|
|
|
Review Essays
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION:
NEW IDEAS, OLD PREJUDICES
Lockout: Why America Keeps Getting Immigration Wrong When Our Prosperity Depends on Getting It Right. By Michele Wucker. New York: PublicAffairs, 2006. ix + 285 pp. Notes, bibliography, and index. $25.95 (cloth).
Debating Immigration. Edited by Carol M. Swain. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. ix + 316 pp. Tables, graphs, notes, and index. $70.00 (cloth); $19.99 (paper).
Immigration and America's Future: A New Chapter. By Doris Meissner, Deborah W. Meyers, Demetrios G. Papademetriou, and Michael Fix. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2006. xxii + 153 pp. Map, tables, graph, notes, appendices, Member Comments, and Dissenting Comment. $14.95 (paper).
|
|
The current immigration debate is intertwined with deeply held values, national security issues, and issues of race and ethnicity in America. Most people concerned with immigration understand that the issues are complex. Finding a solution that is fair, sustainable, and equitable for all involved poses many challenges. One aspect of this issue is that many industries depend upon the contributions made by immigrants, a large number of whom are undocumented. Thus, one significant challenge is to align immigration policy with actual labor practices. Another difficulty is the growing anti-immigrant climate in America. The one thing most people can agree upon is that current immigration policies are broken and the time to fix the situation is long overdue. What is the right thing to do regarding America's immigration policy? |
1
|
|
The books considered in this review each attempt to address this question. Michele Wucker examines the stakes for American competitiveness if we keep "getting immigration wrong"; Carol M. Swain provides us with a collection of essays mostly from an academic perspective; and, finally, the authors of Immigration and America's Future offer a comprehensive set of practical policy suggestions. Before summarizing the major perspectives in each book, it is important to put them in the broader context of the immigration debate in America. |
2
|
|
There is nothing particularly rational regarding current discussions about immigration, which are increasingly mired in the terrain of symbolic politics. Immigrants are not widely accepted in America—regardless of legal status. There are many myths espoused by politicians and the media that contribute to this, with negative consequences for today's immigrant communities. For example, much of the current immigration debate focuses on how different today's immigrants are from previous groups. However, fears that immigrants threaten to divide the United States culturally or that they refuse to assimilate and reject core American values are not new. The same was said of eastern and southern European immigrants in the nineteenth century who were predominately Catholic or Jewish and who did not speak English as a first language. In the present, a result of these rehashed arguments is that many immigrants in America are currently experiencing prejudice, discrimination, cruelty, and mistreatment. On November 20, 2007, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Hate Crimes Statistics Report indicated there had been a 25 percent increase in anti-Hispanic hate crimes from 2004 to 2006. According to the 2006 FBI report, Hispanics comprised 62.8 percent of reported hate crime victims. It is amidst this context that our immigration debate is taking place. |
3
|
|
In Lockout, Michele Wucker—a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute at the New School in New York City—calls for removing ideologues from the immigration debate by pointing out how common misperceptions about immigration have led to failed policies. The immigration debate must be held in an atmosphere of "knowledge and pragmatism" (p. 9). Instead, Wucker believes, it is mired in "emotion and patriotism" rather than in economic knowledge or understanding (p. 101). Wucker warns that if the debate is not redirected in a more knowledgeable and pragmatic direction, our continued failed policies will result in declining U.S. competitiveness that will ultimately hurt America's prosperity and global positioning. |
4
|
|
Wucker begins her analysis with a historical overview of immigration. She demonstrates that contrary to popular beliefs, immigrants did not leave everything from the old country behind. Many even returned home. Wucker notes that during the first great waves of immigration, more than one-third of all immigrants returned home, and that between 1880 and 1920, 50 percent of Italians returned. Those who did stay in America remained civically, culturally, and politically engaged in their home countries. Although immigrants were involved in the old country, they simultaneously wanted to participate in and embrace their new society. Her historical analysis demonstrates that transnationalism is not a new practice. However, it was an idea that had to be put aside after the two world wars, when civic engagement in the home country became less acceptable. During this period, immigrants had to blend in as much as possible and leave their old ties behind. This history is important because the consequences of this amnesia about origins include "the age-old scapegoating of foreigners" today (p. xiv). Wucker states that "the false idea that white Americans had no ethnic traits was an illusion that helped lead to the culture wars of the late twentieth century" (p. xv). According to Wucker, re-racialized arguments espoused by Samuel Huntington and Pat Buchanan, directed toward Latinos or Asians, are examples of this ahistorical perspective on American immigration. |
