To lie or not to lie... Is that the question?

Well, the interrupting yelling of our Compadre Wilson (R-SC) during Obama’s speech on health care (09/09/09) brought back into public national attention the question of what to do with undocumented immigrants regarding their health care condition. Obama’s magic words: “Now, there are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false.” Then our compadre’s famous, loud, impulsive and historical words: “You lie!”

Welcome to the Mexicanization of American politics.

Universal coverage for the undocumented, or… Or what? Or else? Or nothing? Let’s take a look to the facts:

1. The poor population in America is growing.

2. Most undocumented immigrants are included in America’s poor population.

3. Higher levels of poverty mean less health care coverage for the poor (in a country without universal coverage), which translates into lower levels of general health for the people who live in that country, regardless of their legal migratory status.

4. Basic health care for the poor in America is hardly affordable, which is one of the main reasons for which President Obama is supporting and pushing for universal health care coverage, this is, for the poor to get affordable medical insurance.

5. If the current proposed health care legislation becomes law as is, then undocumented immigrants would become illegible to access universal coverage. This is, approximately 20% of the whole poor population of the United States would remain out of the good-health loop.

6. Undocumented population can always pay for the services of a private doctor, of course. But reality says that most undocumented immigrants cannot afford a private health care coverage of decent quality. This is, most undocumented immigrants remain uninsured with or without the proposed health care legislation.

7. Second reality check: If a good share of the poor in America remains uninsured, they would lack access to elemental health care. This could be dangerous to the average health of the people living in American soil. Illnesses, mostly the epidemic ones, do not make any type of immigration-status distinction among the population.

8. In any instance, the health care situation of millions of undocumented immigrants, whose majority is among the very poor, needs to be addressed (before, during or after the legislation is passed, if passed): they are an important proportion of the targeted population by Obama’s concerns about the health care of the country and he U.S. cannot afford the luxury of not dealing with the issue. It is both, irresponsible and dangerous.

Regardless of our Compadre Wilson’s outburst, regardless of what his yelling really means to Americans, regardless if the President Obama lies or not, the question about how to deal with the health care of the undocumented remains unanswered. Maybe it is business as usual: the undocumented immigrant is on his/her own in this one.

Although, maybe this time it's not business as usual.

The No Mucho Bueno Coordination between Obama and Pro-Immigrant Organizations

I think that the legislative timing for an immigration reform in Congress is already slipping away for this legislative year. I also think that there is a growing gap between what President Obama is doing (or should be doing) on behalf of a comprehensive immigration reform and what pro-immigrant organizations are doing (or should be doing) in order to be ready for a coordinated action at a national level whenever the timing is right and the need to exert pressure on Congress becomes a must.

If President Obama means to sponsor a comprehensive immigration reform for this legislative period, he should be closing deals right now with members of Congress in order to have a significant number of votes whenever he is ready to support a national campaign on behalf of a comprehensive immigration reform. Pro-immigrant organizations should be ready to exert pressure on Congress through citizens and noncitizens' mobilization as well. When? Well… this task is due basically for yesterday, or for today, the latest. Why? Because it is during these days that members of Congress look back at their constituencies and weight the political costs and benefits of supporting a comprehensive immigration reform.

If Congress people see only a bunch of anti-immigrant letters, for example, but zero pro-immigrant letters on their desk… chances are very high that the wishy-washy members of Congress, those who may or may not support the initiative, may not support it at all. Pro-immigrant organizations probably should be mobilizing their constituency for this end at this point of the political calendar.

It seems that if you are a pro-immigrant leader, activist or organizer and you are not mailing or faxing letters to your Representative, Senator or the White House, well, you are wasting precious, non renewable time. If you are waiting for President Obama to announce the initiative but you have not done anything in order to increase the chances for such announcement to happen, then you may not be part of the solution, but part of the problem. The gap between what Obama may do and what the pro-immigrant organizations can do is growing, not closing. And this is dangerous if we want to be realistic about the chances for a comprehensive immigration reform to take place during 2009 or even 2010.

