Jumping the bandwagon

Speaking of politicians capitalizing on the fears and anxieties of the public, this LA Times article identifies illegal immigration as the most pressing issue within the GOP. That’s right, it even surpasses healthcare and the war in Iraq. Naturally, politicians have accommodated themselves accordingly…I just wonder when the next about-face will occur.

Oh, and do check out my personal favorite, Mitt Romney. After sharpening his stance on the issue with a new series of TV ads and attacks on fellow GOP candidates for being too soft, he was caught hiring illegal immigrants to do the gardening at his multi-million dollar mansion (on that last note, I’m just assuming that it is a multi-million dollar mansion). Apparently, he had been employing these same gardeners for years, as they had also done work on his son’s property nearby as well. Gotta love him.

And now a series of recently-aired, anti-illegal immigration, presidential campaign tv spots:

Campaign ads reaching an all new low

Maybe it’s me, but I just can’t seem to take some of these Republican presidential candidates seriously these days. Case in point, check out this wonderfully “24”-esque television ad from Rep. Candidate and Colorado Senator, Tom Tancredo. Oh, and just for clarification, I’m making reference to the Kiefer Sutherland show here.



Tancredo, “Tough on Terror”? Right. More like, let’s group together what have seemingly become America’s biggest fears: terrorism and the invasion of illegal immigrants deemed as the other. The result is an uber alarm against the two, yet more so a wake-up call to the latter. Literally warning Americans “before it’s too late,” Tancredo is obviously positioned as the answer to it all.

What the ad does in actuality, though, is stereotype all of the 12 million undocumented immigrants estimated by TIME magazine – I’m sorry, that’s 20 million aliens according to the senator – by immediately associating them with the imminent desire to blow up American malls. Moreover, Tancredo targets not only Islamic terrorists (and people of this faith in general), but makes a sweeping reference to Latino and Asian immigrants with the “20 million aliens already taking our jobs.”

What I take issue with then – other than this sensationalist approach of galvanizing political support – is the fact that people like Tancredo often do not ground their assertions in facts. Rather they largely base them off of the public’s trends of anxiety and fear, which is then reinforced by these same politicians in a never-ending cycle.

Thus, it comes at no surprise that such negligence of the truth is drawn into another segment of the national debate on immigration: the costs of undocumented immigrants for the American taxpayer versus the contributions that they make to the American economy. In these recent articles from both the LA and NY Times, researchers have found that in some cases, the contributions far outweigh the costs in healthcare, education and other social services. Adding to that, such expenses are far much less than they have typically been made out to be.

In the LA Times article, the focus of illegal immigrants’ use of public services is on healthcare. According to the Times, UCLA researchers have found that illegal immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries are 50 percent less likely than U.S.-born Latinos to use hospital emergency rooms in California. In this study published in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine, researchers confirmed that immigrants are indeed less likely to be insured and seek routine and preventive care. The reasons? Not because this generation of illegal immigrants is younger and healthier than the overall population, but rather they do not seek medical treatment out of fear of leaving a paper trail.

Even Alexander N. Ortega, the lead author of the study, agrees in the reluctance of some politicians to acknowledge fact. “The current policy discourse that undocumented immigrants are a burden on the public because they overuse public services is not borne out with data, for either primary care or emergency department care,” said Ortega, also an associate professor at UCLA’s School of Public Health.

In the NY Times article, immigrants, both legal and illegal, are attributed to one-fourth the economic output for New York State. From a statewide immigrant population of 21 percent, contributions to the state GDP were $229 billion in 2005, as stated in the independent study “Working for a Better Life.” The estimates are that 16 percent of the 4.1 million statewide immigrants are residing there illegally.

Again, case in point, “We just felt like there was such a deep misunderstanding about who immigrants were that the political discourse often got far afield from any factual basis of what’s really going on here,” stated David D. Kallick, the principal author of the study.

Put that in your backpack and blow it up, Tancredo.

And since I’ve already jumped back to the ad, I still must give credit to the senator’s brilliant use of the ticking time bomb, images of terrorist attacks abroad, and the suspicious-looking, could be your next-door neighbor, hooded culprit. That said, Tancredo does an excellent job of capitalizing on the fears and suspicions of immigrant-weary Americans. At the same time, I’m just tired of hearing all of the b.s. while people eat it up like it’s candy.

Additional Links and Sources:

(LA Times) Few migrants, much opposition

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-iowaimmig6dec06,1,4384464,full.story?coll=la-news-a_section

America, the land of selective milk and honey

If it’s one thing that Americans are good at, it’s crushing dreams.

According to our clear understanding of immigration, maybe that’s because we’ve recently decided that what this country doesn’t need is the potential for new doctors, teachers, lawyers and soldiers. Instead, we’ve opted for the persistence of a permanent underclass – the underskilled, undereducated maids, dishwashers, and gardeners of America.

Just short of eight votes, the Senate recently rejected the DREAM Act – the Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors – a bill that offers a path to citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants if they serve two years in the military or complete two years of higher education.

By voting down the bill, the Senate also turned down the potential pool of 500,000 new soldiers, their chance at college, the possibility of greater contributions to the economy and any real progress toward immigration reform.

Under the DREAM Act, illegal immigrants who have entered the country before the age of 16 and have lived in this country for at least five years can receive conditional residency status. These children would have to complete high school, possess no criminal records and exhibit a “good moral character.” In the extension of state financial aid to undocumented students attending state universities and colleges, conditional residency status can be lifted if these individuals have spent at least two years in college or in the military. Finally after five years, these individuals can qualify for permanent legal residency, obtaining a green card in the step toward citizenship.

Bi-partisan support of the DREAM Act, including co-sponsor and author Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, hoped that the bill would be one of several, less-ambitious measures to pass, comprising a “compassionate and pragmatic” approach that would eventually lead to more comprehensive reform. But with its rejection, the debate on the immigration issue has yet again taken a nasty turn toward a familiar state of indecision born from bigotry and fear.

Colorado senator and Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo urged the Immigration and Customs Enforecement Agency to raid a press conference in which Durbin featured students who would benefit from the act. Accordingly, Tancredo charged: “I don't expect Dick Durbin to be able to tell the difference between legal residents and illegal aliens.”

Funny, I don’t expect Tancredo to be able to tell the difference between his own racism and xenophobia.

In any event, objections of amnesty were grounded on the extension of benefits to illegal immigrants – the same benefits originally reserved for legal residents. And of course the other principle objection was based on the provision of incentives for more people to immigrate to the U.S. illegally.

But since the failure of the Senate’s proposed measure on comprehensive immigration reform in June, this recent failure of the DREAM Act leaves an even more daunting outlook on this already tiresome issue. After all, if we can’t start with the kids now, how are we to come to any resolution for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants that already live here? And what about the 750,000 people who make their way into the country every year? How are we to arrive at any resemblance of comprehensive immigration reform if we aren’t willing to take the baby steps to get there?

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 100,000 children would have been affected by the bill, while the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute estimates over 500,000. At any rate, these children have grown up on American soil for most of their lives. They have been educated in our schools and already speak English in addition to their language of origin. For them, assimilation has brought them even farther away from a home country that they may no longer know. Deportation, in all irrationality, remains for them. And still we say no.

After a high school education, these children are left hung out to dry. No legal citizenship status means few windows of opportunity. And so the number of people limited to a path of dead-end jobs and a life in the shadows remains large and ever-increasing.

The DREAM Act’s rejection, therefore, is simply another lost opportunity at strengthening the country. We have let go of soldiers and more educated taxpayers, of skilled graduates and the benefits they bring to American businesses. Ultimately, we have forgone potential, talent and principle out of the imminent, yet blinding fear of invaders and displacement of resources.

The DREAM Act had opened a future to those who were deprived of one, simply because of the inheritance of their parents’ undocumented status. Instead the act’s failure criminalized them for a residency status that they were not responsible for – for a stigma that they remain chained to.

And still, in a country that champions the rewards of hard work, the bootstrap model is the archetype. Since preschool (if some of us are lucky enough to have experienced it), we are taught to imagine, dream and be who we want to be. It doesn’t matter who your parents are, or what your past entails. Work hard to overcome difficulties and in time you’ll reach your goals.

But even in America, dreams are discriminatory.

To protect and serve

Maintenance of law and order is a prerequisite to the enjoyment of freedom in our society. Law enforcement is a critical responsibility of government, and effective enforcement requires mutual respect and understanding between a law enforcement agency and the residents of the community which it serves.

-McCone Commission, Violence in the City: An End or a Beginning?

Funny how after six days of burning, looting, and police brutality, this statement was as close to an apology as the LAPD could get. But over 40 years have passed since the Watts Riots of 1965 and the LAPD still hasn’t seemed to get things right. From the May 1^st – Mac Arthur Park melee, to the October 9 report reviewing the LAPD’s conduct at the immigration rally, the department has become significantly better at crafting the apology rather than following through with reform.

Five months of internal investigations have resulted in a surprisingly critical, 100-plus page self-assessment, ultimately assuming the police department’s responsibility over the May Day melee. But for a police department that is infamous for repetitive cycles of misconduct, self-evaluation and “reform,” the lessons learned and apologies made after May 1^st don’t necessarily translate into institutionalized change.

Written by Deputy Chief Michael Hillman, and LAPD Consent Decree head, Gerry Chaleff, the “Final Report on the Mac Arthur Park Incident” provides diagrams, training manual excerpts, and an accurate timeline of the march’s progression into chaos. Ultimately, the department accounts itself for six primary factors, or faults rather, that influenced the turn of events: planning; tactics, including force (e.g. baton and less-lethal munitions); command and control; situational awareness; training and lack thereof; and individual responsibility.

In all fairness, the LAPD’s intense self-scrutiny and recognition of blame is unprecedented. But as the police department’s uncharacteristic candor permeates throughout the report, it’s easy for skepticism and doubt to make room in between the lines.

For the LAPD, chaos and controversy have always prompted lessons to be learned and then disregarded once the next phase of social unrest rolls around. But even before the Watts Riots, December 25, 1951 also marks a signifcant moment of police brutality in LAPD history. In what came to be known as Bloody Christmas, approximately fifty LAPD officers brutally beat seven men in their custody, five of which who were of Mexican-American descent. Yet in disregard of the demands of community activists for police accountability, Chief William Parker launched a reform campaign based on a police professional model that stressed police autonomy by means of internal discipline.

Yes, times were different then. In comparison to today, racism during the 1950s was more overtly expressed, enacted, and unpunished under a thin veil encompassing the slightest standards of any “political correctness.” At any rate, events like this one served as a benchmark, helping to shape the LAPD into what it is today.

The fact is that the LAPD is not just a police department extolling a mission to “protect and serve” without much to show for it. Rather the LAPD is a manifestation of a history marked by police brutality, racism and scandal, embodying an organizational culture that values police authority and independence above the rule of law.

We’ve seen this culture in its finest moments during the Rodney King beatings in 1991, the resulting Los Angeles Riots of 1992, the Rampart scandals of the late 1990s and most recently with May Day. Among the footage caught by the media at the march, one officer was recorded yelling, “I don’t care if they’re not throwing stuff at us now…we get to roll.”

Accordingly, what has often been addressed is the apparent lack of common sense, especially among the Metropolitan Division, regardless of the lack of official crowd control training. For these officers, crowd dispersal – even among peaceful protestors – was immediately equated with brutal force. A peaceful rally resulted with police beating media to the ground; using batons to deliver heavy blows on people who were simply standing; and blindly shooting less-lethal rounds into crowds of women and children.

Not surprisingly, the one thing the report could not provide was any explanation for these policing errors, this grave failure in simple reasoning.

But in actuality, the reasoning is rather simple. Even the slightest bit of power can endow a sense of free reign within an insular and arrogant police culture. At Mac Arthur Park, police forces made plenty of room for their authority to be disposed of at will.

