the military governments of El Salvador and Guatemala by sending over 1 million dollars a day in foreign aid, over a 10 year period. However, when the immigrants from those countries began to flee, the U.S. government did not grant them political refugee status and stated they were fleeing for economic reasons. In Nicaragua, the U.S. was trying to topple the Sandanista government which it claimed was communist and granted immigrants arriving from that country political refugee status. The point is that it was in the U.S.’s political interest to accept immigrants from a certain country and not others with similar circumstances, because it could claim to be fighting the war against communism, which in the 80’s was important due to the cold war.

AnnaW said...

It seems to me that as a nation founded by immigrants, the United States would hold the door open for newcomers who come to her looking for shelter, opportunity, or family. Yet the history of the immigration policy of this country does not reflect an ‘open door’ mentality, but rather that of an ‘open door when it is convenient’ policy. I think that immigration laws are indeed a creature of politics and economics
Something that struck me while I was reading Guarding the Golden Door was that although President Theodore Roosevelt seemed to create thought-out, and well meaning immigration laws (as in the case of the Japanese), he did not include everyone in these laws (namely, the Chinese). In his 1905 speech to Congress he “seemed to embrace the old pro-immigrant consensus” (Daniels, 42), and said “it is unwise to depart from the old American tradition and to discriminate for or against any man who desires to come here and become a citizen, save on the ground of that man’s fitness for citizenship…”. It is remarkable to note, however, that after this statement he continued to discriminate against Chinese laborers. Was he only admitting Japanese immigrants because he was afraid of Japan’s rising power and wanted to stay on it’s ‘good side’? This would prove that immigration laws are creatures of politics.

Aida said...

Diana, I just wanted to clarify something. I realized that maybe I had not been clear enough because you said : "I don’t negate the idea that immigrants come to the U.S. to earn higher wages and make a better life for their families". When I said that economics prevailed over politics, I was referring to immigration laws/policy and not to the reasons why should one want to emigrate to the US.

2:51 PM

tmanriq said...

Coming from the country that has the largest number of immigrants living in the United States it is very clear that the immigration policy of the U.S.A is a creature of economics and politics. Talking from my own experience most of my family members (including my own parents) would go back to Mexico if they could find a good job. In this respect the United States blames Mexico for not creating enough jobs for its citizens and therefore having many issues about immigration between the two countries.

In return Mexico claims that it was the United States, like it was mentioned in the previous blog entry, who first started looking for Mexican workers and till now employers from various companies still hire illegal Mexican workers. This process is known as the push-pull theory, because Mexico pushes its people away, while it is said that in general in return the U.S.A pulls these people in. This push-pull theory further proves that immigration, like it was said in class, is a creature of economics and politics.

Furthermore I have heard many times from people living on both side of the border that neither Mexico city nor Washington D.C really know what happens on the border and they claimed that the border is a separate country from the Unites States. Having passed the southern border a couple of times I have seen how kids from Mexico go to school in the United States and by the end of the day they go back to their houses in Mexico. Or how U.S citizens go to Mexico for business purposes across the border and go back to their homes in Texas.

3:17 PM

tmanriq said...

Coming from the country that has the largest number of immigrants living in the United States it is very clear that the immigration policy of the U.S.A is a creature of economics and politics. Talking from my own experience most of my family members (including my own parents) would go back to Mexico if they could find a good job. In this respect the United States blames Mexico for not creating enough jobs for its citizens and therefore having many issues about immigration between the two countries.

In return Mexico claims that it was the United States, like it was mentioned in the previous blog entry, who first started looking for Mexican workers and till now employers from various companies still hire illegal Mexican workers. This process is known as the push-pull theory, because Mexico pushes its people away, while it is said that in general in return the U.S.A pulls these people in. This push-pull theory further proves that immigration, like it was said in class, is a creature of economics and politics.

Furthermore I have heard many times from people living on both side of the border that neither Mexico city nor Washington D.C really know what happens on the border and they claimed that the border is a separate country from the Unites States. Having passed the southern border a couple of times I have seen how kids from Mexico go to school in the United States and by the end of the day they go back to their houses in Mexico. Or how U.S citizens go to Mexico for business purposes across the border and go back to their homes in Texas.

3:31 PM

anna said...

RE: Diana's entry

"The point is that it was in the U.S.’s political interest to accept immigrants from a certain country and not others with similar circumstances, because it could claim to be fighting the war against communism, which in the 80’s was important due to the cold war."

Some would claim, however, that even those political reasons (the fight against communism) were based in economics (trying to maintain control over resources, governments, etc so as to advance US business.) If the US took immigrants from those countries, they would have had to recognize that those dictators were indeed wrong/unjust/cruel/corrupt and that the US was involved. I agree that this is horrific in light of the human rights abuses the US has committed in those countries (both via supporting harsh governments as well as via creating maquiladoras and other corrupt/cruel business practices.)But I wouldnt say that politics and economics can be divided.

4:05 PM

fm37181 said...

The United States is known historically as a country in which people of various cultures have found a 'home', a place where people can earn a decent living and enjoy from various types of liberties. Being a country of immigrants, does not necessarily mean that the process of immigrating to the United States is a smooth one. The influx of new people into the United States has been resented by the people who have already lived in the country for some generations. As Geraldo Rivera states the behavior of assimilated citizens, "(there is a) tendency in this country to want to burn the immigrant bridge as soon as your particular crew has come in over it" (Rivera 6). As unjust as it sounds, this has been the case with groups such as the Irish, the Japanese, the Italians, and is now the case with Latinos. As a Latino, particularly a Mexican, it appears to me that there are two principal reasons for the negative sentiments felt/ directed towards my ethnic group. First, I think that the opinion that Mexicans are working the jobs that Americans would work is erroneous. Americans who oppose the Mexican labor, resent the fact that Mexicans send the money they earn here to their hometowns in Mexico. In their eyes, there is no real contribution to the economy, which is a mistake since they represent the majority of manual labor in many industries. Second, Americans who oppose immigration of more Mexicans fear an 'invasion of culture'. As more and more Mexicans come, the need for them to speak English is becoming minimal. The above events are factual and need to be taken/ understood from a humanitarian perspective. Furthermore they convey that immigration laws are economic - based and political - based.

4:09 PM

bosslet said...

Back to the discussion of Ramos...it is clear that the issue Oreilly was trying to address was the prevalence and existence of these sanctuary cities in the more liberal areas of America. Geraldo's point of view was more on the side that the issue is that the terrible accident that occurred is not the result of the cities defacto or dejure status as a sanctuary city. In my opinion it is a bit of a shame that the issue of sanctuary cities was sidetracked to discuss the connection between the drunk driving incident it was important for Rivera to indicate that the connection is very indirect if existent at all. The real tragedy is that we didn't get to hear any commentary about the real issue that should have been discussed in the context which is the issue of sanctuaries themselves, whether cities or communities ought to or should be allowed to legislate or through defacto actions prevent the reporting of illegals to federal agencies.

This ought to have been the issues addressed if any political discourse was desired.

MBazo said...

I personally think that the issue of immigration is a very tricky subject to talk about. It is definitely a heated subject. You can always find people that are pro-immigration and anti-immigration. I think that a lot of the time people don't see the complete picture but rather see a clouded version of what is going on.
It seems that these days our country is not very tolerant when it comes to immigrants. We are so caught up in the fact that this is "our" country not theirs and there is a constant belittlement of immigrants. I think that perhaps at times we forget that our country is the result of immigration.
With that being said, it is very clear that the immigration process in America could use some work.