[Mb-civic] Conspiracy Against Assimilation - Robert J. Samuelson - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

Conspiracy Against Assimilation
<>By Robert J. Samuelson
The Washington Post
Thursday, April 20, 2006; A25

It's all about assimilation -- or it should be. One of America's glories 
is that it has assimilated many waves of immigrants. Outsiders have 
become insiders. But it hasn't been easy. Every new group has struggled: 
Germans, Irish, Jews and Italians. All have encountered economic 
hardship, prejudice and discrimination. The story of U.S. immigration is 
often ugly. If today's wave of immigration does not end in assimilation, 
it will be a failure. By this standard, I think the major contending 
sides in the present bitter debate are leading us astray. Their 
proposals, if adopted, would frustrate assimilation.

On the one hand, we have the "cop" school. It adamantly opposes amnesty 
and would make being here illegally a felony, as opposed to a lesser 
crime. It toughens a variety of penalties against illegal immigrants. 
Elevating the seriousness of the crime would supposedly deprive them of 
jobs, and then illegal immigrants would return to Mexico, El Salvador or 
wherever. This is a pipe dream; the numbers are simply too large.

But it is a pipe dream that, if pursued, would inflict enormous social 
damage. The mere threat of a crackdown stigmatizes much of the Hispanic 
population -- whether they're legal or illegal immigrants, or whether 
they've been here for generations. (In 2004 there were 40 million 
Hispanics, says the Pew Hispanic Center; about 55 percent were estimated 
to be native-born, 25 percent legal immigrants and 20 percent illegal 
immigrants.) People feel threatened and insulted. Who wouldn't?

On the other hand we have the "guest worker" advocates. They want 
400,000 or more new foreign workers annually. This would supposedly 
curtail illegal immigration -- people who now sneak into the country 
could get work permits -- and also cure "shortages" of unskilled 
American workers. Everyone wins. Not really.

For starters, the term is a misnomer. Whatever the rules, most guest 
workers would not leave. The pull of U.S. wages (on average, almost five 
times what can be earned in Mexico) is too great. Moreover, there's no 
general shortage of unskilled workers. In March, the unemployment rate 
of high school dropouts 25 years and older was 7 percent; since 1996, it 
has been below 6 percent in only two months. By contrast, the 
unemployment rate of college graduates in March was 2.2 percent. Given 
the glut of unskilled workers relative to demand, their wages often lag 
inflation. From 2002 to 2004, consumer prices rose 5.5 percent. Median 
wages rose 4.8 percent for janitors, 4.3 percent for landscapers and not 
at all for waitresses.

Advocates of guest workers don't acknowledge that poor, unskilled 
immigrants -- whether legal or illegal -- create huge social costs. 
Every year the Census Bureau issues a report on "Income, Poverty, and 
Health Insurance Coverage in the United States." Here's what the 2004 
report shows:

· Since 1990 the number of Hispanics with incomes below the government's 
poverty line has risen 52 percent; that's almost all (92 percent) of the 
increase in poor people.

· Among children, disparities are greater. Over the same period, 
Hispanic children in poverty are up 43 percent; meanwhile, the numbers 
of black and non-Hispanic white children in poverty declined 16.9 
percent and 18.5 percent, respectively.

· Hispanics account for most (61 percent) of the increase of Americans 
without health insurance since 1990. The overall increase was 11.1 
million; Hispanics, 6.7 million.

By most studies, poor immigrants pay less in taxes than they use in 
government services. As these social costs have risen, so has the 
backlash. Already, there's a coalition of Mayors and County Executives 
for Immigration Reform. It includes 63 cities, counties and towns, 
headed by Republicans and Democrats, ranging from Cook County, Illinois 
(population: 5.3 million) to Gilliam County, Oregon (population: 1,817). 
Coalition members want the federal government to reimburse their extra 
costs.

We have a conspiracy against assimilation. One side would offend and 
ostracize much of the Hispanic community. The other would encourage 
mounting social and economic costs. Either way we get a more polarized 
society.

On immigration, I am an optimist. We are basically a decent, open and 
tolerant nation. Americans respect hard work and achievement. That's why 
assimilation has ultimately triumphed. But I am not a foolish optimist. 
Assimilation requires time and the right conditions. It cannot succeed 
if we constantly flood the country with new, poor immigrants or embark 
on a vendetta against those already here.

I have argued that our policies should recognize these realities. Curb 
illegal immigration with true border barriers. Provide legal status 
(call it amnesty or whatever) -- first work permits, then citizenship -- 
for most illegal immigrants already here. Remove the job lure by 
imposing harsh fines against employers who hire new illegal immigrants. 
Reject big guest-worker programs.

It's sometimes said that today's Hispanics will resemble yesterday's 
Italians. Although they won't advance as rapidly as some other groups of 
more skilled immigrants, they'll still move into the mainstream. Many 
have -- and will. But the overall analogy is a stretch, according to a 
recent study, "Italians Then, Mexicans Now," by sociologist Joel 
Perlmann of Bard College. Since 1970 wages of Mexican immigrants 
compared with those of native whites have declined. By contrast, wages 
of Italians and Poles who arrived early in the last century rose over 
time. For the children of immigrants, gaps are also wide. 
Second-generation Italians and Poles typically earned 90 percent or more 
compared to native whites. For second-generation Mexican Americans, the 
similar figure is 75 percent.

One big difference between then and now: Immigration slowly halted 
during and after World War I. The Italians and Poles came mainly between 
1890 and 1915. Older immigrants didn't always have to compete with 
newcomers who beat down their wages. There was time for outsiders and 
insiders to adapt to each other. We should heed history's lesson.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/19/AR2006041902483.html?nav=hcmodule
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060420/2a707972/attachment.htm