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.

Welcome to the immigrationstudies.org Blogsite! Here students of Special Topics: Immigration Policy (SOC) 370, INTS 398, ASIA 397, University faculty, and others interested in this subject can express their views on the great American immigration debate or enhance communication on their course. Some of your comments may be the subject of my lectures. If you have not already done so, please register on blogger.com. This will allow you to post comments on this blogsite!



I also welcome students and faculty to provide commentary, news and/or other information on a particular immigration subject. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, web pages, and other media related to this topic and I welcome immigration-related information. While this blog is primarily textual, I encourage focus on immigration-related photographs (photoblogs), videos (vlog), or audio (podcasting) as well.

We are a nation of immigrants and it is important to express constructive viewpoints on this great issue. You are now part of the Great American Debate on Immigration!

For the immigration policy class, please first register and review comments made my me and your classmates.

--Christopher Helt, Esq. Lecturer, Loyola University of Chicago.

This week was our final class and review session for the final exam Thursday May 3, 2007. Again, I was very impressed with all of your participation in the immigration policy class blogspot. The course had an added element because of your blog opinions and all of you essentially became the Fourth Reading Material for our class. All of you should be very proud!

The student who participated most in this semester's classblog spot is KATE DALTON. She received the overall best performance/participation in the blogspot and should be recognized as such. Congratualtions, Kate, for your outstanding performance! Well done!

THE FINAL EXAM


--CH

Cynthia this week requested that I place this rally information and her involvement on the class blog spot. Her comments are below:

Cynthia writes:

Please join Amnesty International USA and the Chicago Religious Leadership Network on Latin America as we rally for justice for Guatemala!



Friday, April 20th
11.30am

Guatemalan Consulate
203 N. Wabash Avenue
Chicago, IL

This rally is part of an international campaign to bring to justice former Guatemalan General Efraín Ríos Montt, who has been charged with genocide, torture, terrorism, and illegal detention. The campaign emerged in support of the efforts by a group of Guatemalan survivors – led by Nobel laureate Rigoberta Menchú – to file a suit against Ríos Montt in Spain, urging Spain’s courts to exercise jurisdiction over crimes of international concern.

In July 2006, Spain’s National Court issued international warrants for the arrest of Ríos Montt and several other former senior officials. As Guatemala’s courts review Spain’s request for Ríos Montt’s extradition, complainants, lawyers, judges, witnesses and local human rights organizations are coming under mounting pressure and intimidation. It is a critical time to let the Guatemalan authorities know that the world is watching.

I thouht it important towards immigration because so many Guatemalans fled to the United States and Canada because of the Civil War and more specifically the "scorch earth program" that Rios Montt was responsible for. During his de facto presidency complete villages were destroyed and several refugees took to the north. Most of them applied for political asylum and fixed their immigration status thru that method and most recently NACARA. So, thats why I thought it was important.

--Cynthia Mazariegos

THOSE WHO DO NOT LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DESTINED TO REPEAT IT.....It is with this familar saying that we turn our discussion of the immigration policy toward another immigrant group in the United States: The Japanese during World War II. We see that contemporary programs, as part of today's War on Terror, (such as the NSEERS "Special Registration" Program,) have similarities with the internment program of persons living in the U.S. of Japesnese ancestry, discussed in Chapter 4 of Ngai, was really the first program of its kind in the U.S. discriminating against immigrants during wartime.

"Japanese American Internment" as it was called, was the forced removal of approximately 120,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans (62 percent of whom were United States citizens)from the U.S. West Coast during World War II. While approximately 10,000 were able to relocate to other parts of the country, the remainder – roughly 110,000 men, women and children – were sent to hastily constructed camps called "War Relocation Centers" in remote portions of the nation's interior. It is clearly one of the most shameful times in our nation's history.