5
|
|
Immigration is also commonly believed to be an economic threat to America, particularly to Americans who are engaged in low-wage or blue-collar work. However this is not where most immigrants are located in the labor market. According to Wucker, 20 percent of immigrants are low-wage workers, while 75 percent of immigrants are professionals (p. 10). Immigrants also make up 25 percent of the PhDs in the United States. Wucker stresses that immigration is not a zero sum for the economy because immigrants are also consumers and contributors of goods and services. Undocumented immigrants will pay an estimated $407 billion into the social security system over the next fifty years, according to the Office of the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration (p. 100). Wucker argues that "America is an economic superpower because the best and the brightest have come here for so long to study and collaborate with the top thinkers of America and the world" (p. 129). However, Wucker warns that this trend will not continue if the best students and most productive immigrants keep getting caught in visa nightmares when attempting to study and work here. Because of this problem, many international students are increasingly choosing to attend universities in Great Britain, Australia, France, India, or Hong Kong. Wucker argues that growing numbers of elite immigrant students who choose to study elsewhere, combined with inadequate numbers of American students with enough skills to fill top positions, are the real economic threats to America's future. |
6
|
Wucker summarizes her main arguments in the final chapter. She states,
Our immigration bureaucracy is a failure: it locks out many of the people on whom our economy and prosperity depend even as it does not efficiently keep out those who would harm us. Our immigration laws are a shifting labyrinth that has made it too hard for businesses to get the workers they need legally and created perverse incentives for unscrupulous employers to take advantage of the workers who remain in the shadows (p. 221).
She concludes with a number of comprehensive and practical ideas to improve this situation. For example, she advocates the creation of a Cabinet-level position for immigration rather than having immigration policy made in different agencies with varying goals and priorities. Ultimately, "The population of immigrants who are in this country without legal papers did not grow to more than 10 million people without America's full participation in the legal charade" (p. 224). |
7
|
|
Debating Immigration takes a vastly different perspective from that found in Wucker's book. It is the result of a conference titled "Contemporary Politics of Immigration in the United States," which was held at Princeton University in 2005. The editor, Carol Swain, begins by noting that undocumented immigration is a drain on practically every institution, from hospitals to clinics to schools. Swain states, "The situation is dire. More than 11 million illegals live in the United States, and an estimated nearly 1,400 new illegals sneak across the border or overstay their visas each year" (p. 3). The central questions informing the book are mostly based on restrictionist premises. They include: "What accounts for the disconnect between public attitudes about immigration and the policies produced by elected officials? Why has the United States not developed a well-articulated public philosophy of immigration? What does the Christian Bible have to say about immigration policy? What are our moral and social obligations to our fellow citizens and do these trump our obligations to the world's poor?" (p. 3). Swain concludes the introduction by stating that "a number of important policy issues related to immigration are not being considered because too many individuals have allowed themselves to be silenced by the threat of name-calling. These issues include birthright citizenship to the children of illegals [sic].... Further disservice emerges when groups are encouraged to cling to group identities, old-world languages, and cultural practices condemned by 'civilized' society. A better tactic would include encouraging immigrants to become fully American" (pp. 11–12). While Wucker argues that American prosperity and competitiveness depend on continued immigration, most of the chapters in Debating Immigration reach a vastly different conclusion. |
8
|
|
Part I, titled "Philosophy and Religion," explores why, despite the public's restrictionist attitude towards immigration, policy makers continue to make expansionist immigration policy. While chapter 3 explores how our public philosophy of citizenship is driven by racial difference, the remaining chapters in this section call for restrictions on immigration. In chapter 4, James Edwards explores what the Bible says about immigration policy and concludes that it is perfectly consistent with biblical teachings to restrict immigration as long as immigrants are harming Americans either economically or culturally. Chapter 5 examines the moral dilemma posed by the contradictions between liberal immigration policies and social justice concerns for American citizens and weighs in favor of the latter. |
9
|
|