For example, here you have the transcription of a letter that Houston’s ARCA (Association for Residency and Citizenship of America) is circulating among its members (and public in general) and faxing to the White House. OJO: in order for these letters to be effective, they only need the name of the person, the city, state and Zip Code. No need to write anything else. It is time to reach out people, and people to respond and defend their own interests. Nothing happens to those who sign the letters if they sign them with the very basics, but a lot may happen to immigrants and their families here and there if they are not signed and faxed to Washington D. C. at all. The stakes are very high.


Rahm Emmanuel
White House Chief of Staff
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Emmanuel:

On behalf of my family and the families of those suffering the consequences of the damaging raids and family separation, we appreciate the opportunity given to the nationally syndicated radio talk show better known as “Piolin” into the Oval Office for a sit-down interview with the President over immigration reform. However, our families and the Hispanic voters who supported President Obama, are getting tired of too much politics and little action.

There’s going to be growing frustration if we don’t see some tangible and real signals that immigration reform is going to be carried out this year. We believe President Obama needs to give a speech or somehow make clear this summer that he wanted Congress to act on immigration reform. Until now, all you are seeing is new enforcement rules, and more restrictions, but very little on a clear path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States.

We understand that the country is struggling, but we are part of the struggling group and our hardship is ever extremer than anyone else’s, because we face deportation and family separation every day.

Your support is moving this issue forward is crucial, and our Hispanic community who supported this Administration deserve some of your attention.

Sincerely,

________________________________

Greetings from Mars: Mexican Immigrants and Major Works on Latino Politics

I would like to comment on the reference guide titled “Latino Politics: A Growing and Evolving Political Community” (2009). This magnificent work, published by The University of Arizona Libraries and authored by John Garcia (University of Arizona), Gabriel R. Sanchez (University of New Mexico) and J. Salvador Peralta (University of West Georgia), is a first-rate bibliography on practically every relevant aspect of Latino Politics: History, demographics, mass media, Latino identity, ethnic studies, political behavior, elites, inter-group relations, public policy issues, and methodology and measurement issues (this last, my favorite section). It covers works published mainly during the 1990s and 2000s.

I also enjoyed very much the ‘Retrospective Essay’ of their work: “Latino Politics: Both a Growing and Evolving Political Community,” in which the authors address implicitly and in a very straight forward manner the research and teaching agenda of those who address the Latino community from a scholar, political standpoint: The pan-ethnic perspective, group identity issues, assimilation and acculturation, opinion and policies, organization and mobilization, the foreign-born, and how the context does matter. It is highly recommended for those who are preparing a syllabus on Latino Politics, or for those who wish to update their current syllabus, to take a careful look to the whole compilation of references. The work is also an essential starting point for those students or scholars who are currently looking for new veins of research on Latino political issues.

Now, let’s take a look to a very specific aspect of this major reference work. As a scholar on Latino immigration in the United States, with specialization on Mexican immigrants, I looked immediately for the section on Mexican immigrants and... I guess there is something that I do not understand very well here. In Chapter Five, “Books Focused on Ethnic Studies,” the authors present a section on Central American studies, Cuban studies, Dominican American studies, Mexican American studies, Chican@ studies and Puerto Rican studies… but no Mexicans in the U.S., a category that covers those Mexicans who were born in Mexico, who work and live in the U.S. and who are not American citizens. In Chapter Nine, “Public Policy Issues,” I found a section on “Immigration and Naturalization,” in which there are several references to Mexican immigrants.

If an inhabitant from Mars would arrive today to our planet and would take the reference guide to see what is the state of the affair with Mexican immigrants in the United States, it would take some time for the Martian to realize that Mexican immigrants are important within the analytical framework of Latino Politics, although the Martians would have to look out specifically hard for the topic. At a first glance, Mexican immigrants appear nowhere in this work.

Good news is that research on Mexican immigrants appears and appears in good, healthy numbers. I counted the references that included only Mexican immigrants as a main target of research in the sections of National Origin Based Identity, Political Attitudes, Political Participation, and Immigration and Naturalization and found 43 references. This is, a higher number of references than the total combined references that appear under the categories of Central Americans, Cuban Americans, Dominican Americans, Mexican Americans and Chican@s presented in the Ethnic Studies section of the bibliography.

