Doing Research on U.S. Immigration: Best Websites

It seems that a new stage in the U.S. Immigration Debate is around the corner. Time for researchers and scholars on both sides of the border to get ready... I would like to share with you some observations about the most important websites on immigration research:

The Migration Policy Institute, the Migration Information Source and the Pew Hispanic Center offer first-hand information and research on immigration issues. Extremely useful websites if you want to have access in a timely manner to information or field research or core surveys on documented or undocumented immigration and policy issues in the U.S.

When doing research on immigration news, the best sites are Yahoo, Los Angles Times, New York Times, Newsday, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post and PollingReport. For a news recap on Spanish, definitely Impresiones Latinas is the best source.

If you are doing research on Mexican immigrants in the United States, the best sites to start your research are the webpage of the Institute of Mexicans Abroad and Huellas Mexicanas, both in Spanish mostly.

If you are interested in acknowledging a serious position against unauthorized immigration, the best website is that of the Center for Immigration Studies. If you are interested in knowing the position of anti anti-immigrant groups, take a look to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The perspective of the Catholic Church is exposed at the Justice for Immigrants website, and the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Regarding research centers affiliated to U.S. universities or academic institutions, the following websites are worth visiting: Center for Comparative Immigration Studies (UCSD), the Mexican Migration Project (Princeton), the Mexico Institute (W. Wilson Center), The Urban Institute, the Center for Migration and Development (Princeton), and the Border Battles website of the Social Science Research Council. For a Mexican perspective in Spanish, go to the website of El Colegio de la Frontera Norte or to the website of the Red Internacional de Migracion y Desarrollo.

Websites of organizations which are very active in defending the rights of immigrants: America’s Voice, American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Immigration Forum. To acknowledge the position on the matter of the major unions go to AFL-CIO and SEIU.

The U.S. government Office of Immigration Statistics (Dept. of Homeland Security) offers substantive information in terms of numbers. The National Conference of State Legislatures has done an excellent work in documenting the legislative process of the immigration debate in every state of the Union.

A unique collection of 200 documents regarding the U.S. Immigration Debate during the first semester of 2006 can be found at the website of the Mexico-North Research Network.

You can find an exhaustive list of websites that are related to immigration research in the United States and Europe (96 links, total) in my website, Immigration Research Now (IRNow). Also you can find the most updated information about what happened during the first semester of 2006 in terms of political mobilization at IRNow. Finally, you will find more than 130 images of those mobilization actions across the U.S., 35 links to syllabi on immigration and transnationalism and, of course, a section that addresses the question of What is Transnationalism?

Last but not least, I would like to call your attention to the way The Onion deals with the issue. They make me laugh and, most important of all, they make me think; regardless of my frank opinion about the satire. Humor is essential to deal in a healthy way with serious business in life.

Orale con los websites!

Obama y el Piolín de la Mañana: A ratitos a pie y a ratitos andando…

El académico norteamericano Jonathan Fox, en el número 17 de La Jornada del Campo (suplemento informativo de La Jornada, febrero 13, 2009, México), hace referencia al significado de la frase de “Hoy marchamos, mañana votamos”, tan escuchada en las marchas pro inmigrantes del 2006. También afirma que la presencia de millones de personas en las históricas marchas del 2006 “difícilmente podrían traducirse en votos entre los indocumentados sin derechos, los residentes legales sin ciudadanía, los ciudadanos latinos no empadronados o los que simplemente no salían a votar consistentemente”, estos últimos la mayoría del electorado latino, yo agregaría.

El autor confirma lo dicho al afirmar mas adelante que, no obstante el voto latino en las últimas elecciones presidenciales “resultó mayor que en cualquier sufragio anterior” en la historia de los Estados Unidos, el apoyo a Obama fue decisivo al llevarse Florida con el 57% del voto latino, además de los mayores estados en términos de votos electorales y con fuerte tradición de voto demócrata latino: Nueva York, California e Illinois. Aunque el voto latino de Florida representa principalmente la realidad cubano americana de los Estados Unidos, con problemas muy diferentes a la legalización de inmigrantes indocumentados, que hace el grueso de la problemática inmigrante del resto de los otros estados mencionados y políticamente poderosos.

Pero esto no es malo ni contradictorio. La cantata de “Hoy marchamos y mañana votamos” refleja una vena de acción de las organizaciones latinas que de una u otra manera mostraban presencia en un movimiento que de una u otra manera también les atañe: la legalización y no criminalización de los inmigrantes indocumentados en los Estados Unidos. Y expresaban lo potencial de su fuerza en un territorio familiar para las organizaciones, pero generalmente desconocido para el inmigrante promedio indocumentado y sus lazos familiares: la arena electoral.

