I’ve added an “Immigrant Rights” section to the “Alas” blogroll. Here are the blogs currently listed:

• ¡Para Justicia y Libertad!
• Brownfemipower
• Citizen Orange
• Immigrants and Politics Blog
• Immigrants In USA Blog
• Immigration Equality Blog
• Immigration News Blog
• Immigration Prof Blog
• Latina Lista
• Latino Politico
• Migra Matters
• Migration Debate
• Standing FIRM
• The Mex Files
• The State of Opportunity
• The Unapologetic Mexican
• Working Immigrants

Check ‘em out.

From Three Wise Men:

Crazy, racist, hate mongering Congressman Tom Tancredo has announced he will not seek re-election, regardless of the outcome of the race for the Republican presidential nomination. I pretty much can’t think of anyone in the House that’s more clearly a bad human being than him.

I agree. For more on Tancredo, check out these posts at Migra Matters: 1 2 3 4.

[This is a guest post, reprinted with Carmen's permission from the blog All About Race. Thanks, Carmen.]

In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court ruled that people of African ancestry were not, and could never become, citizens of the United States of America. The Dred Scott decision asserted that blacks were property. And because no state or federal government could take a citizen’s property away from him, this decision meant that any slave who managed to escape to a “free state” would be hunted down and returned to bondage and his or her “owner.” This decision enraged many of the most vocal abolitionists and politicians in the North and was an important precursor of Abraham Lincoln’s election to President.

But still, even among those who philosophically opposed slavery, I imagine dinner conversations sounding something like this:

“That Dred Scott decision is appalling.”
“Yes, it’s simply awful.”
“But, you know, those Negroes who just up and run away? I mean, they are breaking the law.”
“Yes, and our country cannot tolerate law breakers.”
“Just to think, what if everybody just went about doing whatever they wanted to do?”
“The whole Union would collapse into chaos.”
“Absolutely!”

The issue of immigration in America is cause for this kind of conversation now. Many well meaning and good natured people are not critically examining what it means that the media uniformly and incessantly blares the term “illegal immigrant” as if the people who risk physical harm to get to America to work, are only that. The media would have you believe that these are not the same people America has welcomed to come to build and clean our houses, harvest, prepare and serve our food, and raise our children.

In the South, the American Civil War was termed “the War of Northern Aggression.” During the 1960’s, those who made the trip south to support Southern grassroots movements in their protests for an end to Jim Crow and racial terrorism, were called “agitators.” Now, it is all so clear. But, as the events of America’s Civil Rights movement unfolded, many decent people, with hearts in the “right” place, felt “Negroes are pushing too hard, for too much. These things take time.”

I support strong and secure borders, period. And with that, I believe that if we as a nation welcome people to come and clean our houses, harvest, prepare and serve our food, and raise our children, then I believe we must provide a path for those people to become full citizens of the United States sharing all of the rights and responsibilities that citizenship entails.

There was a time in America when it was illegal to gather and discuss independence from England. There was a time in America when it was illegal for an American of African descent to vote or own property or drink from certain water fountains. There was a time in America when it was illegal for Americans of Japanese descent to live in their homes. Instead, Japanese Americans were legally evicted from their homes and moved to internment camps.

So, I have a question for you. When you say “illegal immigrant,” other than relating a fact of American citizenship status, what are you saying? What do you want me to know about the people you describe in this way?

I’ve written in the past about European countries being forced to confront racism and xenophobia, which is especially the case in nations where large scale immigration is making the countries more ethnically and racially diverse. One of the latest countries confronting discrimination is Ireland. Unlike many other Western European countries, Ireland was never colonial power. In places, like France, Spain, and Britain many immigrants are coming from former colonies, but since Ireland didn’t have colonies, Irish immigration is a little less predictable. Nevertheless, Ireland is facing some of the same problems as other European countries. Many Irish people do not accept the new immigrants, and this is especially true for Black immigrants, who come mostly from West African countries like Nigeria.

Traditionally, Ireland has been a country of emigrants.¹ Given this fact, it should be no surprise that there are more people of Irish descent in the US alone than there are in Ireland, but in a surprising twist of fate, the trend is beginning to reverse.² With Irish birth rates above replacement level and a new wave of immigrants from Africa and Eastern Europe, Ireland is actually gaining more people than it is losing. Some hope that this will contribute to growth in the Irish economy, which has been one of the weakest economies in western Europe.

Right now, there is little research on this trend, and the manifestations of anti-immigrant attitudes and racism come to light with stories this one. The gist of the story is that in a suburb of Dublin nearly all of the approximately 90 children who couldn’t find a school to attend were black kids.

The children will attend a new, all-black school, a prospect that educators called disheartening.

About 90 children could not find school places in the north Dublin suburb of Balbriggan , a town of more than 10,000 people with two elementary schools. Local educators called a meeting over the weekend for parents struggling to find places and said they were shocked to see only black children.

“That overwhelmed me. I’m not quite sure what to make of it. I just find it extremely concerning,” said Gerard Kelly, principal of a school with a mixture of black and white students in the nearby town of Swords.

The parents at Saturday’s meeting in a Balbriggan hotel said they had tried to get their children into local schools but were told that all places had to be reserved by February.

Almost all of the children are Irish-born and thus Irish citizens, under a law that existed until 2004.

There is no way this is merely a coincidence, especially when a neighboring town has mixed schools. It should be noted that they are not starting a school that only admits black pupils, like this poorly worded headline from The Times Online suggests. The school is made up overwhelmingly of black children because those children “mysteriously” were not allowed to enter many of the local schools.

Part of the problem is that the Irish government allows schools to discriminate on the basis of religion, which ends up being a form of indirect institutional racism.

About 98 percent of schools are run by the Roman Catholic Church, and the law permits them to discriminate on the basis of whether a prospective student has a certificate confirming they were baptized into the faith. Some of the African applicants were Muslim, members of evangelical Protestant denominations or of no religious creed.