I think it is time to point out the elephant in the room. Researchers cannot skip anymore the importance that embodies Mexican immigrants for Latino Politics, and certainly for American Politics as a whole. Good that this work makes a distinction between Mexican Americans and Chican@ studies from a political perspective, but it is not enough. Mexican immigrants are now about 30% of the foreign-born population of the most powerful country on this planet, and issues like immigration reform are a big deal in Washington D.C. right now. The study of Mexican immigrants goes well beyond the study of “Immigration and Naturalization.”

Mexican immigrants deserve a category of their own in this type of macro research. Indeed, the current classification of research on Mexican Immigration in this work gives the impression that the topic is only a subject of incorporation/integration… which is not the case. I also think that changing the scope of this classification by creating a category for Mexican immigrants would contribute in leading researchers to deal in a simultaneous way with issues of assimilation, acculturation and transnationalism, for example.

Finally, I have reorganized the section of Papers, Reports and Field Research in my website. Now the information (on immigration-related research) that is offered in this section has been classified in the following categories: Alphabetical Order; American Cities and States of the Union; Economy; Education and Health; Immigration Reform; (The) Mexican Perspective; Mobilization and Participation; Political Integration/Incorporation; Population; Public Policy; Studies and Field Research; and Undocumented-Unauthorized Immigrants / Illegal Immigration. Enjoy.

Evaluating U.S. Immigration Control Policy in a Recession Context: Priceless

In my next blog contributions in English, I would like to share with you some thoughts about recent (2009) research works on Latino immigrant issues that I consider interesting. You can find links to most of the works that I plan to address in my webpage, in the preliminary presentation of the section titled: Papers, Reports and Field Research.

I would like to start with Wayne Cornelius’ “Evaluating U.S. Immigration Control Policy: What Mexican Migrants Can Tell Us.” This research is a direct product of The Mexican Migration Field Research and Training Program, sponsored by the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies (CCIS) at the University of California, San Diego. The research addressed the issue from an inductive, analytical perspective: Based on a case study, it arrives to very solid and specific conclusions about the main problems that undocumented immigration is facing during economic hard-times in the United States.

The CCIS research team conducts its survey research in a little Yucatan town in Mexico, and is working on two other sending communities in the states of Jalisco and Oaxaca. The main research question that the CCIS team addresses is: Does current U.S. immigration control policy deter and prevent illegal entry? The official response at the end of the Bush administration in 2008 was “yes”: Border apprehensions are declining thanks to the detention efforts undertaken by the administration.

The Yucatan-based research offers “alternative” explanations to the decline of border apprehensions: reduced circularity in migration, an outstanding increase in the use of people-smugglers, development of new modes of illegal entry and, most important of all, less demand for U.S. labor. The research ends up by suggesting better ways to control immigration: emphasize workplace enforcement over border enforcement, legalize most undocumented immigrants already in the U.S., fix the legal immigration system, etc. Within the "developmental approach" set of solutions, the research suggests, among other things, to focus on projects that improve the employment base in migrant-sending areas via improving more and better-paid jobs.

I think that the research questions, methodology and findings of this impressive field research are straightforward and powerful, and they can be applied to highlight the study of the current flow of undocumented Mexican immigration to the United States, within the specific context of the U.S. and Mexican economies in recession.

I wonder if the complete CCIS study or similar studies could address other equally important issues that could give us a highly valuable comparative perception on matters like: To what extent are important for the Mexican communities the specifics of the economy of certain U.S. cities Vs. an assumed high mobility of immigrant labor in American cities whenever a city’s economy suffers harder than the economy of other city? Or what is the effect of different local policing policies on immigration on the mobility of the immigrant community as soon as the undocumented immigrant community does not trust anymore the local police once they become “ICE agents”? Or what are the effects of negative public opinion on immigration on internal or external migration of undocumented workers in the U.S. during recession time? And of course, if possible, it would be great to go back to these communities in 2019 to study what happened après le déluge...

Finally, the CCIS research points out the elephant in the room from the Mexican perspective: after more than 25 years of neoliberal policies, the problem of a highly emigrant population for the Mexican economy certainly is not about jobs, it is about well-paid jobs.

