Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
THE ELECTION IS OVER. We have our first class this week (and our last class blog entry assignment) knowing who will lead our nation now and the most obvious question to ask is WILL CHANGE HAPPEN IN IMMIGRATION WITH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?
Although economic concerns reduced immigration issues to nearly a "nonissue" by the time the presidential campaign drew to a close (when last year it was arguably THE most important issue, second only to the war in Iraq), political experts believe it was largely responsible for the record turnout of Latino voters Tuesday, 66% of whom supported Barack Obama.
According to national exit poll results analyzed by the Pew Hispanic Center, only 32% of Latinos voted for John McCain, in spite of his track record as a proponent of immigrant-friendly reforms (remember last years McCain-Kennedy bill, losing 60-64 last June?). That total represents a significant drop from what President Bush received in 2004, receiving between 40% and 44% of the Latino vote that year and 35% in 2000...
But the heated immigration debate that dominated headlines two years ago, when hundreds of thousands marched in cities across the country and demanding CIR (Comprehensive Immigration Reform) may have been the catalyst that sent Latinos to the polls. WAS IT BECAUSE OF THEIR DESIRE TO EFFECT CHANGES IN OUR IMMIGRATION SYSTEM?
A large number of Latino voters this year were casting ballots for the first time, suggesting that efforts by national and local Latino organizations to encourage legal residents to become U.S. citizens and participate in the political process paid off, AP concludes.
Interestingly, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced right after the election that 1,051,640 people became U.S. citizens between Oct. 1 of last year and Sept. 30, setting a record. we shall soon see whether Most of them who were able to vote--most likely voted for Obama.
The nonpartisan National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials estimates that between 9.6 million and 11 million Hispanics voted in the election, compared to a U.S. Census estimate of 7.6 million in 2004. Latinos comprised 9 percent of all voters this year, compared to 7 percent in 2004, according to Associated Press exit polls.
Nationwide, the AP polls suggested about two-thirds of Latino voters chose Obama over Republican John McCain. About three-fourths of Hispanics under the age of 30 supported Obama.
In Florida, where President Bush won 56% of the Latino vote in 2004, Obama earned 57% of the Hispanic vote to McCain's 42%. Obama won three-fourths of Latino votes in Nevada, and nearly 7 in 10 favored him in New Mexico, where he would have lost without them, according to a recent AP story.
Gone are the significant inroads by Bush among Hispanic voters (Take a look at our blog spot from last year, below). Bush won over many in 2000 by saying he would build a solid relationship with Vicente Fox, then president of Mexico. Their relationship later soured, AP correctly points out.
In 2004, Bush won 40% of the Hispanic vote.
So a more obvious question to ask is: HAVE HISPANIC VOTERS CREATED A NEW ELECTORATE MAP? If so, and immigration may be the most important political issue for Hispanics now, then by simple deduction, majors changes in immigration are coming...
-Christopher Helt, Esq.
Aida said...
To the question « Have Hispanic voters created a new electorate map?” I deeply believe that the answer is yes.
With 14 percent of the U.S. population, the Latino “minority” accounted for over 8% of the electorate in this election. “While I know how powerful a community you are, I also know how powerful you could be on November 4th if you translate your numbers into votes.” says Barack Obama on his web page dedicated to Latinos: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/latinoshome/. During the campaign both Senator McCain and Senator Obama tried hard to get Latinos’ support by making appearances in front of major Hispanic organizations such as The National Council of La Raza or LULAC back in July. The courting of the Latino vote started in the early stages of the primaries. I remember how Bill Richardson’s endorsement -the Hispanic governor from New Mexico- was coveted after he dropped the race in January.
Hispanic voters created a new electorate map not only because of their growing voting population but they literally influenced the candidates’ strategies as well as the outcome in this election. Indeed, Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Obama but they also helped him carry “battleground” sates such as Colorado, Nevada, Florida and New Mexico.
For the anecdote, I was with the Obama campaign in Milwaukee, Wisconsin for the weekend of Get Out The Vote (GOTV) prior to Election Day. The main activity of GOTV is canvassing: volunteers knock on doors, ask people if they are registered to vote, if they know where their polling location is, offer them a ride to the polls… Local organizers in Milwaukee had a “code” for Hispanic neighborhoods –they were colored purple on a map of the city-. On November 1st, I went with one of the other Chicago interns in one of the Spanish-speaking neighborhoods. As a second-generation immigrant, my friend is fluent is both languages, which made her an incredible asset for the campaign. We had also had campaign literature in both English and Spanish. All this to show how many efforts were made by the campaign to get the Hispanic vote: “The Latino community holds this election in its hands” (Barack Obama at the NCLR annual conference in San Diego).
1:01 PM
Teresa said...
There is a potential for a mass mobilization about immigration change. These individuals who will be the mass, who might happen to be Latino, have an important voice, but I do fear for a grouping of such a diversity of people as one unit comprised of only one race. It is dangerous for politicians to think the only issue Latinos must care about is immigration. I also don’t think it is only Latinos who are concerned about the future of immigration. We are a whole nation of immigrants from all over the world. If properly educated on our history, we all should care. As much as I have hope for Obama and this change and hope dream initiative we currently attempt to have faith in, I really don’t think his immigration policy is all that different than that of McCain. So I am unsure I claim an immigration victory in the election of Obama.
On April 5th, 2006, Barack Obama discussed the debate going on in the Senate about CIR: "It behooves us to remember that not every single immigrant who came into the United States through Ellis Island had proper documentation. Not every one of our grandparents or great-grandparents would have necessarily qualified for legal immigration. But they came here in search of a dream, in search of hope. Americans understand that, and they are willing to give an opportunity to those who are already here, as long as we get serious about making sure that our borders actually mean something."
Now, as I look up his official views on immigration on his “Blue Print for Change” website his thoughts have seemed to change (except for his thoughts on strengthening the border). With response to “bringing people out of the shadows, “Obama and Biden support a system that requires undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.” So now we tell people to go to the back of the line and jump through more hoops. Didn’t he recently say that all of our grandparents didn’t come here in a way that would have qualified for legal immigration? Did they have to jump through hoops and go to the back of this line because they didn’t qualify for one of the four ways? I am pretty sure the answer is no. My grandparents were embraced and welcomed by the Statue of Liberty into the land of promise as the weak huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
Last night, I was shopping in a grocery store on Bryn Mawr. Two Mexican men behind me were buying six packs of Modelo. An angry white woman pushed past them and clearly yelled, “Excuse me.” As she finished paying and was about to walk out the door, the men were apparently in her way again. She yelled, pushed her way out the door, and clearly stated for everyone to hear, “No wonder people don’t like illegal Mexicans!” I felt discouraged and disappointed as I paid for my groceries. We really have a long way to go as a nation with concern to immigration on the small local level and the larger national level.
11:59 PM
all of the above said...
I don't have any empirical data to back this up, but re: your question about whether or not the huge immigrant marches of two years ago impacted this election, but I think the answer is definitely yes. A sign that was seen at every immigrant protest I was at and every one I saw in the media were signs that read, "Hoy marchamos, mañana votamos" - "today we march, tomorrow we vote." I think that community organizers in the Latina/o immigrant community here have taken that slogan seriously, and have really done the groundwork that has helped lead to this huge voting shift--both in terms of registering voters and engaging Latinas/os on the issues, making them realize that an Obama vote was really in their best interests.
On the other hand, a commentator being interviewed on NPR the other day (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96735168&ft=1&f=1015) said that a big reason that Latinas/os voted Obama was "bread and butter issues," the economy in particular. Another NPR story talked about how the economic downturn is hurting Latino/a immigrants, both documented and undocumented, particularly badly (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96700517&ft=1&f=1001). Regardless of why they voted for Obama, though, I do think Latinos/as will now be seen as a more important demographic to court in US politics.
As a personal note, I have often wondered why Latinos/as have been as supportive of Republicans as they have been in the past (besides social issues--I know that many Latinos/as are fairly socially conservative). Sure, there are Republicans like McCain who have supported decent immigration reform, but there is that crazy split in the party between people like McCain and Rep. Tom Tancredo, the crazy xenophobic dude who Geraldo talks about in his book. While the Democrats certainly have their own xenophobic elements, they have not been as vocal as the Republicans'.
12:24 AM
Nikki said...
Have hispanic voters created a new electoral map?
Yes. I read in a Chilean news report just before the election that Obama reached out to the hispanic population by pitching a commercial in fluent spanish, urging the population to vote. This commercial is important for two reasons. One, that our border with Mexico is important. I believe that Obama's ability to reach out to the hispanic population helped win the battle ground states like Florida and New mexico.
Another important aspect to this commercial, was that a Chilean news reported it. I think it is important to realize that this election doesn't have implications just for hispanic people in the US, but for hispanic people in other countries, and for that matter, around the world. Obama will be the leader of the US, but also a leader for the world. When I studied abroad in Chile, I was struck by the amount of people who knew about politics in the United States. They were able to name the candidates that were nominated, and those who they sought fit to be our next president. How many of us know the president of Chile? This goes to show, that the decision of this election will continue to effected many other countries.