Since many immigrants are not Catholic, these schools were allowed to not accept them without a Catholic baptism certificate. It is difficult to know how many black children who were Catholic were also excluded. I know many of the African children are Nigerian, and many Christian Nigerians are Catholic, so I’d be curious to see how much religious discrimination and racial discrimination overlapped in this case. Clearly, this is a great case for the separation of church and state, and this is an issue that the Irish will have to confront as they become a multicultural nation.

I suspect that the 2004 referendum changing laws that allow parents of Irish citizen children to also become citizens is part of an anti-immigrant backlash. It will also be interesting to see how the role of the Catholic church changes because of immigration. They may lose some power. Ireland can’t call itself democratic when 98% of their schools are run in an openly discriminatory fashion.

Over the next few years, I expect to see more stories on discrimination like the case in Balbriggan. Hopefully, we will see more pro-immigrant organizations developing from ethnic Irish and immigrants.

1. Emigration with an “e” refers to people exiting the country. This is how I teach the words in class: Immigration with an “i” means into and emigration “e” means exit. (back)
2. Unfortunately, this article is now a paying article, but I was able to read in my New York Times home delivery. (back)

I didn’t link to brownfemipower’s amazing post about la familia and immigration, because I wanted to say something. I wanted to argue for open borders. Then I thought that when I get round to writing about open borders then those comments should stand alone.

brownfemipower covers so much in her post including transience:

In Michigan, it’s different. Detroit, Flint or Saginaw may have established Mexican communities–but in the community I grew up in, there wasn’t one single family that had grandparents or even parents who had been born there. All of us whose families had settled in the neighborhood had multiple friends that disappeared after a year–their families moved back to Mexico or Texas or over to other farming states for work. Two of my best friends as a child left Michigan in the second grade. Only one wound up coming back to Michigan–when we were both in high school.

And as somebody who worked in the fields–I can remember falling in love with a dark-skinned, lightly muscled boy who smiled at me every time I walked past. He was there for one season and I never saw him again. A common happening in migrant work.

These disappearances were very upsetting to me, but I lived–just like I know the people who disappeared lived as well. We’re all used to it, and we’ve learned to accommodate shadow figures, shadow relationships into our lives.

Go read brownfemipower now.

I think it’s really important to publicise what happened to the immigrant rights protest in Los Angeles. The police attacked protesters with tear gas, rubber bullets. ¹ You can read more.

I’m sorry I didn’t write sooner, I’ve been sick. Brownfemipower is on it. I particularly recommend State Violence is Not an Anomaly (if you’ve got a faster internet connection than I have). This is awful, but it’s also not the first time the police have acted like this, by any stretch of the imagination, and it won’t be the last, unless there’s some counter-organising.

Note about comments I don’t want this to become yet another debate about ‘illegal’ immigration, or who immigration policy should serve.

1. This protest was inter-generational, and included a lot of old people and children. I don’t want to emphasise that, because that implies that I might think it was OK if the police had just attacked people in their twenties, but I thought you should know. (back)

(Second time typing this post; digital goblins must have eaten it the first one.)

Last month I posted a list of what I thought were the hot and not so hot racial trends for 2006. At that time, I promised to post a list of what trends I think will be popular in 2007. Here is my list.

1. Asia/Asians are Hip and Cool–Africa was hip in 2006, and I think Asians will be hip in 2007. I expect to see more attention given to Asian Americans and Asians on TV and in the movies. 2007 will be like the so called Latin invasion of the late 1990s. Get ready to hear about the “Asian Invasion.” Whether or not there really will be any substantive gains (or a lessening of stereotypes) for Asian Americans in politics, media, or other prominent positions is a different question, but I think media is going to frame it that way.

2. End of Voluntary Desegregation Plans–I’m not really going out on a limb here. The Supreme Court is reviewing voluntary desegregation plans in Seattle and Louisville, and I expect to see them to rule these plans unconstitutional, which really shouldn’t surprise anybody given the conservative bent of the current Supreme Court. This will continue the trend of resegregation, moving schools back to the segregation levels of the 1960s.

3. Biological Notions of Race– Not that this isn’t already popular, but I think the “health disparities” research and the current obsession with DNA testing are going to combine to make biological notions of race very popular. Even though mainstream biologists and most health disparities researchers don’t necessarily believe in biological notions of race, their research will be spun this way by media outlets and advocacy groups.

4. Latinos Becoming White– I guess I am going out on a limb here especially since I said in my last post that the anti-immigrant backlash will continue until the presidential election in 2008. What I think is going to happen is that we will see two competing frames one that discusses how “illegal immigrants are ruining the US” and another that discusses how “todays immigrants are just like the immigrants of the past.” I know some people will be critical of me on this one, so I should make it clear that I don’t really expect Latinos to become white in a year, but I think this will be the beginning of a trend where those Latinos who are lighter will be seen as whiter. There may be a backlash against this from radical and progressive Latinos who see themselves being aligned more with Black, Asians, and American Indians, but this is a big issue to watch out for.

5. Non-African American Blacks are Popular– Maybe it can be called the Barack Obama phenomenon. This will be the year that Americans discover that black people are diverse. I know it should be more obvious, but it’s not. I expect Black immigrants in the US to get tons of attention, and I expect to see them set up as “model minorities” compared to their American born black counterparts. Nowhere in this discussion will people discuss how immigration policy helps select the most educated and wealthy people (regardless of race). This will be part of a divide and conquer strategy that challenges traditional Civil Rights models of African American organizing, and I have a feeling that civil rights leaders really won’t know how to respond.

6. Anti-Racism/Pro-Racial Equality Blogs Blow Up– Call me optimistic, but I have been noticing an increasing number of blogs that focus mostly on race related issues. I think 2007 is the year of the anti-racist/pro-equality blog. These blogs are reaching a critical mass, but whether or not this will translate into on-line activism is unclear.

