Today, America’s Voice released a report, The Power of the Latino Vote in the 2010 Elections: They Tipped Elections in 2008; Where will they be in 2010? The report analyzes forty battleground “Races to Watch” where the Latino vote will be pivotal to both parties. The report notes that “as the Latino electorate grows in size and power, candidates from all political parties must take their views into account to remain viable in an increasing number of House and Senate races as well as future Presidential contests.” This is because “at least one segment of the Latino electorate—foreign‐born, naturalized U.S. citizens of Latino descent, who represent 40% of the Latino voter population—has proven to be a true swing constituency.” In other words, when both parties are supportive of the Latino community and their needs, this Latinos sub-group can swing towards either party. For this group of voters however, immigration reform is a litmus test, and how each candidate treats the issue will be a key factor in determining which way the Latino voters will swing.

However, how important is immigration reform to the Latino community given the number of social and economic challenges the nation faces? The report explains:

The potency of immigration as a ‘voting issue’ should not be underestimated. Both polling data and Hispanic voting behavior over multiple election cycles shows that immigration serves as a lens through which Latinos assess the political environment and candidate attitudes not just toward immigrants, but toward their community as a whole. In a May 2009 poll of Latino voters by Bendixen & Associates, 82% of Latino voters said that the immigration issue is important to them and their families, and 69% said that they personally know someone who is undocumented.

The report also serves as a stark warning to politicians as the election cycle begins anew:

Polling of Latino voters shows that the Republican Party’s image has been severely damaged by GOP lawmakers’ demagoguery on the issue, and that the vast majority of Latinos simply will not vote for a candidate who advocates mass deportation instead of comprehensive immigration reform. That said, if Democrats fail to show real leadership and keep their campaign promises to advance comprehensive immigration reform, they run the risk of alienating Latinos or facing depressed Latino turnout during the crucial 2010 elections. Politicians of both parties also need to approach the issue responsibly during their election campaigns. Heated rhetoric coupled with unrealistic policy solutions like mass deportation will turn off both the crucial Latino voting bloc and other swing voters, who are tired of Washington policymakers talking tough, but delivering little.

Yet, despite hard data, there will still likely be those politicians who are spooked by the vocal anti-immigrant movement. However, Frank Sharry of America’s Voice warns them not to overestimate the power of these groups—“anti-immigrant groups and their supporters don’t turn elections but turn on their fax machines during a congressional debate.” Smart politicians will listen to a proven voting contingent and not be swayed by a vocal minority.

Photo by Columbia City Blog.

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) yesterday released a new study, Immigration and Wages, which confirms what many other economists have found: “that immigration has a small but positive impact on the wages of native-born workers overall.” The report, by economist Heidi Shierholz, finds that the “effect of immigration from 1994 to 2007 was to raise the wages of U.S.-born workers, relative to foreign-born workers, by 0.4% (or $3.68 per week).” Even the small (and shrinking) number of “U.S.-born workers with less than a high school education saw a relative 0.3% increase in wages (or $1.58 per week)” as a result of immigration during this period.

Although these are relatively modest increases, they are a far cry from the dire claims of economists such as George Borjas that immigration significantly reduces wages for native-born workers. In fact, as the report explains, economists like Borjas base their analyses on faulty assumptions about how readily foreign-born and native-born workers can be “substituted” for one another in the labor market. Moreover, Borjas-style analyses are rooted in the incorrect assumption that because immigration increases the size of the U.S. labor force, and therefore increases the number of workers competing with each other for jobs, that it necessarily drives down wages. However, the EPI report clearly explains that this is not how the U.S. economy works in the real world:

An important thing to keep in mind is that the labor force is growing all the time. All else equal, more people, including more foreigners, do not mean lower wages or higher unemployment. If they did, every time a baby was born or a new graduate entered the labor force, they would hurt existing workers. But new workers do not just have supply-side impacts, they also affect demand. Those new graduates buy food and cars and pay rent. In other words, while new workers add to the supply of labor, they also consume goods and services, creating more jobs. An economy with more people does not mean lower wages and higher unemployment, it is simply a bigger economy. Just because New York is bigger than Los Angeles does not in and of itself mean workers in New York are worse off than workers in Los Angeles.

The EPI report builds on the work of economists such as Giovanni Peri who take a more nuanced, and realistic, view than Borjas does of how foreign-born and native-born workers “complement” each other in the labor market through the differing skills and abilities they bring with them to the workplace. When one fully accounts for the many differences between foreign-born and native-born workers in terms of education, occupational experience, and English-language ability, it becomes clear that they cannot simply be swapped for one another like batteries. In other words, immigrants tend to fill particular niches in the U.S. labor market and therefore are not competing with most natives for the same jobs. In fact, the presence of specialized immigrant workers in the labor force tends to increase the productivity, and therefore the wages, of their native-born counterparts.