The media plays a huge role urging people to vote. Especially when South American countries are showing their support for a particular candidate. In the chilean newspaper, not only did they report on Obama's commercial, but Fidel Castro's support for Obama as a candidate. It is not doubt that media coverage like this will spark other hispanic voters to be apart of the politics in the United States.
1:38 AM
Dara said...
I agree that the electorate map is changing. How that will play out in changes to immigration policy will be interesting. While I believe that change is coming, I’m not sure how much and how soon it will come. In Obama’s “Blueprint for Change”, the focus on immigration reform begins and ends with illegal immigration. I have heard him speak about the usual ideas: securing borders, keeping families together and bringing people out of the shadows but not on issues outside of illegal immigration. I believe that the focus on illegal immigration is important but also limits discussions to one part of a much larger problem. Will new policy changes improve the adjustment and processing of immigrants that are out of status or in the deportation process? Will new policy changes review enforcement methods and policy for civil liberty violations? I am not clear and perhaps even a little less hopeful that the new administration will make addressing the broken system and not just the illegal immigration issue a priority. Accomplishing the proposed goals related to illegal immigration without corresponding reform to the system will result in millions of people being added the already backlogged, inefficient and dysfunctional immigration system.
Diana writes,
In response to the question of whether an Obama administration will bring immigration reform, I think it is still to be determined. Yes, Latinos came out in record numbers and voted for him and the logical answer would be that he should bring immigration reform, but I don’t think it is that easy. As a senator, he played both sides of the aisle on the issue.
Also, immigration reform is not the number one issue of Latinos. Their number one issues are similar to the rest of the electorate: the economy, education, and ending the war. However, Latinos, those who are citizens, residents and undocumented have suffered a tremendous anti-immigrant backlash which was fueled by the Republican party. I think it was in response to this backlash that Latinos came out in records numbers for Obama.
We need to see who President-elect Obama surrounds himself with and how he deals with the pressing concern of the economy. As we learned in class, immigration is a creature of politics and economics. It is becoming evident that there are other issues he’ll need to deal with before solving the immigration problem. This could become difficult for the Democratic party in general if the Latino electorate is not happy with the Obama administration when it is time for his re-election.
bosslet said...
I think that the future Obama administration will responsible for an improvement in our current immigration system but I don't think that the change that will be inacted can be considered comporable to the desired 'comprehensive immigration reform.' It appears as though the Obama campaign has chosen it's immigration policy as one of it's 'middling' policies that places their candidate in a more centralized political position to make him more attractive to moderate and more conservative voters. Of course now that the election is over I think that the rhetoric coming out of the future administration will become more and more liberal.
The change that will occur under Obama that looks most promising will likely involve the opportunity for current illegal workers to pay a fine and begin the process of normalizing their status. Unfortunately it also appears as though Obama is seeking to crack down more on workers who are currently without status. This is a clear separation from more liberal and progressive views on immigration. Further funding of the bureaucracy as well as port and border facilities is also a top priority for the Obama administration which would indicate a strong inclination to enforce current laws involving immigration.
1:51 PM
Michael said...
If this year proved to hold a greater turn out of Latino voters than before, what does that say about the issue of immigration? For me, I often hear people speak of Latinos and undocumented immigrants as if they’re one and the same, as if to be Hispanic in the US implies you are here illegally regardless of where you were born or what citizenship you hold. As Geraldo Rivera said in his book when an angry critic told him to go home to wherever he came from, he responded by pointing out that he was born in Harlem, NY. When the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials estimates that between 9.6 million and 11 million Hispanics voted in the election, this goes to show that when we speak of the Hispanic minority in the US, we are not necessarily referring to border hopping illegals as is often portrayed. This great turn out of voters who come from Latino backgrounds (or at least who check off the Hispanic on the voter demographic form) are no less American citizens than those who come from Irish, Italian or even Chinese backgrounds. In my opinion, the fact that American citizens who have Latino heritage and are expressing their political interest in this country proves that the electoral map is changing. I suppose I tend to be an optimist and idealist in situations like these, but I hope to see this participation in a national, united event such as this as a sign of integration. Again ideally speaking, I’d also like to see demographic reform so that by identifying yourself in one way or another wouldn’t also immediately stigmatize you or make you no more than a number for one group or the next. I think citizens of the United States should be able to cast a vote for their preferred candidate without worrying about how it will affect the demographic, census or question their status as an American.
Tania said...
Like most of my classmate I believe that the electoral map is changing or better yet, last week elections proved that it has already change.
During the first semester of this year i was studying abroad in Mexico and I was able to see for myself how most people in Mexico were interested in the elections.
Most people that I talked to wanted obama to win not only because they home for a new immigration reform but mostly becuase of the ecenomy. The Economy was for both mexicans leaving in Mexico and mexicans leaving in the United States one of the most important issues. There is a saying in Mexico that "si a E.U.A le da gripa a Mexico le da pulminia" -if the U.S.A gets a cold than Mexico gets pneumonia' this refers to any financial crisis faced by the U.S.A
3:50 PM
AnnaW said...
Will change happen in immigration with the Obama administration?
It is clear that some change will occur under the Obama administration in terms of immigration reform, but how much and what kind of change is unclear. Obama voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform, voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government, voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security, votes YES on establishing a Guest Worker program, voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship, supported the DREAM Act for the children of illegal immigrants, and voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared “sanctuary cities”; yet he also voted YES on buliding a fence along the Mexican border, and wants there to be a high penalty fee that illegal immigrants have to pay in order to be able to stay and get in the back of the line for citizenship.
Obama is definitely a proponent of stronger border security and wants to require that undocumented workers go to the back of the line so they do not get citizenship before those who applied legally. He believes that illegal persons should not be able to work in the US; therefore, there needs to be a push to crack down on employers who are hiring illegal immigrants and are taking advantage of them.
Obama is pushing for comprehensive immigration reform in a country where the immigration system is broken; it is going to take a while for any of the policies, be they good for immigrants or bad, to be implemented.
3:56 PM
Zubeyir said...
It seems like Diana outlined what I would say about the issues we are discussing. Having said this, I think that we still need to see what Obama will actually do with the immigration policy. We like most others expect that Obama presidency will be relaxing for the immigrant at least in comparison to 8 years of Bush administration which was fostered anti-immigrant sentiments and policies. That, I think, effected the ways many immigrant voted and Latino community is no exception. I have heard that Muslim immigrants had voted for Bush in 2000 election because of his conservative policies regarding issues of family and morality. However, they voted against him in 2004 simply because of the hardships Muslims encountered during his first term of presidency.
However, I don't think that Latino community was only and primarily concerned with immigration policies like Muslim immigrants. Again, this is not to say that they were not concerned with issues of immigration. Issues of immigration is only among many factors that affected voting behaviors of Latino community. I agree with Diana that they mostly voted on the basis of their economic concerns as 8 years of Republican administration fell behind economic prosperity of Clinton administration. Obama's call for change appealed and reached to Latino communities as they wanted to see a more prosperous future. I think that Latino communities, in this regards, show that they are less bounded with ideological issues when it comes to the decision of whom to vote. They mostly voted for Bush in 2004, if I am not wrong, and they turned to Obama in 2008. That, I think, indicates that Latinos will not hang on to Obama no matter what. What matters most is their, like many others', economic well-being. Who ever seems more promising in that regard will get the majority Latino votes unless they show sarcastic anti-immigrant sentiments.
10:53 PM
Although economic concerns reduced immigration issues to nearly a "nonissue" by the time the presidential campaign drew to a close (when last year it was arguably THE most important issue, second only to the war in Iraq), political experts believe it was largely responsible for the record turnout of Latino voters Tuesday, 66% of whom supported Barack Obama.
According to national exit poll results analyzed by the Pew Hispanic Center, only 32% of Latinos voted for John McCain, in spite of his track record as a proponent of immigrant-friendly reforms (remember last years McCain-Kennedy bill, losing 60-64 last June?). That total represents a significant drop from what President Bush received in 2004, receiving between 40% and 44% of the Latino vote that year and 35% in 2000...
But the heated immigration debate that dominated headlines two years ago, when hundreds of thousands marched in cities across the country and demanding CIR (Comprehensive Immigration Reform) may have been the catalyst that sent Latinos to the polls. WAS IT BECAUSE OF THEIR DESIRE TO EFFECT CHANGES IN OUR IMMIGRATION SYSTEM?
A large number of Latino voters this year were casting ballots for the first time, suggesting that efforts by national and local Latino organizations to encourage legal residents to become U.S. citizens and participate in the political process paid off, AP concludes.
Interestingly, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced right after the election that 1,051,640 people became U.S. citizens between Oct. 1 of last year and Sept. 30, setting a record. we shall soon see whether Most of them who were able to vote--most likely voted for Obama.