What do you think? What trends did I leave out? Where do you think I”m right/wrong?

In an earlier post, I discussed immigration history in the 1800s and early 1900s. In this post, I would like to discuss the most recent wave of immigrants, specifically those who came after 1965. As I stated in the previous post, a National Origins quota system was put in place in 1924. These quotas were designed to maintain the current ethnic make up of the US population, keeping the balance in favor of northern Europeans and stemming the tide of immigrants from southern/eastern Europe and other parts of the world. This system was in place until 1965, and during this time period the rate of immigration decreased markedly. By 1960 only 5% of the US population was foreign born, compared to 15% of the population in 1910 and 12% of the total population in 2004 (US Census Bureau).

The Immigration Act of 1965 (Hart Cellar Act) scrapped the national origin quotas, and replaced them with other methods for gaining entry/residence into the US. While less restrictive than the national origins system, it was more restrictive than very early immigration policies (pre 1870s).

What were the provisions of this new immigration policy? One of the key goals of this immigration policy was family reunification of immediate relatives–spouses, parents, and children. Families were given preference and were not subject to the new quotas that were set as were several other groups: “certain ministers of religion; certain former employees of the U.S. government abroad; certain persons who lost citizenship (e.g., by marriage or by service in foreign armed forces); and certain foreign medical graduates.” Immigration quotas were shifted from nations to hemispheres. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, this act

Allocated 170,000 visas to countries in the Eastern Hemisphere and 120,000 to countries in the Western Hemisphere. This increased the annual ceiling on immigrants from 150,000 to 290,000. Each Eastern-Hemisphere country was allowed an allotment of 20,000 visas, while in the Western Hemisphere there was no per-country limit. This was the first time any numerical limitation had been placed on immigration from the Western Hemisphere. Non-quota immigrants and immediate relatives (i.e., spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens over the age of 21) were not to be counted as part of either the hemispheric or country ceiling.

Additionally, those immigrants with “special skills” that were needed in the US were also given a preference. This would include people such as highly trained scientists, athletes, artists, and people who can fulfill high demand jobs (i.e. nursing). Finally, refugees were also granted slots (especially those from communist countries and the Middle East.).

There have been important subsequent immigration policies, including amnesty for undocumented immigrants; however, many of these policies are slight adjustments on the Hart Cellar Act. The Center for Immigration Studies highlights several post 1965 reforms in this list:

1976 Amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act — Extended a version of the seven-category preference system previously applied to Eastern Hemisphere countries to all Western Hemisphere countries. Also imposed an annual ceiling of 20,000 immigrants from any one country in the Western Hemisphere.

1978 Amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act — The two hemispheric ceilings were combined into a worldwide quota of 290,000. The U.S. now had a policy that, on paper, applied uniformly to the people of all countries.

1980 Refugee Act — Established a separate admissions policy for refugees, eliminating the previous geographical and ideological criteria, and defining “refugee” according to United Nations norms. It abolished the seventh preference category for refugees (see Details). It set a separate target for refugees at 50,000 and reduced the annual worldwide ceiling for immigrants to 270,000.

1981 Report of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy — The 16-member commission was created by Congress to evaluate immigration and refugee laws, policies, and procedures. The Commission’s recommendations were summed up as follows by its chairman, the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh: “We recommend closing the back door to undocumented, illegal migration, opening the front door a little more to accommodate legal migration in the interests of this country, defining our immigration goals clearly and providing a structure to implement them effectively, and setting forth procedures which will lead to fair and efficient adjudication and administration of U.S. immigration laws.”

1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) — Tried to control and deter illegal immigration by providing amnesty and temporary status to all illegal aliens who had lived in the United States continuously since before January 1, 1982; extended a separate, more lenient amnesty to farmworkers; imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens; increased inspection and enforcement at U.S. borders.

1990 Immigration Act (IMMACT) — Modified and expanded the 1965 act; it significantly increased the total level of immigration to 700,000, increasing available visas 40 percent. The act retained family reunification as the major entry path, while more than doubling employment-related immigration. The law also provided for the admission of immigrants from “underrepresented” countries to increase the diversity of the immigrant flow.

In spite of these alterations, basic immigration policies still follow the 1965 Immigration Act’s basic guidelines. This policy change dramatically changed the US population. The rate of immigration dramatically increased, and many groups that had previously faced high level of discrimination, especially Asians, were now entering the US in much larger numbers. Many of the post 1965 Asian immigrants were recruited to the US specifically for their skills in fields such as medicine, a stark departure from the early Chinese immigrants who were working class/low wage laborers. Overall, the new immigrants come mostly from Latin American and Asia. Contemporary immigrants tend to be more highly educated than immigrants of previous generations because of the 1965 immigration preferences; however, there is still a noticeable immigrant working class (especially for Latin American immigrants). In fact, it is probably fair to say that immigrants are disproportionately part of the working poor (especially those who are undocumented or refugees) and the upper middle class.

What does the future of immigration policy hold? I don’t feel qualified to predict the future, but if we want to talk about meaningful immigration policies and reforms, we need to understand what the current policies are. The 1965 law set the basis for current policy, and thus, it is imperative to reference it in the immigration debates.

Editor’s Note: The women of Racialicious asked what the big trends in race and pop-culture were in 2006, and I thought I would respond with my own post. I came up with a list on my own, and then I went and read the comments section on their blog to see what others were saying. Based on those comments I added one more thing to my list, but I was in agreement with several of the commenters over there.

Rather than judging “hot” trends, I thought it would be useful to take a past, present, and future perspective, focusing what topics were out of fashion in 2006, what topics were most popular, and what topics I think are going to be predominant in 2007. I have decided to divide the list into three parts–1)The Been There Done That List of Unfashionable Racial Issues 2)The I’m So Hot I’m on Fire List of The Most Fashionable Racial Trends 3)The I’m About To Catch On Fire List of Racial Trends. I’m only posting the main this list on Alas. You can go over to my site to read the others.

