Notre Dame News | Notre Dame News | News

(Op-Ed): As American as Cinco de Mayo

2005-05-03T20:00:00-04:00

Cinco de Mayo is upon us again, a time to eat chips and salsa, and for some, a great excuse to drink Mexican beer.

It is not, as most Americans think, Mexico’s independence day, but rather the anniversary of the Battle of Puebla, where Mexico defeated the French forces supporting “emperor” Maximilian in 1862.

However, it is a holiday that is celebrated much more widely in the United States than in Mexico because the commander of the Mexican forces, Gen. Ignacio Zaragoza, was a Tejano—he was born in Goliad, Texas.

Previously celebrated only in the Southwest, Cinco de Mayo has become the Latino holiday in the United States, and it’s gaining currency throughout society—all the way up to the White House with its Cinco de Mayo fiesta in the Rose Garden. The obvious reason is that as the Latino community has grown and expanded throughout the country, the culture and the people are ceasing to be “exotic” and have increasingly become part of everyday life.

But the way to this new normality is uneven because so many members of this community are relatively recent immigrants. The process of integrating them into American society is fraught with a great deal of cultural fear, even while there is recognition that they are an economic asset.

These fears explain why as a nation we act as if the growth of this community is not a permanent state of affairs. On one hand, we send out a strong message of not wanting these immigrants to stay by denying them such basic services as licenses to drive and making it difficult for their children to pursue higher education. And on the other hand, many express the opinion that these immigrants obviously do not want to learn English or integrate into broader society, as did previous waves of immigrants, because of the proximity to their homeland.

And yet immigrants are of obvious value to our country. Businesses widely recognize that they take the jobs most Americans would not want. It is because of these immigrants that the U.S. economy is not facing the severe depopulation pressures of Europe and Japan. And, according to recent press reports, the vast majority of immigrants pay taxes, including Social Security and Medicare, and receive very few services in return.

The result of our conflicting views on immigrants is increased border control with lax employment enforcement. An unintended consequence of this dichotomy is that where previously Latino workers returned to their homelands after a few months of employment, the danger and the costs associated with crossing the border have increased so much that rather than risk multiple crossings, whole families are now moving here. And as families relocate, many more children are being born and raised in the United States—making an eventual return highly unlikely.

It is now said to the point of cliche that our immigration system is broken. So by all means, let’s recognize reality and move quickly toward fixing it in as rational and humane a way as we can. Although this obviously is a complicated issue, we should keep in mind the millions of children of immigrants, both American and foreign-born, and what a significant portion of our workforce (and our retirement) they represent.

A good place to start would be by moving forward on the Dream Act, legislation stalled in Congress that would offer permanent resident status to qualifying undocumented students, making them eligible for financial aid.

Assuring the smooth integration into society of undocumented children who came here without being asked, and who by virtue of their upbringing now identify themselves as American, will be an investment we could never regret.

Cinco de Mayo, then, is a good time to reflect on the Latino community and what it means to this country. As Gen. Zaragoza’s Texas roots demonstrate, the Latino presence is an essential part of U.S. history. Latinos have been a part of North America since before the arrival of the first English colonists, and the original Latinos in the United States did not need to immigrate, they were migrated when the U.S. absorbed half of Mexico as a result of the U.S.-Mexican War, which ended in 1848. However, because of the migration wave of the 1980s and 1990s, there now are millions of people in this country who are living in the shadows, but who are here to stay. They are an essential part of the economic fabric of this country and more important, they are the parents of Americans.

In the inexorable way of life, familiarity between Latinos and mainstream U.S. society will not breed contempt, it will breed babies. I can easily imagine a time when Cinco de Mayo will become just like St. Patrick’s Day, parades, beer and all—a day when “everybody is Latino”—because so many of us will be able to count a Latino forebear or three somewhere in the family tree.

The issue for us now is whether our descendants will be better off because we had the foresight to make certain that we took the appropriate steps to allow the efficient integration of these newcomers into the American family.