The nonpartisan National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials estimates that between 9.6 million and 11 million Hispanics voted in the election, compared to a U.S. Census estimate of 7.6 million in 2004. Latinos comprised 9 percent of all voters this year, compared to 7 percent in 2004, according to Associated Press exit polls.
Nationwide, the AP polls suggested about two-thirds of Latino voters chose Obama over Republican John McCain. About three-fourths of Hispanics under the age of 30 supported Obama.
In Florida, where President Bush won 56% of the Latino vote in 2004, Obama earned 57% of the Hispanic vote to McCain's 42%. Obama won three-fourths of Latino votes in Nevada, and nearly 7 in 10 favored him in New Mexico, where he would have lost without them, according to a recent AP story.Gone are the significant inroads by Bush among Hispanic voters (Take a look at our blog spot from last year, below). Bush won over many in 2000 by saying he would build a solid relationship with Vicente Fox, then president of Mexico. Their relationship later soured, AP correctly points out.
In 2004, Bush won 40% of the Hispanic vote.
So a more obvious question to ask is: HAVE HISPANIC VOTERS CREATED A NEW ELECTORATE MAP? If so, and immigration may be the most important political issue for Hispanics now, then by simple deduction, majors changes in immigration are coming...
-Christopher Helt, Esq.
Aida said...
To the question « Have Hispanic voters created a new electorate map?” I deeply believe that the answer is yes.
With 14 percent of the U.S. population, the Latino “minority” accounted for over 8% of the electorate in this election. “While I know how powerful a community you are, I also know how powerful you could be on November 4th if you translate your numbers into votes.” says Barack Obama on his web page dedicated to Latinos: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/latinoshome/. During the campaign both Senator McCain and Senator Obama tried hard to get Latinos’ support by making appearances in front of major Hispanic organizations such as The National Council of La Raza or LULAC back in July. The courting of the Latino vote started in the early stages of the primaries. I remember how Bill Richardson’s endorsement -the Hispanic governor from New Mexico- was coveted after he dropped the race in January.
Hispanic voters created a new electorate map not only because of their growing voting population but they literally influenced the candidates’ strategies as well as the outcome in this election. Indeed, Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Obama but they also helped him carry “battleground” sates such as Colorado, Nevada, Florida and New Mexico.
For the anecdote, I was with the Obama campaign in Milwaukee, Wisconsin for the weekend of Get Out The Vote (GOTV) prior to Election Day. The main activity of GOTV is canvassing: volunteers knock on doors, ask people if they are registered to vote, if they know where their polling location is, offer them a ride to the polls… Local organizers in Milwaukee had a “code” for Hispanic neighborhoods –they were colored purple on a map of the city-. On November 1st, I went with one of the other Chicago interns in one of the Spanish-speaking neighborhoods. As a second-generation immigrant, my friend is fluent is both languages, which made her an incredible asset for the campaign. We had also had campaign literature in both English and Spanish. All this to show how many efforts were made by the campaign to get the Hispanic vote: “The Latino community holds this election in its hands” (Barack Obama at the NCLR annual conference in San Diego).
1:01 PM
Teresa said...
There is a potential for a mass mobilization about immigration change. These individuals who will be the mass, who might happen to be Latino, have an important voice, but I do fear for a grouping of such a diversity of people as one unit comprised of only one race. It is dangerous for politicians to think the only issue Latinos must care about is immigration. I also don’t think it is only Latinos who are concerned about the future of immigration. We are a whole nation of immigrants from all over the world. If properly educated on our history, we all should care. As much as I have hope for Obama and this change and hope dream initiative we currently attempt to have faith in, I really don’t think his immigration policy is all that different than that of McCain. So I am unsure I claim an immigration victory in the election of Obama.
On April 5th, 2006, Barack Obama discussed the debate going on in the Senate about CIR: "It behooves us to remember that not every single immigrant who came into the United States through Ellis Island had proper documentation. Not every one of our grandparents or great-grandparents would have necessarily qualified for legal immigration. But they came here in search of a dream, in search of hope. Americans understand that, and they are willing to give an opportunity to those who are already here, as long as we get serious about making sure that our borders actually mean something."
Now, as I look up his official views on immigration on his “Blue Print for Change” website his thoughts have seemed to change (except for his thoughts on strengthening the border). With response to “bringing people out of the shadows, “Obama and Biden support a system that requires undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.” So now we tell people to go to the back of the line and jump through more hoops. Didn’t he recently say that all of our grandparents didn’t come here in a way that would have qualified for legal immigration? Did they have to jump through hoops and go to the back of this line because they didn’t qualify for one of the four ways? I am pretty sure the answer is no. My grandparents were embraced and welcomed by the Statue of Liberty into the land of promise as the weak huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
Last night, I was shopping in a grocery store on Bryn Mawr. Two Mexican men behind me were buying six packs of Modelo. An angry white woman pushed past them and clearly yelled, “Excuse me.” As she finished paying and was about to walk out the door, the men were apparently in her way again. She yelled, pushed her way out the door, and clearly stated for everyone to hear, “No wonder people don’t like illegal Mexicans!” I felt discouraged and disappointed as I paid for my groceries. We really have a long way to go as a nation with concern to immigration on the small local level and the larger national level.
11:59 PM
all of the above said...
I don't have any empirical data to back this up, but re: your question about whether or not the huge immigrant marches of two years ago impacted this election, but I think the answer is definitely yes. A sign that was seen at every immigrant protest I was at and every one I saw in the media were signs that read, "Hoy marchamos, mañana votamos" - "today we march, tomorrow we vote." I think that community organizers in the Latina/o immigrant community here have taken that slogan seriously, and have really done the groundwork that has helped lead to this huge voting shift--both in terms of registering voters and engaging Latinas/os on the issues, making them realize that an Obama vote was really in their best interests.
On the other hand, a commentator being interviewed on NPR the other day (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96735168&ft=1&f=1015) said that a big reason that Latinas/os voted Obama was "bread and butter issues," the economy in particular. Another NPR story talked about how the economic downturn is hurting Latino/a immigrants, both documented and undocumented, particularly badly (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96700517&ft=1&f=1001). Regardless of why they voted for Obama, though, I do think Latinos/as will now be seen as a more important demographic to court in US politics.
As a personal note, I have often wondered why Latinos/as have been as supportive of Republicans as they have been in the past (besides social issues--I know that many Latinos/as are fairly socially conservative). Sure, there are Republicans like McCain who have supported decent immigration reform, but there is that crazy split in the party between people like McCain and Rep. Tom Tancredo, the crazy xenophobic dude who Geraldo talks about in his book. While the Democrats certainly have their own xenophobic elements, they have not been as vocal as the Republicans'.
12:24 AM
Nikki said...
Have hispanic voters created a new electoral map?
Yes. I read in a Chilean news report just before the election that Obama reached out to the hispanic population by pitching a commercial in fluent spanish, urging the population to vote. This commercial is important for two reasons. One, that our border with Mexico is important. I believe that Obama's ability to reach out to the hispanic population helped win the battle ground states like Florida and New mexico.
Another important aspect to this commercial, was that a Chilean news reported it. I think it is important to realize that this election doesn't have implications just for hispanic people in the US, but for hispanic people in other countries, and for that matter, around the world. Obama will be the leader of the US, but also a leader for the world. When I studied abroad in Chile, I was struck by the amount of people who knew about politics in the United States. They were able to name the candidates that were nominated, and those who they sought fit to be our next president. How many of us know the president of Chile? This goes to show, that the decision of this election will continue to effected many other countries.
The media plays a huge role urging people to vote. Especially when South American countries are showing their support for a particular candidate. In the chilean newspaper, not only did they report on Obama's commercial, but Fidel Castro's support for Obama as a candidate. It is not doubt that media coverage like this will spark other hispanic voters to be apart of the politics in the United States.
1:38 AM
Dara said...
I agree that the electorate map is changing. How that will play out in changes to immigration policy will be interesting. While I believe that change is coming, I’m not sure how much and how soon it will come. In Obama’s “Blueprint for Change”, the focus on immigration reform begins and ends with illegal immigration. I have heard him speak about the usual ideas: securing borders, keeping families together and bringing people out of the shadows but not on issues outside of illegal immigration. I believe that the focus on illegal immigration is important but also limits discussions to one part of a much larger problem. Will new policy changes improve the adjustment and processing of immigrants that are out of status or in the deportation process? Will new policy changes review enforcement methods and policy for civil liberty violations? I am not clear and perhaps even a little less hopeful that the new administration will make addressing the broken system and not just the illegal immigration issue a priority. Accomplishing the proposed goals related to illegal immigration without corresponding reform to the system will result in millions of people being added the already backlogged, inefficient and dysfunctional immigration system.
Diana writes,
In response to the question of whether an Obama administration will bring immigration reform, I think it is still to be determined. Yes, Latinos came out in record numbers and voted for him and the logical answer would be that he should bring immigration reform, but I don’t think it is that easy. As a senator, he played both sides of the aisle on the issue.