The I’m So Hot I’m on Fire List of The Most Fashionable Racial Trends of 2006

So what racial trends were prevalent in 2006? Here is my list in no particular order. I initially created this list without reading the comments over on the Racialicious post, but after reading the comments I realized one big trend that I left of my list–the Africa is hip and cool trend, which was really big in ‘06. It is interesting because most of the other trends people mentioned I had on my list, too. So here goes….

1)The Racialization of Muslims and Middle Easterners: I wrote a post about this a while back, and I know that Tariq is one person who is on board with me. Every time people talk about “racial profiling” of Muslims, it adds a little more fuel to the racialization process. This is an ongoing trend that has been in vogue since after September 11th, but I actually expect it to die down soon; however, this will hinge in part on the Census decisions about racial categories for the 2010 Census. Last time some people tried to get Middle Easterners listed, but their attempts failed. I don’t think it will be listed on the Census this time either.

2) Return of Minstrelsy: Blackface was everywhere, as where crazy buffoonish caricatures of African Americans. We saw numerous cases of college students dressing in blackface, and bloggers manipulating photos to make them look like blackface. Some felt that minstrel hip hop had become a genre, and the popularity of “Flava of Love” also added to the trend. I expect this to continue in 2007.

3) Return of Old Fashioned Racism: I guess this is an extension of minstrelsy, but it also extends to the use of racial slurs and other forms of more blatant bigotry. We even had a potential Presidential candidate bragging about how his state was a former slave state. This type of bigotry had been declining for years, but there appeared to be an upsurge last year. From the anti-immigrant backlash to the Michael Richards rant, and all of the blackface incidents, it felt like we were moving backwards.

4) Europe Confronts It Racism: Many European countries have been very critical of the US on racial issues, but 2006 was a year for them to look in their own backyards. This trend became obvious in 2005 when French suburbs went up in flames, but in ‘06 this extended to other areas. In particular, international soccer officials spent the entire year trying to control racist fans. Right wingers continued to try to block out non-European immigrants. Expect this trend to continue over the next several years as European countries confront a demographic crisis that could destroy their social welfare systems. I think the answer to this problem is immigration, but many disagree arguing that immigrants can never truly be French, English, German, etc.

5) The Non-Apology, Apology: This was everywhere. We could start with Rosie O’Donnell, who apologized for her “ching chong” joke, but followed it up with “I might do it again because that’s how my brain works.” The most common version of this was the “I’m sorry you were offended” apology, which posits that the person making racist or prejudiced comments really didn’t say anything wrong, and the upset person just overreacted. In many instances, these apologies were about saving face, but not admitting any wrongdoing.

6) The Death of the Predominantly Black Cast and the Rise of the Multiracial Ensemble Cast: I am very disappointed to see few TV shows with predominantly Black casts, but the disappearance of predominantly black cast shows seems to be to the benefit of the multiracial ensemble cast. So we don’t have many Cosby Shows, but we now have shows like Grey’s Anatomy, Lost, or ER. I have mixed feelings about this trend. I like multiracial ensemble casts. I liked them going all the way back to Fame and Hill Street Blues, but I also wish we still had more predominantly black, Asian, Latino, or Native American shows. I predict this trend will continue in 2007.

7) Anti-Immigrant Sentiment: I don’t even know where to begin. Several towns decided to ban day laborer sites and prevent illegal immigrants from getting work, housing, or any other social benefits. Commentators like CNN’s Lou Dobbs, lead the anti-immigrant backlash by blaming immigrants for the “decline in the middle class.” This issue also seems to cross political party lines, with both Democrats and Republicans speaking for and against immigration. I think this issue is replacing crime as the new political boogeyman issue. Expect it to continue through the next Presidential election.

8) Africa Becomes Hip and Cool: It seems like Hollywood types (besides Bono) discovered African poverty this year. From anti-poverty and anti-AIDS programs to the genocide in Darfur, Africa became a cause d’celeb. Of course, we can’t forget the “I want to adopt an African baby trend.” I have mixed feelings about this. It is nice to see these problems receiving attention, but I also worry that 1) this is just a fad and 2) some of the important issues like global capitalism, “structural readjustment,” and the legacy of colonialism were not addressed. I think this trend will die out in 2007, which is typical of most causes that celebrities take up–in one minute out the next.

9) The Assault on Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Programs: Michigan joined California in banning affirmative action, and the Supreme Court heard a case regarding voluntary desegregation programs (which will likely be overturned). There seems to be a sense among many white Americans that any programs designed to remedy the effects of racism and segregation discriminate against whites. This stems in part from the false belief that opportunities are equal and that racial and ethnic minorities somehow have great advantages over whites. This trend has been going on since the 1980s, but it may be reaching it’s peak. I expect it to continue indefinitely.

10) Liberal Racism: From the Joe Biden slave state comment mentioned above to the infamous racism at a liberal blog called Firedoglake, liberals were ready to prove that they were just as racist as anyone else. Is this the beginning of a political shift, where the left and the right converge on racial issues? I don’t really know, but it is cause for concern. It indicates that those of us who are involved in anti-racist activism need to think about some convincing frames that we can use in the battle for social equality. We may have to think about different ways to talk about “racism,” “diversity,” and “equal opportunity.”

What do you think? Do you think there are any trends I missed? Do you think I’m off in my assessments?

The model minority myth is foundational to the way many Americans see race in this country. The model minority myth postulates that Asians (broadly defined) are all doing wonderfully here in the US. Many people believe that Asians are more intelligent and have a better work ethic. People who believe in this myth cite stats showing a high level of education, high median family incomes, and a large number of Asian Americans in the most prestigious schools. In this post, I want to talk about just a few reasons why the model minority myth misrepresents the experiences of Asian Americans.