Arpaio Superstar

Joe Arpaio is the Sheriff of Arizona’s Macopa County. He is famous because of his hard-core stand against undocumented immigration. His critics argue that his actions are based on racial profiling. In April 2008, the Mayor of Phoenix, Phil Gordon, requested a Civil Rights Investigation to the Attorney General of the United States. The request is based on “Sheriff Arpaio’s pattern and practice of conduct that includes discriminatory harassment, improper stops, searches, and arrests.” More recently, the U.S. Department of Justice launched a new civil rights investigation of Macopa County Sheriff Office for unconstitutional searches and arrests, and discrimination on citizens based on national origin.

The actions of Arpaio have been firmly documented by the East Valley Tribune in the investigation "Reasonable Doubt." The main argument of the newspaper investigation is that since the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) started to work as an “immigration agency” in March 2006, there has been slower response times on emergency calls, a dropping arrest rate, and sporadic excessive overtime costs. Moreover, the Goldwater Institute, in a Policy Report (December 2008), concluded that the Sheriff’s Office has failed to fulfill its core mission in the areas of providing law-enforcement, support and detention services. This is, the report finds that “MCSO’s effectiveness has been compromised for the past several years by misplaced priorities that have diverted it from its mission.” The report also details all the trouble that the MCSO is currently going through by giving priority to its immigration enforcement efforts (instead of addressing basic law-enforcement functions): violent crime rates soaring, financial crisis of the office, accumulation of a “huge backlog” of outstanding warrants, costly lawsuits for excessive use of force and inadequate medical services in the MCSO’s detention facilities, “chronically poor record-keeping and reporting of statistics, coupled to resistance to public disclosure,” etc.

In addition to all this mess, Sheriff Arpaio loves public attention. He even has his own TV reality show: Smile ... You're Under Arrest! , which is labeled by FOX as “original, inventive, unique and funny.” Sheriff Arpaio also likes to answer any type of questions from any type of media and he displays an incredible array of arrogance and cynicism whenever his actions are questioned. I mean, you can see that the guy enjoys liberal media like nobody else. In a recent interview in NOW (PBS, March 2009), Arpaio interrupts the interviewer at will, states that he does not care whatever the East Valley Tribune has to say (even if what the newspapers says is based on data from his own office), labels the Goldwater policy report as “garbage,” contradicts himself several times; and, when cornered by the interviewer, he graciously launches phrases like “nothing is ever perfect in law enforcement,” “just take my word for it,” or “I don’t like statistics.”

How come that Arpaio is now a Superstar? The answer has three components. First, Arpaio has been reelected by 55% of the vote in his county in 2008. So, he has the support of the majority in his jurisdiction, he backs his actions on the legitimacy that the popular vote gives to his mandate. Anti-Hispanic/immigrant sentiments by a majority of white (mostly non-Hispanic) population is not an uncommon aspect of Southern border states, indeed, it is an historical fact which started to develop in the region right after Mexico lost the 1848 War. Second, the core of Arpaio’s actions is backed by the Bush administration’s failed efforts to deal with the immigration issue: ICE partnered with MCSO in early 2007 as part of the 287(g) program (named after the section of federal law that created the program). The 287(g) program allows ICE-trained local officers to act as federal agents in terms of enforcing immigration laws. Last, and certainly not least, the usual suspect: the media. As long as Lou Dobbs and Bill O’Reilly keep on praising Arpaio’s crusade or the FOX network keep on supporting his reality show, for example, the stature of this and other characters will keep on growing in terms of popularity.

Good news is that this is America. The Obama administration has the opportunity to show that the president means what he says by putting aside programs like the 287(g) and working with the legislative branch in implementing a comprehensive plan to deal with undocumented immigration at a federal level. Less reality shows and more getting real on the matter. Lawsuits are sending strong signs to other local law enforcement and governmental entities about the financial consequences of diverting scarce resources to tasks that are no priority in their basic law-enforcement commitments. Also, it is good news that there is a relatively well consolidated informal network of news coverage personalities that have proved capable in making their point on the issue: Jorge Ramos, Geraldo Rivera, Maria Hinojosa, Malín Falu, etc. All this, of course, in addition to daily broadcasts by el famoso Piolín de la Mañana and other radio activists across the nation and to the fact that responsible citizens, like Stephen Lemons in his blog Feathered Bastard, have followed closely the doings of el Compadre Arpaio...

The 2006 Immigration Rallies in the U.S. from a 2009 Perspective

Almost three years have passed after the historical immigrant rallies took place in the United States. In that year, between March 11 and April 7, a number between 500,000 and 900,000 persons took to the streets in 76 cities. During the weekend of April 8-10, an estimate of 1.4-1.7 million people participated in rallies in 108 localities. Finally, on May 1, an estimated 1.2-2 million people in 63 cities across the nation participated in rallies linked to an economic boycott. The rallies of April 10 and May 1 are historical in the sense that for the first time in the U.S. millions of people took to the streets in a peaceful, simultaneous way, across the country.

Mobilizations were triggered when the United States House of Representatives passed the bill H.R. 4437 titled “Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005.” This bill would make illegal presence in the United States (U.S.) a felony. The bill also would require the Department of Homeland Security to construct a double security fence across several portions of the Mexican border; would encourage local police to enforce immigration law; would make it a felony “to assist, encourage, direct, or induce to enter or remain in the country with knowing or reckless disregard” of the fact that immigrants reside in the country illegally; and would impose a maximum fine of forty thousand dollars per undocumented worker that an employer hires or that an agency helps to find work. This legislative measure affected directly the interests of the Catholic Church.

The most important actors in the mobilization process of millions of immigrants were the Catholic Church, the Hispanic media, immigrant-oriented organizations and the immigrant him/herself. At this point, the learned lessons were the following: 1) the capacity of immigrant mobilization of the Catholic Church (mostly Latinos) is powerfully unique. The Church triggered the protest against the H.R. 4437 and ended the marches as soon as it was evident that its interests were no more at risk. 2) The role of immigrant-related organizations and the Hispanic media were also very important actors in the coordination of the rallies. However, they have no capacity to organize immigrant mobilizations at a national level. In that sense, they depend on a major force (the Catholic Church) to become an important actor in a major, effective mobilization effort. 3) The massive participation of the immigrants probed two things: a) that they are invisible no more, now they know that taking to the streets is a feasible option for major challenges; b) that they are important for the American economy, indeed, they have been important for the American economy since the 1960s, to say the least. Otherwise, the H.R. 4437 would also have passed in the Senate.

There are two things that are different in 2009 when compared to 2006. We have Obama in the presidency and the U.S. is facing gargantuan economic challenges. Historically speaking, when things go wrong in a generalized way in the economy of any country in the world, recent-arrived immigrants tend to be blamed for everything and anything… Chances are very high that the activity of anti-immigrant groups will skyrocket. This, in addition to the fact that many immigrants are losing their current job at a rapid pace. It is expected that first they will move within the U.S. in their search for work, and then they would consider the option of going back to their place of origin. This decision is more difficult to those immigrants who have American-born children, regardless of their migratory status.

Then we have Obama and a Democratic Congress. This only means that the coin is in the air in terms of the feasibility of an immigration reform favorable to the U.S. economy and the immigrant themselves, mostly the undocumented who are already in U.S. soil. Obama’s plan to rescue the economy is not implemented yet and there is no word or speculation about the role of the immigrant labor force in the dynamics of recovery of the U.S. Assuming that there will be a relatively fast recovery, the market forces could take care of the issue. However, if recovery takes longer or, even worst, if things go bananas despite the recovery effort… well, let’s wait and see. And pray. Two things are for sure: Mexico and certain Central American countries have no private or public resources to deal with millions of people going back home in a relatively short period of time; and the United States will need immigrant labor to assure continuing growth once the worst has come and gone. Conclusion: the economic recovery, the sooner, the better; for everybody’s sake. San Obama, we trust you. Congress’ angels: we also trust you, even the dark ones, no problem. Indeed, we have no choice.

For a more complete explanation of what happened in the 2006 rallies, please take a look to my website, Immigration Research Now. I also have opened a temporary expo-web (an expo in the web that is not permanent) with images of the rallies published by the national media at the time. The expo-web is a work in progress, which means that you can take a look to the first 25 images right now and that in the next couple of weeks there will be at least 75 more images to watch. Enjoy.