Also, immigration reform is not the number one issue of Latinos. Their number one issues are similar to the rest of the electorate: the economy, education, and ending the war. However, Latinos, those who are citizens, residents and undocumented have suffered a tremendous anti-immigrant backlash which was fueled by the Republican party. I think it was in response to this backlash that Latinos came out in records numbers for Obama.
We need to see who President-elect Obama surrounds himself with and how he deals with the pressing concern of the economy. As we learned in class, immigration is a creature of politics and economics. It is becoming evident that there are other issues he’ll need to deal with before solving the immigration problem. This could become difficult for the Democratic party in general if the Latino electorate is not happy with the Obama administration when it is time for his re-election.
bosslet said...
I think that the future Obama administration will responsible for an improvement in our current immigration system but I don't think that the change that will be inacted can be considered comporable to the desired 'comprehensive immigration reform.' It appears as though the Obama campaign has chosen it's immigration policy as one of it's 'middling' policies that places their candidate in a more centralized political position to make him more attractive to moderate and more conservative voters. Of course now that the election is over I think that the rhetoric coming out of the future administration will become more and more liberal.
The change that will occur under Obama that looks most promising will likely involve the opportunity for current illegal workers to pay a fine and begin the process of normalizing their status. Unfortunately it also appears as though Obama is seeking to crack down more on workers who are currently without status. This is a clear separation from more liberal and progressive views on immigration. Further funding of the bureaucracy as well as port and border facilities is also a top priority for the Obama administration which would indicate a strong inclination to enforce current laws involving immigration.
1:51 PM
Michael said...
If this year proved to hold a greater turn out of Latino voters than before, what does that say about the issue of immigration? For me, I often hear people speak of Latinos and undocumented immigrants as if they’re one and the same, as if to be Hispanic in the US implies you are here illegally regardless of where you were born or what citizenship you hold. As Geraldo Rivera said in his book when an angry critic told him to go home to wherever he came from, he responded by pointing out that he was born in Harlem, NY. When the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials estimates that between 9.6 million and 11 million Hispanics voted in the election, this goes to show that when we speak of the Hispanic minority in the US, we are not necessarily referring to border hopping illegals as is often portrayed. This great turn out of voters who come from Latino backgrounds (or at least who check off the Hispanic on the voter demographic form) are no less American citizens than those who come from Irish, Italian or even Chinese backgrounds. In my opinion, the fact that American citizens who have Latino heritage and are expressing their political interest in this country proves that the electoral map is changing. I suppose I tend to be an optimist and idealist in situations like these, but I hope to see this participation in a national, united event such as this as a sign of integration. Again ideally speaking, I’d also like to see demographic reform so that by identifying yourself in one way or another wouldn’t also immediately stigmatize you or make you no more than a number for one group or the next. I think citizens of the United States should be able to cast a vote for their preferred candidate without worrying about how it will affect the demographic, census or question their status as an American.
Tania said...
Like most of my classmate I believe that the electoral map is changing or better yet, last week elections proved that it has already change.
During the first semester of this year i was studying abroad in Mexico and I was able to see for myself how most people in Mexico were interested in the elections.
Most people that I talked to wanted obama to win not only because they home for a new immigration reform but mostly becuase of the ecenomy. The Economy was for both mexicans leaving in Mexico and mexicans leaving in the United States one of the most important issues. There is a saying in Mexico that "si a E.U.A le da gripa a Mexico le da pulminia" -if the U.S.A gets a cold than Mexico gets pneumonia' this refers to any financial crisis faced by the U.S.A
3:50 PM
AnnaW said...
Will change happen in immigration with the Obama administration?
It is clear that some change will occur under the Obama administration in terms of immigration reform, but how much and what kind of change is unclear. Obama voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform, voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government, voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security, votes YES on establishing a Guest Worker program, voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship, supported the DREAM Act for the children of illegal immigrants, and voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared “sanctuary cities”; yet he also voted YES on buliding a fence along the Mexican border, and wants there to be a high penalty fee that illegal immigrants have to pay in order to be able to stay and get in the back of the line for citizenship.
Obama is definitely a proponent of stronger border security and wants to require that undocumented workers go to the back of the line so they do not get citizenship before those who applied legally. He believes that illegal persons should not be able to work in the US; therefore, there needs to be a push to crack down on employers who are hiring illegal immigrants and are taking advantage of them.
Obama is pushing for comprehensive immigration reform in a country where the immigration system is broken; it is going to take a while for any of the policies, be they good for immigrants or bad, to be implemented.
3:56 PM
Zubeyir said...
It seems like Diana outlined what I would say about the issues we are discussing. Having said this, I think that we still need to see what Obama will actually do with the immigration policy. We like most others expect that Obama presidency will be relaxing for the immigrant at least in comparison to 8 years of Bush administration which was fostered anti-immigrant sentiments and policies. That, I think, effected the ways many immigrant voted and Latino community is no exception. I have heard that Muslim immigrants had voted for Bush in 2000 election because of his conservative policies regarding issues of family and morality. However, they voted against him in 2004 simply because of the hardships Muslims encountered during his first term of presidency.
However, I don't think that Latino community was only and primarily concerned with immigration policies like Muslim immigrants. Again, this is not to say that they were not concerned with issues of immigration. Issues of immigration is only among many factors that affected voting behaviors of Latino community. I agree with Diana that they mostly voted on the basis of their economic concerns as 8 years of Republican administration fell behind economic prosperity of Clinton administration. Obama's call for change appealed and reached to Latino communities as they wanted to see a more prosperous future. I think that Latino communities, in this regards, show that they are less bounded with ideological issues when it comes to the decision of whom to vote. They mostly voted for Bush in 2004, if I am not wrong, and they turned to Obama in 2008. That, I think, indicates that Latinos will not hang on to Obama no matter what. What matters most is their, like many others', economic well-being. Who ever seems more promising in that regard will get the majority Latino votes unless they show sarcastic anti-immigrant sentiments.
10:53 PM
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
At the time of this entry, none of those who particpated in our informal class survey believe that we should deport individuals from the United States.
Nikki writes,
I found this article online. I thought it was interesting because it talked about asylum of sexual orientation. And it also discusses the role of judges, similar to the article about the immigration courts for this week's assignment.
This article gives a different perspective for those wanting asylum for being a lesbian or gay. The article raises the question of those who might be "pretending" to be gay to stay in the US. Is deportation the answer, if they are returning to a homeland of unsafe circumstances. Some are not even able to utter the word of their sexual orientation. check it out...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/10/14/seeking_a_home_away_from_homophobia/
nh said...
I found this article online. I thought it was interesting because it talked about asylum of sexual orientation. And it also discusses the role of judges, similar to the article about the immigration courts for this week's assignment.
This article gives a different perspective for those wanting asylum for being a lesbian or gay. The article raises the question of those who might be "pretending" to be gay to stay in the US. Is deportation the answer, if they are returning to a homeland of unsafe circumstances. Some are not even able to utter the word of their sexual orientation. check it out...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/10/14/seeking_a_home_away_from_homophobia/
3:49 PM
nh said...
With the upcoming election next tuesday, I think it's important to consider both candidate's side on immigration.
Here's Barack Obama's stance: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/
In his opening quote about immigration he discusses how the immigration law system in broken, and it's necessary to fix the system. He has a plan to bring people out of the shadows, work with Mexico and try to keep families together.
Here's John McCain's view:
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/issues/68db8157-d301-4e22-baf7-a70dd8416efa.htm
McCain also agrees that the immigration laws are broken and seeks a two-step process reform, which involves securing the boarders and then comprehensive immigration initiatives for a secure nation.
This is an article from Miami Herald that looks at both sides and the similarities and differences:
IMMIGRATION POLICY: McCain, Obama hold similar views on immigration - Rivals John McCain and Barack Obama both claim to be champions of immigration reform, which could be an issue for each in his respective party.
If this doesn't work, you can find in loyola's World News through the electronic articles.
Do you think that Obama and McCain are similar on their views? What reform might accomplish more?
2:26 PM
AnnaW said...
I drive down Devon Avenue every day to get to Loyola, and never have I paid more attention to the store-fronts, restaurant names, and the faces of the people on the sidewalks than I do now that I have seen the movie about the Patriot Acts that we watched in class last week. I think that one of the reasons that the movie had such a big impact on me was because I drive through that neighborhood every day.
Something that struck me was that it was said in the movie was that before the Patriot Acts, the Indo-Pakistani neighborhood was a lot more vibrant- there were more stores and restaurants- but I have always thought that that neighborhood was lively anyway. I started commuting down Devon in 2006. I guess what I am trying to say is that it is hard for me to imagine how much more alive the area must have been before people started getting deported because it seems so full of culture and vibrancy today.