Not all of the statistics of Asian Americans paint a rosy picture. This is not to diminish the accomplishments of Asian Americans, but it is important to understand that statistics can be used selectively. By only citing the statistics where Asians do well, we miss the bigger picture. One of the biggest problems with how Asians are viewed is the tendency to lump all Asian ethnic groups together. When groups are subdivided a more complex portrait of Asian Americans emerges.

Asian Americans and Poverty

It may surprise many model minority proponents to know that Asian Americans have higher poverty rates than whites. Census poverty statistics for 2000 indicate that 9% of whites live in poverty, 24% of blacks live in poverty, 11% of native born (NB) Asian Americans live in poverty, and 13% of foreign born (FB) Asians live in poverty¹. The poverty rate for various sub-groups within the category Asian also varies. For example, Filipinos have lower poverty rates among both the native born (7%) and the foreign born (6%). Japanese Americans (NB=5%, FB=16%) have lower poverty rates than whites if the are native born and higher if they are foreign born. How do other groups fair:

1. Chinese (NB=11, FB=14%)
2. Koreans (NB=12%, FB=15%)
3. Asian Indians (NB=10%, FB=10%)
4. Vietnamese (NB=18%, FB=15%)

In their analysis Sakamoto and Xie (2006) create a category “Other Asians” which includes all groups not mentioned above such as Hmong, Laotian, Cambodians, Indonesians, and some others. Collectively, these groups have very high poverty rates NB=26% and FB=22%, which puts their poverty rates at the same level as African Americans. So the overall lesson here is that poverty is slightly higher for Asians than it is for whites, and poverty levels vary dramatically among Asian subgroups.

Asian Americans and High School Completion

While Asian Americans as a collective are overrepresented among the highly educated, many are also overrepresented in among those who do not complete high school. In 2000 87% of whites and 77% of blacks in the 25-64 year old range had completed high school. For Asians, however, the numbers are complex. Among the native born the overall number is 93% and among the foreign born it is 82% (Sakamoto and Xie 2006). Native born Asians tend to do better than whites and foreign born Asians tend to do worse. Once again there is great variation among the various Asian subgroups that follows a somewhat similar pattern to the one above–Japanese, Filipinos, Indians, and Koreans do relatively well (They are all 89% or higher for both foreign and native born.). Chinese (NB=96%, FB=80%) are in the middle, and Vietnamese (NB=74% and FB=65%) and “other” Asians (NB=81, FB=67%) do poorly.

Conclusion

I have not taken the time to examine labor force statistics or higher education statistics in this particular post, but they do have some some similar patterns. I think it is important to understand the complexities of the experiences of Asian Americans outside the model minority stereotype, while many Asians are doing fairly well economically, thanks to immigration policies that recruited highly skilled workers from the east. Others are not doing so well. Several Asian subgroups like Hmong, Laotians, or Vietnamese consistently have poverty and drop out rates that are on par with or higher than African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. These groups often came as refugees rather than skilled workers. Moreover, the poverty rates tend to be higher than whites for most Asian subgroups. There are no doubt an Asian American working class and an underclass, which we very rarely hear about. (This post will also connect with the second immigration series post.)

This is part of the reason I argued for affirmative action in higher education for Asian Americans. Beyond the fact that I think schools should promote diversity, I also think a good case can be made that many Asian American subgroups are underrepresented in higher education.

1. Sakamoto, Arthur and Yu Xie. 2006. “The Socioeconomic Attainments of Asian Americans.” PP 54-67 in Pyong Min Gap (ed.) Asian Americans: Contemporary Trends and Issues, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. (back)

One of the hot topics in the recent US election was immigration. Pundits, like Lou Dobbs, are on a mission to “fix our broken borders” by cracking down on illegal immigration. They argue that immigrants are taking jobs from American citizens, refusing to assimilate, changing American cultural values, and engaging in criminal activities. As I listen to these arguments, I am always reminded of my class lecture on European American immigration patters. The rhetoric of contemporary nativist activists like Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan is nothing new. In fact, it follows almost exactly the same rhetoric of earlier anti-immigrant backlashes. While Latinos are the primary targets of contemporary nativists, in the early years it was the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Jews, and the Chinese, and the “problems” were the same.

Before we can understand the significance of anti-immigration backlashes, it is also important to explore the variation waves of immigration and how they are shaped by policy and economic conditions. The earliest European immigrants were primarily English, and since the English became the dominant group, they were also able to set policies and social norms for other immigrants.¹ One of the primary social norms that British set was the norm of Anglo-conformity, which was proposed by Milton Gordon² Under the system of Anglo-conformity immigrants were expected to model the English American customs and language to the point that they became indistinguishable.

During the earliest years, the US had a fairly open immigration policy. European immigrants were welcomed and encouraged to come to the US, and there were few laws or policies that limited immigration. Most immigrants in the earliest years came from England, Germany, and Ireland (along with a small contingent of Scandinavian immigrants). The German and Irish immigrants were very much vilified, as this quote from a recent Washington Post article highlights:

Still, European immigrants found plenty of backlash. Nativist sentiments ran strong, and white Protestant reformers championed English-language instruction and temperance, the latter reflecting the Establishment’s disdain for hard-drinking immigrants. The Germans set up 121 breweries in Brooklyn and Manhattan alone.

From the 1700s to the late 1800s immigration was open for these immigrants. Very few immigrants were turned away and there were few laws limiting immigration. As the Washington Post article states:

Until 1918, the United States did not require passports; the term “illegal immigrant” had no meaning. New arrivals were required only to prove their identity and find a relative or friend who could vouch for them.