Decades laster, On August 10, 1988 the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 was signed into law by Ronald Reagan. On November 21, 1989, George H.W. Bush signed an appropriation bill authorizing payments to be paid out between 1990 and 1998 to survivors. In 1990, surviving internees began to receive individual redress payments and a letter of apology.

I was very impressed by your discussions this week (There were 10 students who particpated in the class blogspot this week), partly for the manner in which you articulated yourselves, but mostly because you were all able to raise some very key issues surrounding "illegal" immigration, discussed in Ngai: Foreign policy, culture, Racism, oppression of women, the difficulties of immigration processes, the international economic system, political oppression, and misconceptions made by the American people and through the American media. These are all complex issues, and you seem to be asking very appropriate and necessary questions.


I enjoyed Meagan’s comments because she pinpointed one of the major frustrations regarding illegal immigration, which is how polarized the views are regarding the issue: illegal is bad, legal is good. She used the terms “Black, white”. There is a reluctance to admit that illegal immigrants have real and valid reasons for coming to U.S. This polarization, this belief in absolutes, or the use of absolute terminology, dismisses the complexity of the issue, and is a notion widely held by the public. This is partly the reason that we have seen so little change in policy since early 1900’s.

Belinda continues this discussion and adds that problems of discriminatory immigration practice frustrates legal immigration. She argues that more focus should be on the corporations who hire illegally, rather than on the individual immigrant.

Cynthia brings up the role that media plays in perpetuating the stereotype.


Cezara’s comments focused on the complexity of illegal immigration. Her argument is that we cannot lump all issues into Immigration, but rather on the processes by which illegal immigrants come to the U.S. She mentions particularly the mistreatment of women, “lapdancers,” adoption, drug trafficking, and emphasizes that though the policies have remained the same, the “the process itself of illegal immigration, from an immigrant perspective, has been greatly transformed.” This post was intuitive in that it necessitates the complexity of the issue, and rejects overt assumptions regarding illegal immigration. She states “The significance of the sex industry rises in the absence of other sources for job, profit and revenue” and goes on to suggest that we fuel the sex industry by not permitting legal forms of revenue to reach these women.


Kate brings up the point that illegal immigrants are not coming to the U.S. from the 50 poorest countries, but rather from countries that are already connected economically to the United States. This is an important issue, she argues because “Framing Mexican immigrants as desperate criminals diverts attention away from the fact that NAFTA has had some seriously negative consequences on the Mexican economy.” (Though she doesn’t say this, she raises questions of Responsibility. As an economic superpower, do we have the right to dabble in other economies, without accept the repercussions of our own actions?)

Cynthia touches on this by stating, “What I am advocating is that the United States just reverse initiatives it has currently implemented in other nations that have proven to only worsen the economy of other nations or that has allowed for an authoritative government to continue to rule.” This is also a question of responsibility.

Julie points out that economic stability in other countries would force the U.S. to increase costs and wages for outsourced work. Yet, it is that instability that is a cause for illegal immigration. She also points out (and I agree with her) that Americans would probably still take issue with too many “legal” immigrants. Though she doesn’t say this, she raises the point that Racism is a major part of this debate, though it hides behind the guise of “illegal”. She also points out that illegal workers may boost our economy, because they work without the right for fair wages, unionization, or benefits.


Cuitlahuac emphasizes political oppression and the issues of culture. He also touches on racism, stating “The “Foreignness” concept illustrates the perverted mind-set that pervades and permeated mainstream America. Relations of domination and control attempt to legitimize or hide these xenophobic beliefs. Images of “them” appeals to the deep-rooted racism that is ingrained in many Americans from centuries ago.”

Racheal Deeds wraps up the discussion by referring back to the notion that legal immigration isn’t necessarily the solution, simply because “illegal” immigration isn’t the problem. She states, “All immigrants have been scapegoats for economic and political issues throughout the history of America from the Germans and the Irish to the Itialians and the Greeks and now the Muslims and the Mexicans, all scapegoats regardless of their legal status. The fear goes deeper that just jobs; it's a fear about the changes that take place in our culture.” She also raises questions about international economic stability, “if we stopped exploiting those countries…who would we make money off of? How could we stay on top if there's nobody at our feet?”