Ngai opens chapter 2 with a discussion of the Immigration Act of 1924 that effectively created a “new class of persons within the national body- illegal aliens-whose inclusion in the nation was at once a social reality and a legal impossibility” (Ngai, 57). She says that the restrictions placed on immigrants raised problems that were “administrative…juridical…and constitutional (do illegal aliens have rights?)” (Ngai, 57). I find this question of whether or not illegal aliens should have rights to be ironic in a country that was founded on Christian values. As Christians we believe that every person is equal because he or she has been created in the image and likeness of God; so if every person is equal, shouldn’t every person have rights? Yes, it is necessary for every country to have laws regarding immigration, but shouldn’t people (be they legally or illegally residing in the United States of America) be treated with the dignity and respect that is due to them? It seems to me that deporting people en masse does not respect their rights as human beings.
8:06 PM
Kip Young said...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/31inquire.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y&oref=slogin#
October 31, 2008
Inquiry Targeted 2,000 Foreign Muslims in 2004
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON — An operation in 2004 meant to disrupt potential terrorist plots before and after that year’s presidential election focused on more than 2,000 immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries, but most were found to have done nothing wrong, according to newly disclosed government data.
The program, conducted by the Department of Homeland Security, received little public attention at the time. But details about the targets of the investigation have emerged from more than 10,000 pages of internal records obtained through a lawsuit by civil rights advocates. Parts of the documents were provided to The New York Times.
The documents show that more than 2,500 foreigners in the United States were sought as “priority leads” in the fall of 2004 because of suspicions that they could present threats to national security in the months before the presidential election and the inauguration. Some of those foreigners were detained and ultimately deported because they had overstayed their visas, but many were in this country legally, and the vast majority were not charged.
The internal reports show that immigration agents questioned the foreigners about what they thought of America, whether violence was preached at their mosques, and whether they had access to biological or chemical weapons. A sampling of 300 cases turned over by federal officials showed that none of those interrogated were charged with national security offenses. Fewer than one in five were charged, most of them with immigration violations.
A spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Richard Rocha, would say only, “Due to ongoing litigation, ICE is not at liberty to provide any comment.”
Officials said they were not aware of any similar programs now under way.
At the time of the 2004 operation, the immigration agency said publicly that it was tracking leads in an effort to disrupt potential terrorism plots, but emphasized that its investigations were being conducted “without regard to race, ethnicity or religion.”
But the records showed that 79 percent of the suspects were from Muslim-majority countries, according to an analysis by students at the National Litigation Project at Yale Law School, who obtained the records, as did the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Each group sued for the records under the Freedom of Information Act, and both say the operation showed that the government was using ethnic profiling to identify terrorism suspects.
“This was profiling,” said Michael Wishnie, a professor at Yale Law School who helped lead the research effort. He added that the findings raised questions about both the effectiveness and the propriety of the program.
“The resources devoted to this were enormous,” he said, “but the results clearly were not.”
The issue of ethnic profiling in counterterrorism programs has taken on added significance because of new Justice Department guidelines that go into effect Dec. 1 and give investigators even broader authority to open terrorism investigations without evidence of wrongdoing. The American Civil Liberties Union and other rights groups argue that the new guidelines will allow federal investigators to make targets of Muslims, Middle Easterners and others without evidence of links to terrorist groups.
After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the administration began a series of efforts that strained relations with Muslims and Arab-Americans in particular. The detention of more than 700 illegal immigrants as terrorism suspects — often for months at a time without lawyers — generated a blistering report from the Justice Department on the “unduly harsh” treatment of the prisoners. Follow-up efforts in 2002 and 2003 led to the questioning of thousands of Muslims and Middle Easterners as well as measures requiring that immigrants from some countries register their presence with federal authorities.
The investigations conducted in the fall of 2004 were part of what federal authorities called Operation Front Line. It was unusual in that it relied on intelligence data from across the government to identify “priority leads” and then conduct interrogations in October 2004, just before Election Day.
One foreigner, in the country on a student visa, was asked his “opinion of America,” according to internal investigative reports. He responded that he was “living the American dream and cared greatly for the equal opportunities, rights and values that are afforded in America.” Another person, from South Asia, was asked about a mosque he attended and told an agent that “the mosque did not espouse any radical or fundamental form of Islam or denounce the United States in any way.” A third visa holder was asked if he owned any chemical or biological explosives. He said he did not.
The Homeland Security Department announced several hundred arrests at the time, mostly of visitors whose visas had expired, but the records obtained in the lawsuit show that the scope of the operation reached much further. More than 2,500 people were interrogated, with more than 500 arrests for immigration violations like overstaying visas.
A former immigration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because aspects of the program remain classified, said the operation analyzed data, gathered by the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies, to identify people who might pose particular threats to national security. “I think the intelligence we were getting was bona fide and mineable, and we were doing the best we could to follow it up,” the former official said.
Kareem Shora, national executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said he considered the findings a “slap in the face” because they contradicted the claims of American officials.
“It is very disappointing to see that despite all the reassurances that they were not profiling people, this comes out,” Mr. Shora said. With nearly 80 percent of the targets in the 2004 operation coming from Muslim nations, he asked, “how can you tell us you’re not focusing on people from these countries?”
Julia Preston contributed reporting from New York.
11:31 PM
Nikki writes,
I found this article online. I thought it was interesting because it talked about asylum of sexual orientation. And it also discusses the role of judges, similar to the article about the immigration courts for this week's assignment.
This article gives a different perspective for those wanting asylum for being a lesbian or gay. The article raises the question of those who might be "pretending" to be gay to stay in the US. Is deportation the answer, if they are returning to a homeland of unsafe circumstances. Some are not even able to utter the word of their sexual orientation. check it out...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/10/14/seeking_a_home_away_from_homophobia/
nh said...
I found this article online. I thought it was interesting because it talked about asylum of sexual orientation. And it also discusses the role of judges, similar to the article about the immigration courts for this week's assignment.
This article gives a different perspective for those wanting asylum for being a lesbian or gay. The article raises the question of those who might be "pretending" to be gay to stay in the US. Is deportation the answer, if they are returning to a homeland of unsafe circumstances. Some are not even able to utter the word of their sexual orientation. check it out...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/10/14/seeking_a_home_away_from_homophobia/
3:49 PM
nh said...
With the upcoming election next tuesday, I think it's important to consider both candidate's side on immigration.
Here's Barack Obama's stance: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/
In his opening quote about immigration he discusses how the immigration law system in broken, and it's necessary to fix the system. He has a plan to bring people out of the shadows, work with Mexico and try to keep families together.
Here's John McCain's view:
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/issues/68db8157-d301-4e22-baf7-a70dd8416efa.htm
McCain also agrees that the immigration laws are broken and seeks a two-step process reform, which involves securing the boarders and then comprehensive immigration initiatives for a secure nation.
This is an article from Miami Herald that looks at both sides and the similarities and differences:
IMMIGRATION POLICY: McCain, Obama hold similar views on immigration - Rivals John McCain and Barack Obama both claim to be champions of immigration reform, which could be an issue for each in his respective party.
If this doesn't work, you can find in loyola's World News through the electronic articles.
Do you think that Obama and McCain are similar on their views? What reform might accomplish more?
2:26 PM
AnnaW said...
I drive down Devon Avenue every day to get to Loyola, and never have I paid more attention to the store-fronts, restaurant names, and the faces of the people on the sidewalks than I do now that I have seen the movie about the Patriot Acts that we watched in class last week. I think that one of the reasons that the movie had such a big impact on me was because I drive through that neighborhood every day.
Something that struck me was that it was said in the movie was that before the Patriot Acts, the Indo-Pakistani neighborhood was a lot more vibrant- there were more stores and restaurants- but I have always thought that that neighborhood was lively anyway. I started commuting down Devon in 2006. I guess what I am trying to say is that it is hard for me to imagine how much more alive the area must have been before people started getting deported because it seems so full of culture and vibrancy today.
Ngai opens chapter 2 with a discussion of the Immigration Act of 1924 that effectively created a “new class of persons within the national body- illegal aliens-whose inclusion in the nation was at once a social reality and a legal impossibility” (Ngai, 57). She says that the restrictions placed on immigrants raised problems that were “administrative…juridical…and constitutional (do illegal aliens have rights?)” (Ngai, 57). I find this question of whether or not illegal aliens should have rights to be ironic in a country that was founded on Christian values. As Christians we believe that every person is equal because he or she has been created in the image and likeness of God; so if every person is equal, shouldn’t every person have rights? Yes, it is necessary for every country to have laws regarding immigration, but shouldn’t people (be they legally or illegally residing in the United States of America) be treated with the dignity and respect that is due to them? It seems to me that deporting people en masse does not respect their rights as human beings.
8:06 PM
Kip Young said...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/31inquire.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y&oref=slogin#
October 31, 2008
Inquiry Targeted 2,000 Foreign Muslims in 2004
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON — An operation in 2004 meant to disrupt potential terrorist plots before and after that year’s presidential election focused on more than 2,000 immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries, but most were found to have done nothing wrong, according to newly disclosed government data.