Customs agents kept an eye out for lunatics and the infirm (and after 1905, for anarchists). Ninety-eight percent of the immigrants who arrived at Ellis Island were admitted to the United States, and 78 percent spent less than eight hours on the island. (The Mexico-United States border then was unguarded and freely crossed in either direction.) “Shipping companies did the health inspections in Europe because they didn’t want to be stuck taking someone back,” said Nancy Foner, a sociology professor at Hunter College and author of “From Ellis Island to JFK: New York’s Two Great Waves of Immigration.” “Eventually they introduced a literacy test,” she added, “but it was in the immigrant’s own language, not English.”

In the later half of the 1800s the first major restrictions against immigrants were imposed. The Chinese were primary the targets of these laws, and the Naturalization Act of 1870 made Chinese ineligible for citizenship. This act also targeted the wives of Chinese laborers, and all people born in African or of African descent were made eligible for citizenship. Then in 1882 Chinese were banned entirely from entering the country.³ The backlash against Chinese often stemmed from fear that they were taking away jobs.

During the late 1800s and early 1900s immigration from southern and eastern Europe skyrocketed, and there was also a backlash against these immigrants, which lead to much greater restrictions. In 1917, the restrictions against expanded to include an “Asiatic Barred Zone,” which extend over Asian and the Pacific Rim; moreover, immigrants were required to take literacy tests, and “anarchists” and other radical were also barred. This was one of several laws that lead to the National Origins Act of 1924. According to History Matters,

In response to growing public opinion against the flow of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe in the years following World War I, Congress passed first the Quota Act of 1921 then the even more restrictive Immigration Act of 1924 (the Johnson-Reed Act). Initially, the 1924 law imposed a total quota on immigration of 165,000—less than 20 percent of the pre-World War I average. It based ceilings on the number of immigrants from any particular nation on the percentage of each nationality recorded in the 1890 census—a blatant effort to limit immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, which mostly occurred after that date. In the first decade of the 20th century, an average of 200,000 Italians had entered the United States each year. With the 1924 Act, the annual quota for Italians was set at less than 4,000.

This act radically changed immigration by setting quotas that gave preferences to groups that were already represented in the US. While there were other immigration restrictions imposed during this period, this law had the greatest impact. From the 1920s until 1965, the number of immigrants entering the US dropped dramatically and at it’s low point in the 1970s the percentage of the population that was foreign born was only 4.7%.

So the first major wave of immigration, which ended in the late 1800s, included immigrants mostly from western Europe, and these immigrants faced very few restrictions. The restrictions in this era were based on race and mental health, but complex immigration processing or laws did not exist at this time. It was until the second wave of immigration from the late 1800s-1924 that much greater restrictions were put on immigration. These restrictions were explicitly racialized and directed at Chinese and Eastern European immigrants. Over both of these waves of immigration similar concerns were expressed about the fitness of immigrants. Nativist believed that immigrants threatened the American way of life, and the arguments used are remarkably similar to those of the contemporary nativists like Lou Dobbs or Pat Buchanan.

Next in this series I’ll discuss the Immigration Act of 1965 and it’s effects on our current population.

1. Of course, I haven’t forgotten about the indigenous people of North America or the involuntary African immigrants, but the focus here will be on voluntary migrants. (back)
2. Gordon, Milton. 1964. Assimilation in American Life. New York: Oxford University Press. (back)
3. This ban on Chinese laborers was not lifted until the 1940s. (back)

The appallingness continues to escalate. From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 — Under a new federal policy, children born in the United States to illegal immigrants with low incomes will no longer be automatically entitled to health insurance through Medicaid, Bush administration officials said Thursday.

Doctors and hospitals said the policy change would make it more difficult for such infants, who are United States citizens, to obtain health care needed in the first year of life. [...]

Marilyn E. Wilson, a spokeswoman for the Tennessee Medicaid program, said: “The federal government told us we have no latitude. All states must change their policies and practices. We will not be able to cover any services for the newborn until a Medicaid application is filed. That could be days, weeks or months after the child is born.” [...]

The Bush administration claims that they have no choice under the Deficit Reduction Act. But although the DRA does tighten immigration requirements, it doesn’t say a word about infants; nor are infants born in the USA immigrants. They’re citizens, just as American as Bush’s own daughters. More from the Times article:

Doctors and hospitals denounced the policy change and denied that it was required by the new law. Dr. Jay E. Berkelhamer, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said the policy “punishes babies who, according to the Constitution, are citizens because they were born here.”

Yet another example of how the “pro-life” party doesn’t give a damn about babies once they’re born. Medical care during the first year of a baby’s life shouldn’t be subject to a months-long wait for the government to process papers, and it shouldn’t place non-citizen parents in the position of thinking that they have to choose between exposing themselves to the INS and providing their child with the healthcare it needs.

Curtsy: Tennessee Guerilla Women.

I first read about a protest against the Minutemen at Columbia on Foolish Owl’s blog. For those who don’t know the Minutemen are an American group, who specialise in vile anti-immigration racism and have taken it on themselves to police the Mexico-US border.* The Young Republicans at Columbia had invited . Anti-racist/immigrant rights groups got together and organised a protest outside. Some people also went inside and disrupted the speech (either by unfurling a banner, or shouting the speaker down - I wasn’t there, and only have dial-up so I can’t watch the video - it’s irrelevant to my argument).

I absolutely support and applaud this sort of protest (I’ve done this sort of protest, just for the record). But what I wanted to address directly was the idea that by disrupting the event (however they did it) interupted this man’s right to free speech. The Happy Feminist was reasonably vocal in her disapproval:

But no it wouldn’t change my analysis. You protest outside, you write scathing editorials, and you publicize the fact that the College Republicans are basically inviting a hate group onto campus. But as a matter of both tactics and ethics, disrupting the actual speech isn’t right.

and

And to be crystal clear, no, I would not agree with shouting down a pro-life speaking or anti-feminist speaker.

It’s the same principle as the Jewish ACLU lawyer who defended the right of Nazis to demonstrate in Skokie. No matter how noxious and personal and awful he found what the Nazis were saying, he still defended their right to say it.