For next week's class, we will focus on recent developments in Congress concerning the GUEST WORKER PROGRAM (proposed).

Georgiann Leads off this week's Class Blog and she writes:

I believe the saying goes, No matter how much things change, they seem to remain the same.

This can easily be said for the United States on immigration policy as it relates to Mexico. We have discussed in class some of the measures currently being discussed to diffuse the topic of illegal immigrants. Such as building a fence, making every one legal as they stand in the U.S. today, renewable temporary work permits, security and health checks, pay a fine and become legal, they take jobs from citizens, they lower the wage scale, etc. These are exactly the same options and concerns tossed about from our readings going back to the 1930s 1950s as they relate to illegal immigrants.

The Bracero Program, according to the Truman Commission, said that this government sponsored contract labor program would eliminate illegal migration bring order to the farm labor market and protect foreign nationals from abuse. This was clearly not the case as with many government programs there were abuses and no money for enforcement. The Bracero Program legally allowed growers to bring in the help they needed from Mexico and pay them below wage even though they were to have a set wage. They allowed the workers to be housed in poor conditions and made them pay for their board and food.

The Filipinos has somewhat the same strife as the Mexican farm worker except they seem to be more willing to strike and use the court system. They also seem to have a few advantages over their Mexican counterparts. The Filipino government looked out for their citizens that came to America. They set up agents in the US, they had a dialog with the US government, and more importantly the US needed their country for military reasons. Although the Philippines were a US territory, they still held some leverage against the US government.

The Filipinos were grouped in with the Chinese; they were excluded from becoming citizens. They tried to argue that of all the Asian groups, they assimilated the best with the American (white) culture. This did not hold up in court. People did not believe that “brown” people could obtain the same intelligence, morality and social characteristics of people. On page 117 of Ngai, there is a quote by Attorney General U. S. Webb, We thank God that only we, the white people, found it first (America) and we want to be protected in our enjoyment of it.

In Ngai's Illegal Immigration & The Making of Modern America, we turn our attention (South of the U.S. Border) to our nations "undocumented" or "illegal" aliens--persons living in the United States without permission from the U.S. Government. Nagai's focus charts the historical orgins of an "illegal alien" in American law and society and the emergence of illegal immigration as the "central problem" in U.S. Immigration Policy in the twentieth century. As Ngai states,

"what it is about the violation of the nation's sovereign space that produces a different kind of illegal alien and a different valuation of the claims that he or she can make on society? Unauthorized entry, the most common form of illegal immigration since the 1920s, remains vexing for both state and society. Undocumented immigrants are at once welcome and unwelcome: they are woven into the economic fabric of the nation, but as labor that is cheap and disposable. Employed in western and southwestern agriculture during the middle decades of the twentieth century, today illegal immigrants work in every region of the United States, and not only as farmworkers. They also work in poultry factories, in the kitchens of restaurants, on urban and suburban construction crews, and in the homes of middle-class Americans. Marginalized by their position in the lower strata of the workforce and even more so by their exclusion from the polity, illegal aliens might be understood as a caste, unambiguously situated outside the boundaries of formal membership and social legitimacy.


At the same time, illegal immigrants are also members of ethno-racial communities; they often inhabit the same social spaces as their co-ethnics and, in many cases, are members of "mixed status" families. Their accretion engenders paradoxical effects..."

THIS WEEK, we completed our mid-term examination and listened to our guest speaker, Senior Special Agent Grant Lucas from the Department of Homeland Security.

The following questions and model answers should be reviewed prior to next week's class, as we will review your mid-term answers, discussing chapter 1-3 of Ngai and discuss your book report. See you next Thursday…...