The program, conducted by the Department of Homeland Security, received little public attention at the time. But details about the targets of the investigation have emerged from more than 10,000 pages of internal records obtained through a lawsuit by civil rights advocates. Parts of the documents were provided to The New York Times.
The documents show that more than 2,500 foreigners in the United States were sought as “priority leads” in the fall of 2004 because of suspicions that they could present threats to national security in the months before the presidential election and the inauguration. Some of those foreigners were detained and ultimately deported because they had overstayed their visas, but many were in this country legally, and the vast majority were not charged.
The internal reports show that immigration agents questioned the foreigners about what they thought of America, whether violence was preached at their mosques, and whether they had access to biological or chemical weapons. A sampling of 300 cases turned over by federal officials showed that none of those interrogated were charged with national security offenses. Fewer than one in five were charged, most of them with immigration violations.
A spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Richard Rocha, would say only, “Due to ongoing litigation, ICE is not at liberty to provide any comment.”
Officials said they were not aware of any similar programs now under way.
At the time of the 2004 operation, the immigration agency said publicly that it was tracking leads in an effort to disrupt potential terrorism plots, but emphasized that its investigations were being conducted “without regard to race, ethnicity or religion.”
But the records showed that 79 percent of the suspects were from Muslim-majority countries, according to an analysis by students at the National Litigation Project at Yale Law School, who obtained the records, as did the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Each group sued for the records under the Freedom of Information Act, and both say the operation showed that the government was using ethnic profiling to identify terrorism suspects.
“This was profiling,” said Michael Wishnie, a professor at Yale Law School who helped lead the research effort. He added that the findings raised questions about both the effectiveness and the propriety of the program.
“The resources devoted to this were enormous,” he said, “but the results clearly were not.”
The issue of ethnic profiling in counterterrorism programs has taken on added significance because of new Justice Department guidelines that go into effect Dec. 1 and give investigators even broader authority to open terrorism investigations without evidence of wrongdoing. The American Civil Liberties Union and other rights groups argue that the new guidelines will allow federal investigators to make targets of Muslims, Middle Easterners and others without evidence of links to terrorist groups.
After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the administration began a series of efforts that strained relations with Muslims and Arab-Americans in particular. The detention of more than 700 illegal immigrants as terrorism suspects — often for months at a time without lawyers — generated a blistering report from the Justice Department on the “unduly harsh” treatment of the prisoners. Follow-up efforts in 2002 and 2003 led to the questioning of thousands of Muslims and Middle Easterners as well as measures requiring that immigrants from some countries register their presence with federal authorities.
The investigations conducted in the fall of 2004 were part of what federal authorities called Operation Front Line. It was unusual in that it relied on intelligence data from across the government to identify “priority leads” and then conduct interrogations in October 2004, just before Election Day.
One foreigner, in the country on a student visa, was asked his “opinion of America,” according to internal investigative reports. He responded that he was “living the American dream and cared greatly for the equal opportunities, rights and values that are afforded in America.” Another person, from South Asia, was asked about a mosque he attended and told an agent that “the mosque did not espouse any radical or fundamental form of Islam or denounce the United States in any way.” A third visa holder was asked if he owned any chemical or biological explosives. He said he did not.
The Homeland Security Department announced several hundred arrests at the time, mostly of visitors whose visas had expired, but the records obtained in the lawsuit show that the scope of the operation reached much further. More than 2,500 people were interrogated, with more than 500 arrests for immigration violations like overstaying visas.
A former immigration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because aspects of the program remain classified, said the operation analyzed data, gathered by the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies, to identify people who might pose particular threats to national security. “I think the intelligence we were getting was bona fide and mineable, and we were doing the best we could to follow it up,” the former official said.
Kareem Shora, national executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said he considered the findings a “slap in the face” because they contradicted the claims of American officials.
“It is very disappointing to see that despite all the reassurances that they were not profiling people, this comes out,” Mr. Shora said. With nearly 80 percent of the targets in the 2004 operation coming from Muslim nations, he asked, “how can you tell us you’re not focusing on people from these countries?”
Julia Preston contributed reporting from New York.
11:31 PM
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
[D]eportation is . . . exile, a dreadful punishment, abandoned by the commom consent of all civilized peoples. . . That our reasonable efforts to rid ourselves of unassimilable immigrants should in execution be attended by such a cruel and barbarous result would be a national reporach.
---JUDGE LEARNED HAND, 1929
The above quote is from Chapter 2 of Ngai's Impossible Sujbects: Illegal Aliens and The Making of Modern America.
THIS PAST WEEK, we visited the Chicago U.S. Immigration Court, and observed a number of individuals facing imminent deportation from the United States. I invite you to post comments and/or questions. See you next week...
Christopher Helt, Esq.
Dara writes,
For me the immigration court experience was profound in sharing the very personal side of what has become a controversial "topic" of discussion and debate. Beyond the politics and even economics is the reality of injustice. I don't think it is possible to see a situation like Mr. Din's or Mr Hassan's and not develop a sense of outrage and feel compassion for their families. Again, the question of Constitutionality surfaces.
To say the immigration system is broken is an understatement that became even more apparent in seeing the court proceedings. Hearing the years spent processing cases, many of which seem to be based on errors and technicalities and realizing the amount of money and manpower used is beyond wasteful. The figuratively fine line determining lawful and unlawful status looks more like a noose (to me).
Teresa writes...
I had mixed feelings upon arrival at the immigration court. I assumed I would immediately loathe the judge, scorn the prosecuting attorney with eyes of judgment, and leave feeling even more enraged with the immigration laws of this country.
Contrary to my anticipation of dramatic decisions, NOTHING HAPPENED. Even cases which were supposed to be decided were postponed to a later date for various reasons. When I say moved to a later date, I mean a year to a year and a half from now. Wow. I can't even imagine how one plans his or her life under such circumstances. If you are unsure you can even remain in the United States, I assume you would do your best to set up "back up plans" somewhere else. If you are raising a family, how do you simply live without being constantly fearful and anxious?
As I sat outside the hearing room, I looked at everyone present. The lawyers, naturally, stuck out like sore thumbs. I wondered what brought them to the job. I was fascinated with the large presence of people's families. This does not surprise me because it is important to support loved ones and show the judge a life actually exists in the United States. What I did wonder was how these families were able to continually come back to court. Time off of work, pulling children out of school, and continued legal fees are not luxuries everyone can afford. In this respect, the court system seems to be incredibly disrespectful of people's time and lives.
I did not hate the judge. I found her, instead, to have a warm and friendly demeanor. I found not loathing for the Honorable Jenny, but I still got a sick feeling in my stomach when I thought of the power she has over people's lives. I was not impressed with the government representative. His stacks of paper and routine distribution of fingerprinting instructions made him seem indifferent and apathetic to the people fighting for their residence in the United States. I wondered what the outcomes for so many diverse people would be. I left with mixed feelings. I was ashamed of the immigration court system. I also felt responsible. As a daughter of immigrants from Italy and Norway, my families never faced a similar process of starting or continuing a life in the United States as those I witnessed in the courtroom. As a citizen of the United States, I question what my role has to be in the restructure of our immigration system.
MODEL MIDTERM ANSWERS
Immigration, the act of one coming to America to live either temporary or permanently, is a creature of politics and economics. Laws and policies towards immigrants in the United States are created and, in fact driven by, political or economic bases. In Daniels' Guarding the Golden Door, for example, we read about immigration laws created to restrict Chinese immigrants (The Chinese Exclusion Act), (ANY EXAMPLE cited in Daniels is acceptable--Senator Sumner or any of today’s outspoken members of Congress, Senator Frist from Tennessee, etc.), based on an economic basis, as labor movements feared Chinese immigrants were injurious to the economy, taking jobs away from others. Any example from Geraldo Rivera's HIS PANIC acceptable.
B.) Why does one want to “Come to America” (the U. S.) permanently? What are the Four (4) ways, generally, an immigrant can stay permanently in America? List each one, provide any examples from any class discussions, lectures, the film Avalon or (if applicable) or from the reading material for each one.
MODEL ANSWER:
As we saw in the film Avalon, (or cite Enes Hadzovic from Kosovo reading material--facing persecution in his home country or Victor C-) individuals come to America for one (or a combination) of three reasons: To (1) reunite with family already here in the United States, (2) for economic reasons or to (3) flee persecution (problems in their homeland: War, severe civil strife, etc.).
There are four (4) ways to come to america permanently, with limited exceptions.
Generally, individuals permanently and lawfully come to the U.S. via (1) a family member in the U.S. who sponsors them; (2) a job sponsor (employment-based green card petition) sponsor; (3) political asylum; or (3) the visa lottery. Each have their own specific requirements. In class, we listed to Victor C- who was not one of the 4, but one of the exceptions; we watched Simka from the film Avalon come here as a refugee, reuniting with his long-lost sister; we discussed how people who are married to United States citizens can file for their spouses, and the various preference categories in the family-based green card category: spouse of citizens and green card holders, sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, children over the age of 21 who are citizens, and siblings of U.S. citizens. The family based visa immigration system is a large "tree" but one without many branches. There are only four branches or relatives that can be sponsored or peitioned for. The Visa lottery is difficult and it’s just like its sounds: a luck of the draw, similar to any other “lottery.”