To me the principle of freedom of speech is to stop those with power limiting the speech of those without power (particularly stopping the state limit people’s freedom of speech, but I think the role of companies in limiting people’s speech also comes under the same analysis). The idea that respecting freedom of speech means listening in silence while someone says something you find offensive seems ridiculous to me. All freedom of speech guarantees is the ability to speak - it doesn’t mean that anyone has to listen to, or respect, what you’re saying.

Shouting down a speaker isn’t interfering with free speech; it is free speech.

What I find just plain weird, is that this argument is generally only applied to people who are speaking in formal settings. On Saturday the neo-nazis held their annual rally and there was a reasonably large counter protest which stopped them meeting where they wanted to meet, and shouted them down (more on that in a second). Very few people jump up and down and says a counter-demonstration is interupting the nazis freedom of speech. But when someone is an invited speaker - when they have backing by some institution, some power base then somehow they have more of a right to free speech than they do on a speech corner. That seems like the wrong way round to me. Those who are in positions of power, generally need less, not more protection against their rights being infringed.

So I have absolutely no ethical qualms in holding banners, chanting, or communicating in any way, while someone I disagree with is speaking. I exercise my freedom of speech by not being silent.

That doesn’t mean I think that shouting at people is always the best tactic. The counter-demonstration against the neo-nazis is a time where I thought the tactics were wrong. There aren’t very many neo-nazis in New Zealand, but they tend to be exactly sort of violent thugs you’d expect (two years back someone vandalised the graves of jewish people, and they attack people as well as graves).

To me, the point of protesting against neo-nazis is to make it really clear that white supremacy is not welcome. I see this message as not just for the nazis themselves, but also for everyone who walks by. But there’s never any purpose to the anti-fascist demonstration except to piss the nazis off. I strongly suspect being protested against makes the nazis feel cool and important, so the counter-protest ends up being counterproductive.

I do think that we need to organise to ensure that fascists don’t get a hold. But we don’t do that by shouting at them. Political racism has appeal for working-class people who believe that they should be better off than they are. By saying “it’s the jews/immigrants/Maori who are to blame for your situation” various groups (including mainstream political parties obviously) use racism to organise and gain support. The only response to those lies is to present what we see as the truth - to show that it is capitalism that is to blame for people’s economic problems, and that it can be fought.

I didn’t attend Saturday’s anti-fascist demonstration. I’m sick of them, sick of the macho atmosphere, and sick of activists who seem to get their kicks by playing cops and robbers with fascist groups, as if it’s the most important work in the world. There’s a real macho culture to these sorts of demos, that makes me very uncomfortable.

I’m really glad I didn’t go, as there seems to have been a distinct lack of political analysis at the counter-protest. “More hair than brains” may be an amusing chant towards skinheads - but actually our problem isn’t with their hair cut, or their intellect. Likewise a whole crowd chant of ‘Ugly, Ugly, Ugly’ seems to miss the point.

But most disturbing to me was that some supposedly anti-fascist protesters shouted “cocksuckers” and “faggots” to the nazis. Now I don’t want to tarnish the entire demonstration with the misogynist homophobic actions of a few. I have a lot of friends who were at the demonstration, and I know that they would neither shout that, or stand silent while someone else chanted it. But I think it shows that my fears about a macho atmosphere are not unreasonable.

* Just for a short break and disturbing story. My sister once met someone who worked for the US border patrol at a party. When asked what he did he flipped out his badge (which he’d carried with him to Wellington, presumably to impress the girls) and said “I shoot Mexicans”. Just a reminder that the Minutemen are only one of the violent racist groups on the Mexican-US border.

Also posted at Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty

Well, one Republican, anyway. Yesterday, I received a fundraising letter from Senator Gordon Smith (republican). This short letter (22 paragraphs, many of them consisting of only one sentence) contains:

13 mentions of the word “tax” and variations (taxes, taxed, etc), three in a bold font. (The only other thing that gets a bold font is a request that I send Mr. Smith some money).

12 mentions of “border,” “immigrants,” or variations on those words.

1 mention of the word “terrorism” (in the context of immigration).

Zero mentions of the words “Iraq,” “Iran,” “Afghanistan,” “Middle East,” etc..

Zero mentions of the words “Bush” or “President.”

[Crossposted on Creative Destruction, where moderation is looser.]

I saw this posting from pandagon today regarding Jasmyne Cannick’s article against immigration reform. I had to write something in response to it because I am deeply offended by her words as a black women and as a lesbian.

Jasmyne writes:

It’s a slap in the face to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people to take up the debate on whether to give people who are in this country illegally additional rights when we haven’t even given the people who are here legally all of their rights.

This reminds me of how some black “leaders” said it was a slap in the face to the civil rights movement to be equated with the gay rights movement. I am sorry Jasmyne, but the oppression olympics are played out and get us nowhere in our goals of civil rights for all oppressed people. I agree that we haven’t given all of the people in this country the same rights, but what makes the struggles of gays and lesbians more important than the struggles of immigrants? Nothing does.

While I know no one wants to be viewed as a racist when it comes to immigration reform, as a lesbian I don’t want to move to the back of the bus to accommodate those who broke the law to be here. After all, immigrants aren’t the only ones who want a shot at the American dream.

While I agree that immigration reform is an important issue and perhaps it could become the next leading civil rights movement we haven’t even finished with our current civil rights movement. Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts got it right when he said, “There is no moving to the front of the line.” Immigration reform needs to get in line behind the LGBT civil rights movement, which has not yet realized all of its goals.

Excuse me? Did it ever occur to her that just because it is a law doesn’t make it right? Slavery was legal for over 200 years–did that make it right? Of course not. In fact, it was only up until recently (2003) that a number of anti-homosexual laws were repealed that de-criminalized the personal sexual relationships of homosexuals–which were the anti-sodomy laws. When she was having sex with other women, it was illegal. And if she has sex with a member of the military, it is still seen as illegal and could place her in prison for up to 15 years.