After concluding Patriot Acts and our mid-term review session, we will resume the course series of guest speakers and have our mid-term examination. Special Agent Grant Lucas, direct from the Department of Homeland Security headquarters in Washington, D.C., will speak to us about the Department’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement Branch. Created in March 2003, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the largest investigative branch of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The agency was created after 9/11, by combining the law enforcement arms of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the former U.S. Customs Service, to “more effectively enforce our immigration and customs laws and to protect the United States against terrorist attacks”.

As ominous as its name sounds, “ICE” does this by targeting undocumented or illegal immigrants. As stated by ICE, this agency’s focus is exact: “[T]he people, money and materials that support terrorism and other criminal activities. ICE is a key component of the DHS ‘layered defense’ approach to protecting the nation…and uphold public safety.”
Note the impact and role that this agency has in addressing society’s concerns on illegal immigration and terrorist threats on U.S. soil.

Please review the prepared questions for Special Agent Lucas prepared by our graduate students and submit your own if you like by email to me. I welcome written questions which will be submitted to Special Agent Lucas from everyone!
The graduate students will compose the questions panel and I will serve as moderator.

MIDTERM REVIEW REMINDER

As a final reminder for our mid-term exam, please review carefully the reading material in Daniels which we covered in the mid-term review session. The historical background, the early American groups which attempted to limit immigration and events in our early immigration history reinforce the premise that immigration policy in the United States in not based on some objective standard, but a “creature” of two concepts or disciplines. Review the Avalon film study guide. Know in detail and provide specific persons (and examples) of the ways in which one “Comes to America” (i.e., immigrant and non-immigrant visas; entering illegally) and the real life examples of them seen in this course (family, job, political asylum, or the visa lottery) and the impact they have on U.S. society in the past and today. As discussed during our review, be able to compare Chapter 3 of We are All Suspects Now with the individuals examined during our class discussions and cite those individuals discussed and those seen in Patriot Acts.

Can women severely abused also claim protection under U.S. Asylum laws? Under which of the five (5) protected classes we have discussed would they fall under? Commonly referred to amongst immigration litigators as Matter of RA claims (based on the immigration case of Rose Alvarado), the law is still unsettled, and Kimberly mentions a very important and controversial basis for political asylum in her recent blog entry. Many woman asylum seekers are still waiting for final rules and regulations to be released. In the interim, some cases are denied, while other women simply must wait until final regulations are promulgated. Take a look at the gender-asylum timeline and the law as it has developed at http://cgrs.uchastings.edu/documents/cgrs/cgrs_brochure.pdf.

Next week, we will discuss one of the unfortunate chapters in American immigration policy: The "registration" of predominately Muslim male non-immigrants in the United States. Was the policy similar to the Japanese internment camps? Chapter 3, of "We Are All Suspects Now, (Special Registration in Chicago), discusses one community near Loyola University affected by Special Registration. We will learn about other individuals, as registration impacted their lives, in Thirst Films' documentary, Patriot Acts. We will also discuss the USA PATRIOT Act.

See you next week....

GIVE ME YOUR POOR, YOUR TIRED, YOUR WEAK.....The words at that Statute of Liberty. Lady Liberty stands in New York Harbor to both welcome the travelers, and once was the first thing many immigrants saw when coming to Ellis Island. She's called "Liberty Enlightening the World", and her torch shines forth as a beacon to those arriving, and those still journeying, promising them hope. She's crowned with a diadem of seven spikes, representing the seven oceans of the world, across which her pilgrims travel to reach her, and she carries a plaque with the date July 4, 1776 written on it - the date when our Republic took its first full breath of life. The statement, "Bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses..."Liberty stands, stern and unyielding, the guardian of what we in this country have always held most dear. For this week's lecture, we will finish the film Avalon, and discuss Chapter Five of Daniels, "Admitting Displaced Persons.."