A). What are the (2) two different types of visas in America (United States)? What is the difference between the type types? Is one better for immigrants than the other? Why is one type of visa similar to a pond frog on a Lilly pad?
MODEL ANSWER
The two types of visas allowing individuals to enter the U.S. lawfully are immigrant AND non-immigrant visas. Immigrant visas (or “IVs”) allow one to stay permanently in the United States (i.e, green card holder) and non-immigrant visas (or “NIVs”) are temporarily.
Immigrant visas, which are permanent (such as through family, a job, or visa lottery) commonly are referred to as "green card" holders once they arrive in the United States. They are immigrants coming to American to reside here permanently. Visas are issued outside the U.S. to allow one to enter lawfully. Non-immigrant visas are temporarily and if one stays in the U.S. past the time permitted, they suffer severe immigration law consequences. In that respect, IVs are better and they are permanent, and NIVs are not, they expire and the immigrant must return after a time period, depending on the type of NIV one enters the U.S.
As for NIVs, there are many types or categories, almost as many as in the alphabet, but the road never leads to a green card for these immigrants. In other words, the permission to stay in America is temporary and the immigrant must leave the United States before their non-immigrant visa time expires. If they overstay they violated their status and suffer severe negative immigration consequences, both if they wish to return someday to the United States (3/10 year bar for example), or if they wish to apply for another longer non-immigrant visa while they are here. They could also be deported for overstaying their non-immigrant visa. This is similar to Frog on a Lilly pad: The frog in the pond can leap from one Lilly pad to another, but the Lilly pad is slowly sinking (the NIV status) and the frog can leap from one to another (change NIV status), but the second the frog touches the water it drowns (or the water is poison!). Those who overstay their visas are considered unlawfully present and make up those considered “illegally present” in the U.S. (along those who enter illegally from the beginning).
A.) What is the Writ of Habeas Corpus? Cite examples from Daniels’ Guarding The Golden Doors, lectures, or class discussions. How was/is the “Great Writ” used to help immigrants in the United States? Why is it needed? In other words, why do immigrants in America need it or don’t they?
MODEL ANSWER
Essentially, the Writ of Habeas Corpus or the Great Writ, suspended only once during the President Lincoln administration, is a lawsuit filed on behalf of immigrants against the United States Government filed protect rights or obtain rights—asking the government to do or not to do something to help immigrants in the U.S. Daniels, says that the Writ and the decision which followed, provided the “foundation for immigration law [and] arose of struggles on the West Coast among Chinese immigrants, government officials and federal judges over the enforcement of the Chinese Exclusion laws. Though on the margins of society, Chinese in their resistance to exclusion laid claims to principles and practices, habeas corpus, due process…that were the heart of Anglo-American jurisprudence. This lawsuit protected immigrants who were subject to discrimination and other anti-immigrant laws and policies. It has had profound affected their rights, then and today. In class, we learned from class lecture the Writ of Habeas Corpus is a strong arrow in the quiver of immigrants to protect their rights, stop them from imminent deportation for example.
B.) What is the “Dualistic Attitude” towards immigrants in American society? Cite Daniels and Class discussions. What laws have we read about or discussed which restrict immigration? What groups or law makers did we read about who sought to restrict immigration and why?
MODEL ANSWER
The “Dualistic Attitude,” mentioned in Daniels’ Guarding the Golden Door, simply stated, involves loving our past yet hating our present. Our society seems to have wonderful feelings about our nation’s immigration past. Yet we fell today that our immigration system is “broken,” and often blame today’s immigrants for problems with our economy (they take away “American jobs”) for are cause for national security concerns (many feel that allowing illegal immigrants in the U.S. or lax immigration laws correlate with terrorism, for example) Others feel that some immigrants break down the social fabric and contribute to the social ills of our society. Overcrowding in schools, the welfare system, etc. The familiar phrase, “We Are A Nation of Immigrants,” for example is familiar to all, and brings to mind the romanticism we have with our immigration history. In realty, however, the obstacles that many early immigrants faced when first coming to America, whether Chinese or Irish, for example, have been severe. Past immigrants faced tremendous prejudice and discrimination in society, and the inscriptions on Statute of Liberty, for example, has been an oxymoron.
Many laws described in Daniels [any laws discriminating against early immigrants is acceptable here] were enacted simply to exclude certain immigrant groups from enjoying certain privileges enjoyed by other immigrant groups or U.S. citizens, discussing the value system of early immigrants, yet we know certain immigrant groups were discriminated against and treated unfairly. Laws and polices were passed severely limiting...(describe or cite examples from Daniels here).
Based on Rivera’s HIS PANIC,(1) define Chicano, Hispanic, and Latino.
What are the differences, according to Mr. Rivera between these terms. Why
are they relevant, according to Mr. Rivera?(2) Would the La Unica Grocery
store/restaurant be considered a Latino, Chicano or Latino establishment?(3)
Back up your answer using the definitions you just provided above.
MODEL ANSWER/OUTLINE:
(1) Any reference to Spain is acceptable for Hispanic, Latino any reference to Central and South America. For Chicano, any reference to Rivera's use of the term and Mexicans is acceptable. For La Unica, any conclusion is acceptable whether Latino or Hispanic or Chicano as long as it is backed up with logical conclusions [i.e, its Chicano because most of its cusomers are from Mexico or the owner is Mexican or former owner Cuban therefore a Latino establishment--or a combination of the two based on Rivera definition. Alternatively, you must state that it cannot be defined as it doesnt fit into Rivera's definition--but you must support your conclusion by providing the definition given by Rivera and contrast it with your own analysis].
(C) (1) What was the “family business” for the Ks in the film? (2) What ethnic
group was the family from? What country? (3) Compare other past immigrant
groups from Daniels and those today and what jobs, if any, are some
immigrants “associated with.” (4) Are there stereotypes? Is that a liability or
an asset for them, and why? Is that fair? What other immigrant groups have
had similar or different job associations? Compare other myths, realties and
implications of associating the Chinese with railroad workers, or the Irish with
saloons or law enforcement, Latino landscapers, Germans (and farming), etc.
or pick your own immigrant group. (5) What were some of the stereotypes of
yesterday’s immigrants in Avalon and today’s immigrant groups? (6) Can you
truly associate a job with a certain ethnic group? (7) Is that fair? What are
some of the implications for these immigrants, both positive and negative.
(A) In what way (1) did Avalon demonstrate how some immigrant families pooled
money together for other newly arriving family members to America?
Provide an example from the film. (2) Did that change for later arriving
family members to America? Do today’s immigrants provide financial
support or any support for other family members coming to America? In what
way? (3) What comments does Geraldo Rivera make in HIS PANIC about
immigrant families? (4) What are some similarities between his comments
about “family” and examples seen in Avalon?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
This past week we watched the first half of Avalon, and then fast forwarded to a present day immigration issue in America: Biometrics. Our guest speaker from the FBI who spoke to us about the use of biometrics, I must say, served as an eye opener. As a group, we must seriously consider its growing use in the United States, as it is likely to replace other security measures such as online passwords or PIN numbers...
Our speaker lauded its use. And he certainly may be correct. There is no doubt that the use of biometrics has assisted in the arrest of many criminal aliens. As our guest speaker noted, the impartialty of the data obtained certainly avoids certain potential stereotypes. Many of these sterotypes joined with the use of Biometrics--unfortunately-- as we will read about-- have been used to profile certain immigrants in law enforcement operations ("Special Registration" of Mostly Muslim non-immigrants). Our guest speaker has been in the trenches, and it may have been difficult at times speaking to an audience like you. As he said, he often deals chiefly with suspected criminal aliens or suspected terrorists. He has no doubt been hardened with the very harsh reality that many individuals wish to come to the U.S. to harm us. He is on the front lines, so to speak, attempting to fight for our right to express ourselves freely. I don't think he (or most of us) would disagree with that.
The American Bar Association, on the other hand, is very, very concerned with the use of immigrant racial profiling. And the use of Biometrics has been a part of certain unfortunate chapters in our recent American jurisprudence. We will soon read about them.
As noted by the ABA on its website, there has no doubt been unfortunate use of racial profiling in the immigration context, as the ABA summarizes important events, legal and otherwise here:
"In stark contrast to the prohibited use of race profiling in criminal law enforcement, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in 1975 that "Mexican appearance" constitutes a legitimate consideration under the Fourth Amendment for stopping a person to verify his or her immigration status. (See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 886-87 (1975).) Such race profiling in immigration enforcement disproportionately burdens persons of Latin American ancestry, the vast majority of whom are U.S. citizens or lawful immigrants. The harms range from embarrassing and humiliating the persons stopped to undermining the status of all Latinos in U.S. society. Race-based immigration enforcement contributes to the fact that 90 percent of the people deported from the country are of Latin American origin (U.S. Dep't of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, "INS Sets New Removals Record," Nov. 12, 1999), when only about one-half of the undocumented population is Latino. (U.S. Dep't of Justice, 1998 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 240 (2000) (Table I).) This helps reinforce and perpetuate the erroneous stereotype that all Latinos are "foreigners."