Part II is concerned with law and policy. Linda Bosniak examines issues ranging from the treatment of undocumented immigrants within the immigration bureaucracy and the rights they have in society at large. Noah Pickus and Peter Skerry discuss the often-overlooked horizontal relationships between immigrants (legal and undocumented) and their neighbors. Rogers Smith argues that immigration policy has mostly been centered on benefitting employers with symbolic measures to appease anti-immigrant groups, the result being bad immigration policy. |
10
|
|
Chapters 9 through 12 in Part III explore economic and demographic issues associated with immigration. Again, with the exception of one chapter in this section, the authors call for reductions in immigration. In "Borderline Madness," Douglas S. Massey argues that the only way to realistically integrate economies is to include the movement of labor along with free trade agreements. Steven A. Camarota believes that reducing immigration and increasing enforcement of current immigration laws would most likely improve the employment opportunities of American citizens. Peter Brimelow argues that immigrants hurt American citizens, going so far as to speculate that if we stopped hiring immigrants to mow our lawns, we would help out America's youth who would theoretically seek out such jobs. We would also improve labor-saving technology and we might even save the environment in the process. He asks us to "think about that lawnmowing immigrant. If he was not around maybe local kids would organize lawnmowing services. Maybe better lawnmowers would be invented. Or maybe houseowners would stop demanding their very own putting greens and adopt gardening styles better suited to local conditions—desert flowers in the southwest, for example. It would save on water bills too" (p. 162). Finally, Charles E. Westoff argues that immigration negatively impacts our population, noting that Hispanic women have more children than other groups and that there are political implications for America's population growth. Part IV addresses issues of race with arguments predominantly supporting restrictionist immigration policy. Swain begins with a chapter arguing that the Congressional Black Caucus "should be openly discussing the negative impact that illegal immigration is having on black communities and crafting new legislation" (p. 179). The exception in this section is Amitai Etzioni's chapter that examines the contributions that Latinos and Asians make to American culture and society by making America more communitarian with "a stronger commitment to family, community, and nation" (p. 189). Etzioni believes that by moving beyond black and white discussions of race, we can move beyond identity politics and eventually beyond victimhood. Finally, Jonathan Tilove argues that immigrants hurt blacks. He believes Etzioni's thesis that Latinos and Asians will improve race relations is too hopeful, stating that "it is at least possible that America's black/white divide will become America's new black/nonblack divide or some variation on that theme, with the black and some brown poor becoming even more isolated from the otherwise increasingly inclusive beige mainstream" (p. 218). |
11
|
|
Despite the title Debating Immigration, and with the exception of a few chapters, there is little debate in this volume. Rather, Debating Immigration is a collection of essays using different perspectives to argue that immigration is harmful for the United States. Furthermore, turning to the Bible for clarification of public policy questions of any kind is misguided and unhelpful to policy debates or policy formulation. Irrelevant religious arguments could easily lead to unconstitutional policy results. Use of certain terms is also disturbing. For example, a number of the authors used the term "illegals." Not only is this linguistically inaccurate, it is also loaded and pejorative. From academics who know the importance and precision of word choice, this was disappointing to say the least. Furthermore, blacks are pitted against Latinos with arguments that the Congressional Black Caucus ought to oppose immigration without a contending chapter that highlights interracial coalitions in achieving racial equality in the U.S. for all people of color. Finally, if there were truly a spirit of debating immigration in the chapters throughout this text, one would expect to find chapter 10, "Immigrant Employment Gains and Native Losses," to be followed by a chapter on economic gains that Americans enjoy due to immigration, such as lower costs in housing, food, and construction, not to mention improvements in science, technology and innovation, as Wucker discusses in her book. The great majority of the chapters argued for anti-immigrant positions, with some even justifying racist immigration policies of the past such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (see chapter 4). On the whole, there was little debate—rather, this book reflected the often-xenophobic discussions on immigration going on in popular discourse. |
12
|
|