Allert Brown-Gort, is associate director of the Institute for Latino 91��Ƶ and a fellow at the Helen Kellogg Institute for International 91��Ƶ at the University of Notre Dame.

TopicID: 11065

(Opinion): Basic justice for immigrants who do the dirty work

2004-04-06T20:00:00-04:00

It has been more than two months since President Bush returned the issue of immigration to the forefront of the national consciousness through a proposal to radically overhaul the nation’s immigration laws. Although initially there was a spirited debate, election-year politics have ensured that there has since been little clarification of the president’s plan and almost no movement on the legislative front.p. In the meantime, however, three new reports highlight the urgent necessity of coming to an agreement on the issue of immigration, particularly on the regularization of undocumented migrants. The first is a report by the Foreign Ministry of Mexico, which estimates the number of immigrant deaths at the border at 409 for 2003. While these numbers are better than the 499 deaths registered in 2000, they are significantly worse than the 371 deaths in 2002.p. The second report is an Associated Press survey that finds deaths of Mexican workers have increased in the U.S., even as the safety trend for the majority of workers has been improving. Calculating that there is more than one job-related death a day (comparable to the number of deaths among those attempting to cross the border), the report points out that while Mexican immigrants now represent about 1 in 24 workers in the U.S., they represent approximately 1 in 14 workplace deaths. In a number of Southern and Western states, the likelihood of dying from a workplace accident for Mexican workers jumps from almost double to more than four times that of U.S.-born workers.p. The third is a Latino Labor report by Rakesh Kochhar of the Pew Hispanic Center. His research demonstrates that the number of employed Hispanics increased by 660,000 workers from the fourth quarter of 2002 to the fourth quarter of 2003, while the number of employed non-Hispanics increased by only 371,000. According to the report, this increase in Latino employment was driven by immigrant males (especially those who have entered the U.S. since 2000) and those who were in construction jobs. Since Latinos currently make up approximately one-seventh of the labor force, and immigrants account for less than half of that, this means that a very small portion of the labor pool accounted for over two-thirds of the jobs gained.p. There are an estimated 6 to 8 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., of whom 4 to 5 million are Mexican. Decades of economic restructuring, most notably in agro-industry but also in a range of other industries, have meant massive influxes of immigrant workers throughout the country.p. What these reports point out is that we have a profoundly ambivalent view of immigrants. Our economy desperately needs them, or they would not account for such a large proportion of new jobs in the current “jobless recovery.” They obviously perform the dirtiest and most dangerous jobs, or they would not die at two to four times the rate of U.S.-born workers. But we want to act as if they are totally unwanted, or they would not be forced to come through the desert and die at the rate of more than one a day.p. Until now the national debate on migration has tended to overwhelmingly emphasize the supply side — “they are coming here for a better life.” But they are also coming because our economy needs them. As long as we consider them unwanted guests, it is easy to concentrate on their illegal status. If people are “illegal,” they must have broken a law; and if they are criminals, we don’t want them. Except that, apparently, we need them. So we compromise.p. We act as if we do not see them. We force them to live hidden lives. We deprive them of rights — from driving legally to the ability to call the police without the risk of being deported. We deny their foreign-born children the right to higher education.p. A year before President Bush proposed his immigration initiative, the Catholic Bishops of the United States and Mexico issued their first joint pastoral letter, Strangers No Longer. They point out that the treatment of immigrants challenges our consciences, and that “(w)e judge ourselves as a community of faith by the way we treat the most vulnerable among us.” In the same manner, as a nation, we should examine our conscience, and judge ourselves as a society.p. Unless we agree to pay higher prices for goods and services such as groceries, restaurants, hotels, construction and child care, we should recognize the sacrifices that immigrants make to strengthen this country and stop asking them to die for us. Basic justice demands that we provide those who have come without documents some mechanism to earn the right to reside legally and — why not — to eventually become U.S. citizens.p. _Allert Brown-Gort is associate director of the Institute for Latino 91��Ƶ and a Fellow at the Helen Kellogg Institute for International 91��Ƶ at the University of Notre Dame. _ p.