Immigration and immigrant rights are a part of the civil rights movement. Does she not know of any bi-national couples? Does she not know of any queer immigrants? She lives in Los Angeles, a diverse metropolis, therefore I find this highly impossible–unless she only interacts with queer U.S. citizens. And, since she uses racialized rhetoric (back of the bus) she implies that the civil rights movement that grew out of the desires of both blacks and whites to provide equal rights for blacks has successfully finished. She says this at the same time the majority of people in prison are black, where a large number of us are living in abject poverty, where the majority of blacks are living with HIV/AIDS–but i guess, since we got to move out from the back of the bus, everything is a-ok. Hearing this from a black lesbian is appalling.

Which is not to say that I don’t recognize the plight of illegal immigrants. I do. But I didn’t break the law to come into this country.

As a black American born lesbian, you are descendants of slaves. Of course you didn’t have to “break the law” to come here, your ancestors were already brought here against their will. But what about those of us queers or even non-queers who do not have the privilege of being born here in the United States?

Both Senator Kennedy and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas backed away from insisting that guest workers would have to leave the United States after their initial two-year visa expired, basically guaranteeing that immigrant families wouldn’t be separated.

Who actually believes that this country holds the best interests of immigrant families at the center of the guest worker legislature. The guest workers would have to leave because the United States government does not want them to stay here. If they stayed, the government would be responsible for them financially and politically, where a number of laws would have to change to accommodate these new citizens, extended stay nationals, or whatever else they would be deemed as. Our country would be responsible for treating them like human beings and not the underpaid, disposable and worthless contractors the government wants them to be portrayed as.

Cannick’s words are xenophobic and reek of right wing conservatism that deploys the rhetoric of “illegal” and “broke the law” to imply that immigrants are complicit with crime and therefore pose a threat to our rights. I find this highly problematic coming from a person of color who so-called advocates for the civil rights of oppressed people. It doesn’t surprise me that a magazine like the Advocate (a very white and very conservative magazine) published her article.

Jasmyne, what is a crime is the fact that other black women like you and me, are surviving and struggling, just as much as immigants–documented or not. What is not a crime is having immigrants demonstrate their desire for civil rights, just as it is not a crime for gays/lesbians/sgl’s to demonstrate our desires for civil rights.

I wanted to write a little bit more about my position on immigration, because I think it’s an issue that doesn’t receive enough attention.

One commenter on my post wrote:

But I have been surprised that many of the people that are vehemently against corporations outsourcing jobs to India and China have no problem with domestic outsourcing to illegal immigrants driving down wages for many Americans.

This sort of rhetoric on immigration is really dangerous, because it drives a wedge between those with work permits and illegal immigrants, and it’s wrong. The reason illegal immigration can drive down wages and conditions has nothing to do with the fact that people come from some country with browner skin, in fact it has nothing to do with the immigrants at all, it’s because the employers use the power they have over illegal immigrants. If all illegal immigrants were allowed to work legally then their wages and conditions would go up, because they could utilise labour legislation, and it would be easier to organise.

I don’t actually care about American jobs any more than New Zealand jobs, or Chinese jobs and Indian jobs. No borders isn’t just rhetoric about immigration - it has to be a commitment not to privilege one group of workers above another.

I also oppose tarriff reduction regimes for different reasons than this commenters. While the arguments about relationships between tarriff changes in the first world and job losses (and not just in the first world, but that’s a longer post) are important. The real reason I oppose tarriff reductions is that they give companies more power. The more free companies are to move around, the more they can leverage from different localities to move where they are. Improved transport has meant that manufacturing can reasonably easily be moved from one location to another. This has given manufacturers the power to leverage zones where no labour legislation, or most other forms of legislation, apply to them. It’s this power, not the job losses, that I object to.

I don’t actually believe that ‘no borders’ could be achieved under capitalism, neither could women’s liberation, but steps in that direction are worth fighting for.

Also posted on My blog.

According to the Sun newspaper, British immigration officials have been granting visas to foreign nationals in exchange for sex. (Now updated with a link to the Sun’s original story - many thanks TheInkSlinger.)

I find it ironic that a newspaper which proudly advertises its daily topless photograph was the one to break a story about what is effectively a form of prostitution. My cynical guess is that the Sun was less concerned with the exploitation than with the anti-immigration potential of the story.

Almost a year ago, I drew this cartoon. The subject was abused women who apply for asylum in the United States; Janet Reno changed the US’s asylum rules to include battered women, but left office before finalizing her changes, and Ashcroft was considering changing them back. The particular case at issue was the case of Rodi Alvarado, a woman fleeing an abusive husband in Guatimala.

At the time, I wrote “Of course, the administration hasn’t officially made its decision yet; it could be that they’ll decide to be humane, in which case this cartoon will be wrongheaded and a bit embarrassing. But that’s some egg I’d be pleased to have to wipe off my face.”

It’s too soon to know for sure, but it looks possible that I’ll be wiping my face soon. From The New York Times (via Diotima):

That’s great news. And - wonder of wonders - I agree with the Concerned Women for America, who wrote Ashcroft that giving “refuge to such a woman as this is exactly what our asylum policy exists for, and to turn her away would be an act of pointless cruelty.” Exactly right.

It’s nice as well that some Conservative groups are on the right side of this issue; with this administration, the pressure from Conservative groups is the pressure that counts.

* * *

I wrote what I thought was a pretty good post on this issue last year, so I’ll be all self-promoty and stick in a link to it here.

(Posted by Ampersand, who will probably embarrass himself, because there are some serious Titanic buffs online who will probably catch him in lots of errors. But oh, well.)

In a typically well-written and reasoned post (how dull! Mark, you should experiment with bad writing and reasoning once in a while, just for variety’s sake!), Mark Kleiman discusses cost/benefit analysis and the Titanic: