Читать книгу To Be An American - Bill Ong Hing - Страница 9

Proposition 187, an initiative to exclude undocumented children from public schools and bar their families from medical care, passes overwhelmingly in California. Congressional proposals that would reduce legal immigration by a third and preclude legal immigrants from receiving public assistance receive strong bipartisan support. The Immigration and Naturalization Service imposes strict asylum rules: applicants—even the poorest and most sympathetic—are prohibited from working, and any would-be refugee who misses the filing deadline is forever barred from applying.

Is there any doubt that we are experiencing one of the most potent periods of anti-immigrant fervor in the United States? Nativists, xenophobes, and exclusionists have long been a part of the American landscape. From time to time their rituals influence immigration policies.¹. We are in the middle of such a time. If we listen closely, today’s fears echo those of other eras: job loss, shrinking resources, a fracturing national culture, all due to a flood of immigrants. Much of the public as well as policymakers are listening indeed.

Much of America is hurting economically, insecure about its economic future. Much of America looks around and sees declining city services, failing public schools, and an inequitable tax system. And much of America looks around and senses change in its surroundings—change that is puzzling or worrisome, rather than natural or enlightening. To many who make up this part of America, the explanation that restrictionists (those who would severely reduce immigrant visas) offer up—the immigrant as culprit—makes sense. Immigrants in the workforce are easily picked out. Immigrants on the street not speaking English or dressed differently are impossible to miss. The traditional image of the immigrant as vital to the economy and to society, as a contributor of new energy and innovation, is facilely cast aside as outdated and wrong.

Since 1965, America has experienced significant demographic changes. The African American population has increased by more than a third, while Latino and Asian Pacific American growth has been even more dramatic. The Latino population has almost tripled; today, more than one in ten Americans are Latino. The Asian Pacific American population which numbered under a million in 1965 is estimated at almost 9 million today—some 3.3 percent of the total population. One of four Americans is a person of color, and the proportion is even greater in states like California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois.

Immigration has accounted for much of the growth in the Latino and Asian American communities. From 1971 to 1990, nearly 9 million immigrants entered from Asian and Latin American countries.². Today, more than half a million immigrants are entering annually, and Asian and Latino immigrants make up 75 percent of that number. If current trends continue, the U.S. census projects that by the year 2050, the population will be almost evenly divided between Anglos and people of color (53 percent Anglo, 14 percent African American, 25 percent Latino, and 8 percent Asian Pacific American). Of the projected population of 390 million in the year 2050, one-third will be post-1970 immigrants and their descendants. In certain parts of the United States, the impact will be felt even sooner. For example, by the year 2020 non-Hispanic whites will be a minority in California, a mere 34 percent of the population; Latinos will be 36 percent, followed by Asians at 20 percent and African Americans at 8 percent. Not since the first decade of the twentieth century—when southern and eastern Europeans entered in large numbers for the first time—has there been such a dramatic change in the ethnic composition of the nation.

These demographic trends, altering the ethnic composition of America, have defined the debate for many modern-day restrictionists on what it means to become an American. For them, allegations that immigrants harm the economy become pretextual, secondary, or unnecessary. They are troubled by the increasing numbers of Asian and Latino faces that have appeared seemingly overnight. They are more troubled by the cultural and social impact of these immigrants than by their economic influence. Disturbed by so many non-English-speaking foreigners, they construe much of the behavior of these newcomers as a lack of loyalty to the nation.

The current cycle of nativism comes at a time when immigration is dominated by Asians and Latinos. As a result, the discussion of who is and who is not American, who can and cannot become American, goes beyond the technicalities of citizenship and residency requirements; it strikes at the very heart of our nation’s long and troubled legacy of race relations. Underlying the debate over immigrants and American identity is a concern about the interaction, or lack of interaction, among different racial groups.

Because some oppose immigration on the basis that “immigrants hurt the economy,” a rational look at what economists have to say on the topic is essential. As this book will demonstrate, the allegations of the negative economic impact of immigrants are clearly overblown and largely unsupported by the weight of evidence. The current level of anti-immigrant rhetoric is simply not justified on economic grounds.

Contextualizing the impact of immigrants is also important. Until we can understand the real causes of our fears about job loss and public bankruptcy, we cannot evaluate immigrants’ actual collective role in our economy. Since California seems to be the hotbed for much contemporary anti-immigrant fervor, I examine the genesis of such hostility: the state’s ailing economy and strained budgets. Another crucial factor is the loss of jobs that the country experienced in recent years and the globalization of the economy. I also take up the question of how, in using low-wage immigrant workers, we may simply be exploiting poor workers both domestically and globally. I counter arguments from immigration opponents who say that like Japan, we can operate our economy quite well without immigrant workers. Since many restrictionists, including the proponents of Proposition 187,³. argue that efforts to curb immigration should be supported because immigrants compete directly for jobs with African Americans, I investigate some of the real issues facing the African-American community.

Because the principal complaint of restrictionists today is culturally and socially premised, the primary purpose of my efforts here is to analyze the positions of two broad groups: first, the assimilationists, whose opposition to current immigration is chiefly grounded in cultural or social complaints, and second, the cultural pluralists, the counterpart to the assimilationists, who promote diversity or multiculturalism. The debate between these two groups not only influences our views toward immigration policies, but also encompasses the very nature of American culture and our normative visions of society. The objections that cultural assimilationists and Euro-immigrationists express about today’s immigrants generally consist of overlapping race-based and culture-based complaints. And two points that assimilationists seem to overlook must also be considered—that the United States is already a multiracial, multicultural country whose culture is constantly evolving, and that today’s immigrants actually do acculturate. I set forth some modern-day justifications for a pluralistic approach related to visions of democracy, the economy, and social benefits. We must all be encouraged to consider a new approach to cultural pluralism which respects diverse views and cultures, which is constantly attentive to race relations, and which shares a common core set of values. In confronting these difficult issues, we need to go beyond the rhetoric of assimilation and cultural pluralism and think seriously about what it means to become an American in an increasingly diverse society.

In their current attack on the influx of Asian and Latino immigrants and criticism of interethnic group conflict and separatism, assimilationists essentially posit two solutions: terminate or drastically curtail immigration; and Americanize those who are here. In response to these proposals that are couched in a rhetoric of culture, I set forth my own constantly evolving notions of cultural pluralism and what it means to be an American.

The concept of a common unifying core set of values holding different groups together must be considered. This core would include respect for laws, the democratic political and economic system, equal opportunity, and human rights. This concept does not, however, imply a lack of support for ethnic communities. Indeed, diversity must be the basis for an “American” identity. Ethnic communities are critical to providing a sense of identity, fulfillment, and self-confidence for many. Society should respect those who hold separatist views and prefer to live and work among others of the same background. At the same time, society should strive to eradicate the harmful situations that lead to separatist sentiment. We cannot expect those at the margins to buy into a core without the commitment of the power structure. Immigrant adaptation, and the creation of a common core, must be viewed as the dual responsibility of the immigrant and the mainstream.

As I consider these issues, my experiences growing up in a multicultural community and working with immigrants seem relevant. Certainly no one’s personal experiences should be used to generalize for all others. But we should listen to each others’ anecdotes and views, for it is from these stories that we understand the perspectives of others. My own stories are shared not to elevate anecdote to theory, but in the hope that others may benefit—as I believe I have—from these experiences.

Restrictionists and pro-immigrant advocates do agree on one critical point: we face a defining moment in the nation’s history. The course we choose will tell us much about ourselves.