TopicID: 4640

(Op-ed): Seeking a balance in the immigration debate

2004-01-09T19:00:00-05:00

Op-Ed: IT IS TOO EARLY to tell whether President Bush’s proposal to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws in a radical way will be successful. The lack of legislative preparation for the project — as well as of crucial details — could give some credence to the cynics’ view that this initiative is merely political posturing during an election year.p. Nevertheless, the importance of the president’s proposals should not be underestimated. Not only does this initiative bring to the forefront a debate that is long overdue, but it also seeks a compromise position between those who advocate for a guest worker program and those who lobby for the regularization of undocumented migrants.p. Most important, however, the initiative introduces a much needed balance to the current debate by recognizing that immigration reform is necessary for reasons of economics, security, and equity. By linking the millions of immigrant workers in this country to the optimal performance of the economy, the proposal allows us to begin to talk seriously about the demand side of the equation instead of focusing solely on the issue of supply.p. That the current immigration policy is broken is beyond question. An important reason is that until now (as was the case for many years with the drug issue) the national debate on migration has tended to overwhelmingly emphasize the supply side — “they are coming here because we are rich and they are not.” Concentrating on the conditions of supply of immigrants, of course, is far less difficult politically, less divisive socially, is supported by previously held stereotypes, and it dissipates guilt by concentrating attention on the illegal status of the person. If the problem is supply, the answer obviously lies with interdiction.p. But severe interdiction would wreck the economy — just think of a $5 head of lettuce. Accordingly, this approach has led to many millions of dollars spent not so much on protecting our borders as on making these workers invisible, forcing undocumented migrants to enter through the most unpopulated and inhospitable terrain, causing the deaths of an estimated 2,000 people since 1997. Once here, they live hidden lives, open to exploitation by unscrupulous employers and criminals.p. Moreover, the consequences of these policies affect the nation as well: As a result of the tightened border, immigrants stay longer, and often decide to bring their families, acts that increase the chance that the migration is a permanent one. Given the dangers and obstacles, immigrants have come to increasingly rely on networks of smugglers to get them into the country.p. Finally, in terms of security, the evolution of well-developed and experienced criminal networks whose sole reason for being is the trafficking of human beings and contraband is a phenomenally bad idea in an age of terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.p. The reality of the demand for immigrant workers by the US economy can be proven by the growth of remittances over the past years. In 2001, Mexicans sent back an estimated $9 billion to their families. This amount was widely expected to fall with the decline of the economy and the increased security after 9/11. Instead, in 2003, remittances are estimated to have reached $13 billion, far surpassing manufacturing and tourism and competing with petroleum as Mexico’s top foreign currency earner.p. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, remittances from the United States to Latin America and the Caribbean could reach some $30 billion this year, with growth “likely to continue and potentially to accelerate.”p. One thing should remain clear: Although the president has talked of not rewarding those who came here illegally, the proposal can ultimately only work if it includes a serious plan for allowing those immigrants already here to earn the right to regularize their situation. Many have children who are citizens, and many more arrived as children themselves, making this the only society they have ever known. If there is no mechanism present beyond a renewable three-year permit, it is doubtful whether many established immigrants will risk exposing themselves to the authorities, and it is equally doubtful that the initiative would achieve its aims.p. The United States still desperately needs the cheap — and dependable — labor of immigrants to process meat, manufacture furniture, care for children, and wash dishes. And as the population ages, the nation will need the children of the current migrants to be the workers of tomorrow.p. The president’s immigration initiative has yet to be fully defined, and serious questions remain about its ability to pass the current Congress. It may well prove to be a political ploy to attract the growing number of Latino voters, or a welcome olive branch to President Vicente Fox before his meeting with Bush Monday in Monterrey. Even so, the debate can now proceed on the basis of a more balanced and rational view of the costs and benefits of immigration.p. p. Allert Brown-Gort is associate director of the Institute for Latino 91��Ƶ at the University of Notre Dame. p. ? Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

TopicID: 3879