Keep these words in mind when we discuss Refugees, Asylees and learn about the immigration courts in American and the asylum cases of Enes Hadzovic, Farah & Umair Choudry, Kennedy Ugiabe and others...

"[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

There were a number of blog entries by your classmates before and after our first immigration policy class last week. Rachael, Julie, and Kate discussed my case with the autistic child, Umair. Was that case merely a way to just bend the asylum rules a little, allowing a sympathetic case get through the seemingly tough asylum rules? Or was the head of the Chicago Asylum office right when he said the case was granted because it met the textbook example of a refugee? How do you think the family is doing today? Is Umair today recieving the treatment he deserves? Has he progressed? Would you be surprised to learn that Umair's brother is a full-time student at Loyola?-- himself living an "American Dream" like Dikembe Mutombo??? (see below)...

Joanna commented about Muslim "speical registration". Keep in mind her comments when we begin our book "We Are All Suspects Now.." and when we watch the documentary, "Patriot Acts." As to the reading due this week, what comparisons can you make with Special Registration and Chapter 2 of the Daniels' book? See also some of my comments, which will be the subject of mid-term or final exam question.

Cezara commented on why immigration is one of the hot topics of the year. A point well taken. I don’t think this class would exist if that were not the case! Immigration certainly is on as many minds of Americans as the war in Iraq. Has it always been that way? Why now? Do you agree with Cezara’s conclusions?
Speaking of these hot immigration topics, Kate commented on President Bush’s state of the union address on January 24, 2007. Here are some of Bush’s comments, as they relate to our class. Take a look:

• “Dikembe Mutombo grew up in Africa, amid great poverty and disease. He came to Georgetown University on a scholarship to study medicine -- but Coach John Thompson got a look at Dikembe and had a different idea. (Laughter.) Dikembe became a star in the NBA, and a citizen of the United States. But he never forgot the land of his birth, or the duty to share his blessings with others. He built a brand new hospital in his old hometown. A friend has said of this good-hearted man: "Mutombo believes that God has given him this opportunity to do great things." And we are proud to call this son of the Congo a citizen of the United States of America.”

Does this person fit what it commonly referred to as an immigrant attaining the “American Dream?” Offer your comments as to why President Bush choose this individual to use in his example. As to new immigration laws, the big one was his comment about immigration reform. He received a lot of applause from Congress. Here's what Bush said:

• “Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America -- with laws that are fair and borders that are secure. When laws and borders are routinely violated, this harms the interests of our country. To secure our border, we're doubling the size of the Border Patrol, and funding new infrastructure and technology. Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border -- and that requires a temporary worker program. We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis. As a result, they won't have to try to sneak in, and that will leave Border Agents free to chase down drug smugglers and criminals and terrorists. (Applause.) We'll enforce our immigration laws at the work site and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers, so there's no excuse left for violating the law. (Applause.) We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals. (Applause.) We need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country without animosity and without amnesty. (Applause.) Convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration. Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate, so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law.”
  

Does that mean a new amnesty law is forthcoming? What about the previous amnesty laws/programs in the U.S.? Lorena, last week, mentioned the Bracero program during class. What other recent programs like this have we had? Did they work? If not, why?

See you Thursday!

CH

Welcome to the immigrationstudies.org Blogsite! Here students of Special Topics: Immigration Policy 370, University faculty, and others interested in this subject can express their views on the great American immigration debate or enhance communication on their course. Some of your comments may be the subject of my lectures.

I welcome students and faculty to provide commentary, news and/or other information on a particular immigration subject. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, web pages, and other media related to this topic and I welcome immigration-related information. While this blog is primarily textual, I encourage focus on immigration-related photgraphs (photoblogs), videos (vlog), or audio (podcasting) as well.

We are a nation of immigrants and it is important to express constructive viewpoints on this great issue.

For the immigration policy class, please first register and review comments made my me and your classmates.

--Christopher Helt, Esq. Lecturer, Loyola University of Chicago.