In United States v. Montero-Camargo (208 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disregarded the contrary language in Brignoni-Ponce and held that the Border Patrol cannot lawfully consider "Hispanic appearance" in deciding to make an immigration stop. The court based its holding on that fact that "Hispanic appearance" is a weak proxy for immigration status. It also relied on the fact that under the current interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has made it clear in recent years that all racial classifications are constitutionally suspect. (See, e.g., Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (invalidating a program using racial classifications in an effort to increase government contracting with minority businesses).)
The Lawfulness of Race Profiling in Immigration Law Enforcement
In Brignoni-Ponce (422 U.S. 873, 885-87 (1975)), the Supreme Court held that an immigration stop by the Border Patrol violated the Fourth Amendment because Border Patrol officers relied exclusively on "the apparent Mexican ancestry" of the occupants of an automobile. The Court further stated, however, that "[t]he likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor" in an immigration stop (emphasis added)."
It is this constant give and take that we must be aware. There is no doubt that under our "social contract" we may give up certain liberties to have other, much more important ones--but what about the risk of overreaching by the government. Our government, like corporations, is run by human beings. No one is perfect. The concern of an Orwellian type of abuse--at least potentially--may always be there in anytype of pervasive constant "monitoring" system--whether that be video cameras on intersections or fingerprinting (or photographing, retinal scanning) of immigrants.
Also, in March of 2008, for example, the alleged (by Congress) widespread abuse of the FBI's authority to secretly obtain Americans' telephone, internet and financial records drew pointed questioning from a key U.S. House of Representatives panel.
As promised by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), the panel "chided" U.S. Department of Justice Glenn Fine and FBI General Counsel Valerie Caproni about an internal audit released publically that detailed the FBI's missteps and illegal use of an investigative tool known as "national security letters".
"The department has converted this tool into a handy shortcut to illegally gather vast amounts of private information," Conyers said, "while at the same time significantly under-reporting its activities to Congress."
That being said, I think some of your comments about the future use of biometrics was well taken.
I leave you with this image: Does it have any relevance to last week's discussion? Does the imgage reflect some of your concerns with the use of Biometrics?
See you next week...
Micah said,
(all of the above said...)
One of the dangers inherent in this technology, as with many other state-of-the-art devices used in similar ways, is that because it is considered so cutting edge, it is seen as foolproof. And because it can deliver its results instantaneously, legal action (such as deportation) can be undertaken extremely quickly, before a case can be really examined as it should be.
I am not sure this speaks to the question of constitutionality, but this technology also seems to be the latest in a string of measures that criminalizes everyone whether or not we have ever committed crimes or ever will commit crimes. And since the technology is being used in particular on immigrant groups, it will be unfairly and disproportionately used to gather data on immigrant groups... thus treating all members of racial groups traditionally associated with immigrant status in this country (e.g. Latinos and Asians) as suspect, as potential undocumented immigrants. To me, it seems destined to be used in a way that smacks strongly of racial profiling.
Micah
Nikki said...
I agree with Micah, that this technology could cause more problems and raise more concerns then it would help; like gathering data and being used as a census and racial profiling. It seems all too easy of a solution or "goal of safer America" (20).. Relying too heavily on something like this can cause tremendous problems, and as mentioned in the article, "technology is not perfect" (10). Although they are working to improve certain faulty areas, especially with facial recognition, it still seems like these kind of errors can still occur and will never be completely certain with 100 percent accuracy, that a person entering the US is in fact a terrorist.
1:36 PM
Aida said...
I do not see anything wrong with biometrics if it can prevent or at least dissuade terrorists or criminals in general from entering a country. I had to get a biometric passport to come to the United States and I had no problem with that.
I am much more concerned by the fact that after 9/11 some people such as politicians or the media have taken advantage of the situation by playing on the voters’ fear and came to equate illegals with potential terrorists. It seems to me that passing repressive bills on immigrants or building a wall are not very efficient ways to fight against terrorism… Geraldo Rivera makes a good point when he says that “The Saudi Arabian attackers had all entered the United States legally and then overstayed their legally obtained tourist visas” (p.115). So in the case of criminals trying to enter the country, I think that biometrics is definitely useful.
And as far as civil liberties are concerned, I am more comfortable with the idea of having my fingerprints and picture entered in a database than with the fact that the FBI can search my telephone, email and financial records under the Patriot Act.
5:44 PM
Monday, September 08, 2008
This week begins our third week and there will be a slight change to our course-material schedule, due to one of our guest speaker's scheudling requests. As such, for next week's Rivera reading assignment, •GERALDO, Chapter 6, “Importing Terror” (Week 4 reading assignment) will be due before next week's class. Please review the syllabus for clarification or email me directly. Please also read pp. 6-16 of the PDF email handout, "Biometrics."
This week we will be be viewing the flim, Avalon. At our the break, however, we will be meeting with one of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's supervisory agents in the global inititives unit, "T.L." (We will resume our viewing of Avalon the following week).
FBI Special Agent L____'s presentation will give much illumination to last week's discussion of immigration and terrorism in the United States. His presention will also encompass border issues, global security, immigarion and terrroist issues, and "BIOMETRICS," the U.S. government's use of fingerprinting immigrants--and "other" technology to monitor immigrants inside America (and globally).
Aside from the PDF hand out on Biometrics, there are some things you should know about Biometrics and Immigration in the U.S. How biometric identification works, in sum, is as follows:
Several basic steps are required to make biometric information—our personal physiological features--useful in a contemporary security context.
First, "our" data must be collected as a reference. That's me and you. In order to "catch" a suspected member of a terrorist network, for example, one must compile or collect this information in advance.
That fingerprint, retinal scan, or "facial characteristic map" must first be on record so that it can be used as a reference when the suspected criminal tries to make it through an airport or cross a country border.
State of the art computer programs then use established algorithms to cycle very quickly through their entire collection of references to find a match. If the person crossing the border matches an existing reference at an extremely high threshold, for example, and that reference is for a suspected criminal, then the biometric system has done its job. What are some of the inherent problems with this sort of system? Courld it endanger any constitutionally protected rights? What, if anything, can be done to ensure privacy, for example?
Also, to those who particpated in the blog assignment last week, your thougtful comments are well taken. Well done! Finally, please see below for the Avalon Film Study Guide.
See you next week...
Christopher W. Helt, Esq.
Micah said,
(all of the above said...)
One of the dangers inherent in this technology, as with many other state-of-the-art devices used in similar ways, is that because it is considered so cutting edge, it is seen as foolproof. And because it can deliver its results instantaneously, legal action (such as deportation) can be undertaken extremely quickly, before a case can be really examined as it should be.
I am not sure this speaks to the question of constitutionality, but this technology also seems to be the latest in a string of measures that criminalizes everyone whether or not we have ever committed crimes or ever will commit crimes. And since the technology is being used in particular on immigrant groups, it will be unfairly and disproportionately used to gather data on immigrant groups... thus treating all members of racial groups traditionally associated with immigrant status in this country (e.g. Latinos and Asians) as suspect, as potential undocumented immigrants. To me, it seems destined to be used in a way that smacks strongly of racial profiling.
Micah
nh said...
I agree with Micah, that this technology could cause more problems and raise more concerns then it would help; like gathering data and being used as a census and racial profiling. It seems all too easy of a solution or "goal of safer America" (20).. Relying too heavily on something like this can cause tremendous problems, and as mentioned in the article, "technology is not perfect" (10). Although they are working to improve certain faulty areas, especially with facial recognition, it still seems like these kind of errors can still occur and will never be completely certain with 100 percent accuracy, that a person entering the US is in fact a terrorist.
1:36 PM
Aida said...
I do not see anything wrong with biometrics if it can prevent or at least dissuade terrorists or criminals in general from entering a country. I had to get a biometric passport to come to the United States and I had no problem with that.
I am much more concerned by the fact that after 9/11 some people such as politicians or the media have taken advantage of the situation by playing on the voters’ fear and came to equate illegals with potential terrorists. It seems to me that passing repressive bills on immigrants or building a wall are not very efficient ways to fight against terrorism… Geraldo Rivera makes a good point when he says that “The Saudi Arabian attackers had all entered the United States legally and then overstayed their legally obtained tourist visas” (p.115). So in the case of criminals trying to enter the country, I think that biometrics is definitely useful.
And as far as civil liberties are concerned, I am more comfortable with the idea of having my fingerprints and picture entered in a database than with the fact that the FBI can search my telephone, email and financial records under the Patriot Act.
5:44 PM
Thursday, August 28, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)