And when the subjects to be “controlled” and “subdued” are not just people of color, but immigrants as well, these people exist as an easily identifiable group, automatically labeled and treated as “the other.” With this type of identification follows the LAPD’s seemingly natural disposition toward establishing power and authority over them. Already socially and economically oppressed, their cries are rendered less significant by a police force that looms over them.

But as Angelenos can attest to, cases like these flare up time and time again. Tension brews between police and oppressed communities until finally something snaps, resulting with the LAPD promising to do better next time. But these are the vicious cycles that make people look over the report with weary eyes. It’s what makes Chief Bratton’s words go in one ear and out the other. And ultimately it’s what makes communities doubtful of a police force that they have been conditioned to distrust and fear.

I’m just waiting for the next time something snaps. I think I’ll be able to set my watch to it so I can tune out the apology that follows.

Massive sweep deports hundreds...

...more to come on this issue. But for now take a look at this LA Times story that was also featured on NPR-KCRW's "Which Way L.A."

Over walls and beyond borders: Perceptions and immigrant identities in Los Angeles

On April 30, 1992 the corner of Florence and Normandie Avenues transformed into a center stage showcasing the pitiful state of race relations in Los Angeles and 20th century urban America. Americans peered into a city classically plagued by poverty, racism, and police brutality, usually framed within black/white terms. But underneath the media’s stark contrast between black and white, the Los Angeles riots revealed the rise of a “racialized nativism,” one that is fundamentally anti-immigrant and antiforeign in particular. At this point, racial conflict was not concerned with who was white. It was about who was not black. But immigrant identities, much like race as a social construction, “are shaped by the social conditions and moments that reflect the notions of differences among human groups” (Sánchez). Specifically for recent immigrants in Los Angeles, their collective identity, along with their sense of humanity, has been deprived from them. If anything, this void has been replaced by mere perceptions and generalizations, ultimately molded by the xenophobia that still frames the current social and political climate of this city today.

At the time of the riots, television screens across the country lit up with the heavy blows that Reginald Denny suffered, as he was dragged out of his cab, kicked and spat upon. In this depiction, Denny, a white truck driver, served as the antithesis to the Rodney King beating that also graced the television screens just one year before. But on that same corner where Denny’s assault had occurred, at least 30 other individuals had been dragged from their cars and beaten. Of these cases, a Mexican couple and their one-year-old child were struck with rocks and bottles; a Japanese man, having been mistaken for Korean was stripped and bloodied; and a Guatemalan man, after being knocked unconscious by a car stereo, had motor oil poured down his throat (Sánchez).

In essence, the Los Angeles riots were the epitome of racialized nativism beyond the black/white racial paradigm. And while this nativism extends into the current political and social setting of Los Angeles, its existence in the 1992 uprising still stems from “an intense opposition to an internal minority on the ground of its foreign (ie. “un-American”) connections” (Sánchez). In this racial and political discourse, however, it is important to distinguish nativism from racism. Following John Higham’s model in Strangers in the Land, racism can result in “unfavorable reactions” toward the personal and cultural traits and traditions of others. These reactions, however, are not necessarily nativist until they have been integrated with a “hostile and fearful” character (Higham).

In his article “Face the Nation: Race, Immigration, and the Rise of Nativism in Late Twentieth Century America,” George J. Sánchez contends that this rise of nativism in Los Angeles is directed toward contemporary non-European immigrants, both legal and illegal, in addition to the generations that follow them. But to wholly understand this xenophobia in the context of Los Angeles today, it is obligatory to trace back to the nation’s earlier experiences with immigration. Thus, in “A Sense of Place: The Politics of Immigration and Its Immigrants,” Kevin Keogan compares such experiences in Los Angeles and New York, two opposing spheres of urban immigrant politics. In this assessment, Keogan identifies the early formations of Los Angeles’ nativist traditions. Ultimately, this begins with identity.

Among Irish, Italians, Jews and other European groups immigrating to New York in the later 19th and earlier 20th centuries, a collective struggle for material wealth and acceptance resulted in a common immigrant identity. Represented through salient landmarks such as Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty, this identity transitioned over to later immigrants, mostly from Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia. As a result, years of this continuous and changing flow in immigration have fostered an “immigrant origin mythology” within the New York area. Recognized as the foundation of New York City, immigrants here are emboldened by a specific, positive narrative that upholds their historic place in the community. This mythology, therefore, translates into a collective “immigrant as us” identity (Keogan).

Within the past three decades, however, Los Angeles has taken on a “postutopian tone” as a result of large-scale immigration from Asia, Mexico, Central America, the Middle East, the Caribbean, and North Africa. In “California Dreaming: Proposition 187 and the Cultural Psychology of Racial and Ethnic Exclusion,” Marcelo M. Suárez-Orozco points out that the romantic fantasies and bootstrap models from previous centuries no longer resonate as strongly in immigrant discourse. Instead, this influx of non-European immigrants has transformed Los Angeles into the new “third world metropolis,” as stated by James H. Johnson Jr. in “Immigration Reform and the Browning of America: Tensions, Conflicts and Community Instability in Metropolitan Los Angeles.” And within this transformation, the negative connotations run rampant. In a setting where people of color comprise two-thirds of the metropolitan population, anger and anxieties continue to grow.

In this era’s unique xenophobic environment, recent immigrants are racially identifiable, making them “easily categorized by race into the American psyche” (Sánchez). From here, Johnson recognizes this phenomenon as the steady, increasing fear of the “browning of America.” In this fear stirs a growing intolerance, molded by the perception of an open-door immigration policy in which the nation is unable to stem the tide of foreign invaders. As a result, for most newly-arrived groups in Los Angeles, immigrants are more susceptible to being labeled and treated as a “threat” before anything else.

And as always with immigrant discourse, massive numbers games ensue. Largely centered on what can be measured in terms of the costs and benefits of this phenomenon, how much new immigrants use in social services is often evaluated against what these groups “pay” in local, state, and federal taxes (Suárez-Orozco). But with respect to the volatile formation of immigrant identities, numbers are practically insufficient. What is tangible in this explanation of xenophobia culminates in California’s Proposition 187. Within the passing of this initiative – just two years after the riots – Los Angeles once again reinforced its nativist traditions.

Under the name “Save Our State,” this 1994 ballot initiative gained the support of Californians, with a 59%-41% overall margin. Essentially antiforeign, the initiative sought to punish illegal immigrants by denying them access to social services, non-emergency healthcare, and education for the children of illegal immigrants. Additionally, public agencies were required to report suspected illegal immigrants to state and federal authorities (Suárez-Orozco). But aside from the logistics of the initiative, what is even more disturbingly poignant is the language found in the proposition’s description presented to California voters:

Proposition 187 will be the first giant stride in ultimately ending the illegal alien invasion. It has been estimated that illegal aliens are costing taxpayers in excess of 5 billion dollars a year. While our citizens and legal residents go wanting, those who choose to enter our country illegally get royal treatment at the expense of the California taxpayer (State of California).

Thus, with such ferocity, this language encompasses Los Angeles’ xenophobic core.

Historically “defensive in spirit,” this racialized nativism has undoubtedly set the trend for an exclusionary political climate in Los Angeles today (Higham). From a basic antipathy toward non-English languages to the embodiment of xenophobia in California’s Proposition 187, these exclusionary means describe Southern California’s profound sense and fear of the “decline of the American nation” (Sánchez). Moreover, Los Angeles continues to be haunted by what Suárez-Orozco deems a climate of “frustration and malaise.” Immigrants are not just feared and resented, but they are fabricated and fictionalized in front of a larger backdrop in which the greater problems that plague this city are displayed.

Thus, why immigrants face such hostility is more than just a matter of color, racism and fear. Easily dehumanized, recent immigrants become categorized as the “other,” especially when economic hardship and frustrations ensue. This categorization, however, stems from a need by dominant groups to single out recent immigrants. In this new “transnational malaise,” these groups become the focus of powerful anxieties when both the state and city have failed to solve its most pressing domestic issues: poverty, inequality and justice (Suárez-Orozco).