The third book reviewed here is Immigration and America's Future, which was produced by the bipartisan Independent Task Force organized by the Migration Policy Institute. The Task Force is made up of over twenty members, ranging from politicians such as Edward Kennedy and John McCain to top academics in the study of immigration policy, such as Bill Ong Hing, human rights advocates, attorneys, and business leaders. The Task Force advocates for nothing short of a complete systemic "overhaul" of America's immigration policies, which they consider "broken and outdated" (p. xiii). They begin by outlining the benefits of immigration such as increased productivity, competitiveness, and dynamism before acknowledging some of the major challenges posed by immigration today. These include the large number of undocumented immigrants who fill many low-skilled jobs and the temporary programs targeted at high-skilled workers. Other challenges include an immigration system that does not have the capacity to meet the needs of applicants going through the system; the negative impact undocumented immigrants have on low-wage American workers; the lack of integration in communities that are not used to having immigrants; and, particularly after 9/11, security concerns—both in terms of uncontrolled borders and of violence at the border, including the deaths of hundreds of migrants trying to cross into the United States each year, the problem of human smuggling, and the potential dangers from vigilante groups. Their goal is to influence a new comprehensive immigration policy for the twenty-first century that pays attention to "economic, security, and social concerns" (p. xvii). The Task Force argues for policy changes that at once take advantage of the economic opportunities provided by large-scale immigration while also addressing the concerns of American citizens. The primary challenge the Task Force addressed in its policy recommendations was, "What kind of immigration policy and system would harness the benefits of immigration to advance US national interests in the 21st century?" (p. xxi). |
13
|
|
This report provides many practical, detailed, and specific contributions towards improving public policy on immigration. The authors present a thorough proposal for a new immigration policy and system that should be a must read for all policy makers dealing with immigration. The Task Force devotes chapters to addressing complex issues, as in chapter 5, "Attracting the Immigrants the United States Wants and Needs"; chapter 6, "Enforcing the Rules"; and chapter 8, "Strengthening Institutional Capacity." The report's focus is on addressing the question of designing an immigration system that will advance U.S. interests. |
14
|
|
However, despite these significant contributions, what is most telling about the recommendations put forth by the Task Force can be found in the report's lone dissent. While other Task Force members expressed reservations, only Bill Ong Hing wrote a "Dissenting Comment" (p. 151). Hing, professor of law and Asian American Studies at the University of California, Davis, believes that although the policy proposals posed by the Task Force could vastly improve the lives of both immigrants and citizens, its overemphasis on economics was a missed opportunity for everyone. Hing states, "If we had discussed what values are important to us as a nation in terms of human rights, moral obligations, and social responsibility, quite a different report could have emerged" (p. 151). For example, because the report remained concerned first and foremost with employment issues, family reunification was deemphasized. |
15
|
|
Taking Hing's critique further, missing from much of the debate on immigration is the humanity of immigrants. When did separating very young children from their mothers and fathers because of raids leading to deportations become American values? We cannot imagine the heartbreak and suffering these irresponsible and immoral tactics are having on immigrant families—now and for years to come. Doing to others what we would want done to us is an important American value. It should take much more than trying to earn a living even while working without documentation to cause the government to separate parents from young children. The act of dividing families reveals a very dark side of America—one we have seen before. We would all be better off if we focused on the positive aspects of American values as we frame our discussions on immigration policy. As Hing states, "Showing compassion and fairness in our immigration policies is not a sign of weakness" (p. 152). |
16
|
While all three books provide some provocative ideas about the issue of immigration, the notion that the immigration debate is part of electoral politics does not appear directly in any of them. Because immigration is in the sphere of symbolic politics—where there are moral positions allowing little compromise—it is an issue that predictably comes up during elections. Irrational public debate has made its way into electoral politics at all levels of government, perhaps most visibly in Pete Wilson's successful 1994 gubernatorial reelection campaign in California, which focused on the issue of illegal immigration, and in the 2008 presidential election as well. All three books lack discussion of how immigration is represented in electoral politics. Despite this deficiency, two out of the three books reviewed provide new ideas about dealing with immigration that could be incorporated into electoral politics because they are pragmatic and more in line with the reality of current labor practices. For example, apple growers in eastern Washington have relied upon migrant workers from Mexico for at least six or seven decades. The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that undocumented workers in Oregon and Washington combined comprise about three-fifths of the total seasonal labor force. Both the Wucker and the Migration Policy Institute book could inform electoral policy debates in ways that would take them beyond symbolic politics by providing pragmatic options that address the challenge of aligning immigration policy with actual labor needs and practices.
Maria Chávez
Pacific Lutheran University
|
17
|
|
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|