El 18 de febrero el presidente Obama le dijo en una entrevista al Piolín de la Mañana (KSCA, 101.9 FM, Los Ángeles) que el presidente estaba listo para convocar a los líderes de las organizaciones pro derechos de inmigrantes para preparar "un borrador de la propuesta de reforma integral en los próximos meses", además de afirmar que el proceso no iba a ser fácil y que la verdadera batalla se llevaría a cabo en el Congreso norteamericano.

Esto es, tuvo que llegar a la presidencia norteamericana un político afroamericano formado en Chicago, bastante familiarizado con la lógica operativa de la Political Machine, para poner las cosas en su lugar: la lucha por la legalización de los indocumentados se lleva a cabo en un terreno de política no electoral (grassroots mobilization), ante lo cual hay que organizarse. Sin organización no hay movilización política efectiva, pero sin saber cuál es el terreno adecuado de lucha política, por más organización y movilización que halla, los resultados serán prácticamente nulos. En este caso, la consigna de “hoy marchamos y mañana votamos” pues sigue siendo potencialmente poderosa, pero Obama ha dado el primer paso en descifrar el trabucle que representa su presidencia ante el reto de la legalización de más de 12 millones de inmigrantes indocumentados en los Estados Unidos: el voto directo como arma política pasa a segundo plano y se abre paso a la protesta pacífica, de preferencia bien organizada e inteligente.

Históricamente hablando, los latinos e inmigrantes latinos generalmente han obtenido mayores cuotas de participación política en gobiernos de ciudades norteamericanas cuando son encabezados por alcaldes afroamericanos a comparación de los encabezados por alcaldes blancos no latinos. Obama cotorreando con el Piolín de la Mañana, ambos bien quitados de la pena, es una señal temprana que este también puede ser el caso, nada más que a nivel nacional.

Why Ban It When You Can Tax It?

Fact: the war on drugs has priority over immigration issues in current U.S. – Mexico relations. I think that the main issue here is how to address the problem in a successful way, preferably right before the Mexican state collapses. It seems that the administration of President Calderon has a very clear idea of what to do: keep the war going. This is, apply the police rationality of good guys versus bad guys. The Mexican state is assuming that the war cannot be lost because it’s the Mexican state the one that is fighting a war against a non-state entity: several drug cartels. Last week, Mexico had its first Army General killed in this war. Attacking fire with fire seems the best way to go under this perspective.

On the American side, several opinions float around intellectual-liberal circles. First, we have the ones who say that the way to go is exactly the way things have gone throughout the last 25 years: try to attack the supply side of the problem with military assistance and (a lot of) money. The critics of this conservative position assert that taking the same action over and over, while expecting a different outcome each time, is the definition of insanity. Then we have the ones who assert that the real problem is the flow of money: The U.S. government now feeds a huge Money Monster that has created a huge war infrastructure and interests that cannot be rescinded in just one or two years. Moreover, these U.S. expenses are transmitted directly to the price of the drug by the cartels: the price of the drug in the street covers not only the production and transportation costs in clandestine operations through several international borders, but also the cost of an open war. The demand for drugs pays for every single nickel that the U.S. government spends on the war on drugs. It is a never ending story, regardless of how much the U.S. expends in the effort.

Then we have the usual suspects, the culturalists. They say basically two things: drugs are already a strong component of American culture and maybe the time to legalize drugs has arrived (talking about change). The last three American Presidents have admitted in one way or another that they have done drugs or have had addiction problems. “That 70's Show” and other entertaining programs present the funny face of drug use. The culturalists ask: who hasn’t done drugs in the U.S.? (excl. Utah, of course) The current media debate about Mike Phelps smoking marihuana in the internet is not about what this guy can do to help other young addicts to deal with addiction issues, but it focuses more on what sponsors will (or will not) pull out their multimillion contracts with the super athlete. The use of drugs by a sport icon or a politician or the regular Joe or Jane is not an issue anymore. The problem has been assimilated already into the fabrics of the American society.

Under this perspective, the questions are: why ban it when you can tax it? Morally speaking, what is the difference between getting intoxicated with alcohol and getting high with whatever people get high with? What is the rationality of taxing an addictive substance and then spending the same money trying to prohibit the consumption of another addictive substance without addressing the roots of the problem: obsesive-compulsive behavior? In this struggle, it seems that the best strategy is education. You tax the consumption of drugs and with that money you educate people about the problem. (sounds to goood...)

In the meantime, you just try to light a cigar in a restaurant in California and an angry mob will kick the smoke out of your neck. Such mob, even if sometimes is a very ugly mob, it is an educated mob. They know that second-hand smoking kills. Now, is California's education the same than, let's say... Nebraska's or Alaska's? Do we have to deal with 50 different ways of "educational thinking" about the problem before trying to do anything serious at a national level?

If you ask me what do I think about all this… Well, I have no opinion. I certainly prefer to deal with immigration issues.