As “domestic aliens,” recent immigrants are identified with the abuse of social services, the refusal to assimilate, and the breeding of crime in the urban landscape (Suárez-Orozco). Panic and hysteria surrounds these already vulnerable groups, making it easier for “native” Angelenos to render them as scapegoats in times of economic stagnation and political instability. Unfortunately in this rendering, a sense of humanity is lost among them.

What many already know is that most immigrants essentially want to be reunited with their families, seeking better work conditions and wages at the same time. But despite this reality, resentment and anger from “native” Angelenos still follows them. As recent immigrants and minorities continue to grow to become the majority in numbers, they are viewed as a social class that is too self-involved and “out-of-touch.” As the economy declines, they are connected to the “disappearance of jobs” and draining of resources. As education standards fall short, they are responsible for an education system that cannot teach. And as crime rates increase, they are viewed as the cause for a justice system that is already broken (Suárez-Orozco).

To surmise immigration and racialized nativism in Los Angeles, Nathan Glazer says it best in that “economics in general can give no large answer to what the immigrant policy of the nation should be.” After all, figures and statistics can only go so far in explaining how people think, feel, and act in respect with one another. Ultimately, it is always easier to take in everything at first glance, especially by seeing in what we believe.

Perception is everything – be it one-sided, conservative, incorrect etc. But when perception plays into identity, especially group identities, much more is at risk here. For recent immigrants in Los Angeles, perceptions centered on hatred, anxiety and panic have robbed them of the immigrant mythology from centuries past. Though a bit romanticized, at least this collective identity was more accepting, fostering, and encouraging than what newer immigrant groups have been confined to today.

Culminating in the 1992 uprising, perceptions of an invading immigrant class enveloped Los Angeles in a climate of fear, frustration, and anger. At the expense of this racialized nativism, 52 lives were lost, 2,383 people were injured, and over $1 billion of damage was done to residences and businesses (Sánchez). Again, 15 years later, Los Angeles finds itself in another tumultuous and tense political environment. From a failing housing market linked to increased gentrification, to the recent May Day riots that epitomized both police brutality and police distrust, Los Angeles is still plagued by a xenophobic character from which it can’t seem to shake free.

According to Suárez-Orozco, I guess the better question to ask now is if “We can’t deal with ourselves; how are we to deal with others?” But at the very least, in order to better understand – if not “solve” – the larger issue of immigration, it may be more beneficial to look inward as opposed to outward. After all, perceptions and identities from all sides can be misleading.

Works Cited

Higham, John. “Instead Of a Sequel, or How I Lost My Subject Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925.” Reviews in American History. 28.2. (2000): pp. 327-339.
http://zb5lh7ed7a.search.serialssolutions.com/?sid=jstor:jstor&genre=article&issn=0048-7511&eissn=1080-6628&volume=28&pages=327-339&spage=327&epage=339&atitle=Instead%20Of%20a%20Sequel%2c%20or%20How%20I%20Lost%20My%20Subject&date=2000-06&aulast=Higham&issue=2

Johnson, Jr., James H., Walter C. Farell, and Chandra Guinn. “Immigration Reform and the Browning of America: Tensions, Conflicts and Community Instability in Metropolitan Los Angeles.” International Migration Review. 31.4. (1997): pp. 1055-1095. <http://www.jstor.org/view/01979183/di009796/00p0315c/0>

Keogan, Kevin. A Sense of Place: The Politics of Immigration and the Symbolic Construction of Identity in Southern California and the New York Metropolitan Area.” Sociological Forum. 17.2 (2002): pp. 223-253. <http://www.jstor.org/view/08848971/sp030001/03x0005e/0>

Sánchez, George J. “Face the Nation: Race, Immigration, and the Rise of Nativism in Late Twentieth Century America.” International Migration Review Special Issue: Immigrant Adaptation and Native-Born Responses in the Making of Americans. 31.4 (1997): 1009-1030. <http://www.jstor.org/view/01979183/di009796/00p0313a/0>

Suárez-Orozco, Marcelo M. “California Dreaming: Proposition 187 and the Cultural Psychology of Racial and Ethnic Exclusion.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly. 27.2 (1996): pp. 151-167. <http://www.jstor.org/view/01617761/sp050101/04x0225q/0>