As the EPI report makes clear, the plight of low-wage native-born workers can not be blamed on immigrants: “Declining job quality for the least-educated American workers is due to a host of factors aside from immigration, including declining unionization rates, the eroding real value of the minimum wage, and trade practices that expose U.S. workers with low levels of education to competition from much lower wage workers around the globe.” In short, scapegoating immigrants for the nation’s economic woes will do nothing to help American workers.

Photo by billjacobus1

DC’s adorable panda Tai Shan returns to China today. Because of a current lack of native-born pandas, the U.S. turned to China for pandas to fill our zoos’ panda needs. Tai Shan’s parents, Mei Xiang and Tian Tian, have been in the U.S. on a cultural exchange of sorts, entertaining zoo patrons and attempting to procreate since 2000. Tai Shan was born to the couple at the National Zoo in 2005 and grew up before America’s eyes. However, the pandas are more than just a scientific exhibition; they embody the important values of cultural exchange which have always been an important means of deepening understanding and promoting international friendship and goodwill between nations. Tai Shan and his parents have been ambassadors for years. ChannelNewsAsia.com reports:
 

China owns all 14 giant pandas living in the United States. It loans the animals to zoos in the US and other countries to raise awareness of the endangered animals, and to help scientists study them. And as part of the agreement, any panda cub born in the US must one day be returned to China.

Senior curator Brandie Smith said the programme is very successful.

“I think pandas are an amazing, amazing ambassador for China - people love them, people come to see them. We have had fan clubs spring up around our pandas here because people are so fascinated with them, they want to learn about them, they want to save them.”

Furthermore, cultural exchange is a source of cooperation between countries that may have other certain political tensions. Says senior curator Brandie Smith:

In 1972, our first pandas arrived as a result of President Nixon and the relationship he built with China. Now our pandas here have been with us for ten years. A lot of people come to the National Zoo, and the first animal they want to see is the giant panda.

Mei Xiang and Tian Tian will remain at the National Zoo until at least next year. Zoo officials are hoping to be granted an extension, allowing the adorable bears to remain in Washington, DC for a few more years. There is a demonstrable need for Chinese pandas, and fortunately there is a mechanism for bringing pandas legally to the U.S. Tai Shan and his parents have been remarkable productive pandas, bringing joy to millions of zoo visitors. When the pandas go to China both of our countries will benefit from the relationships forged and knowledge obtained by these international visitors. Putting knowledge aside though, American panda lovers are heartbroken. “We were all in denial,” said Elise Ney, 49, of Bethesda. “We just didn’t believe it would ever happen. . . . All of us have followed him since birth.”

Photo by Bright Star

The New York Times reported yesterday on a lawsuit filed against federal contractor Signal Construction, which includes allegations that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) colluded with Signal to illegally deport workers as a scare tactic and for retaliation purposes against 500 Indian guest workers who are currently in a legal battle against Signal.

The new revelations were further discussed in a press conference today, held at the National Press Club in Washington, DC featuring representatives from the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the New Orleans Workers’ Center for Racial Justice. The testimony from depositions in the case involving Indian workers and Signal could prove that ICE colluded with the Signal to arrange illegal deportations and used ICE enforcement to quell labor strikes.

In 2006, Signal International hired approximately 500 skilled immigrant workers from India to repair offshore oil rigs in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Many workers paid as much as $20,000 to Signal recruiters, who in turn promised that their H-2B temporary work visas would converted into green cards, and thus put the workers on a pathway to citizenship.

The lawsuit contends that when the workers began to organize against their employer they sought advice from ICE who advised Signal on how to retaliate against the striking workers, including directions for illegally deporting the workers. Second, ICE officials told Signal that if they were given the names of protests leaders in the labor camps, ICE would seek to deport them. ICE officials also offered to track and apprehend any Signal workers who ran away in order to “send a message.”

Particularly troubling is the allegation that the ICE agent named in the deposition was also the ICE official appointed to conduct internal investigations when the initial accusations came to light. This means that the same official that colluded with Signal to illegally deport workers was the official in charge of interviewing guest workers and investigating claims about how Signal was treating its workers. ICE officials allegedly tried to stop the investigation both within ICE and other investigating bodies, as well as delay the trafficking visa applications of the workers.

At this point, it is unclear how far-reaching the collusion was within ICE. This morning, Saket Soni, Executive Director of the New Orleans Workers’ Center for Racial Justice, stated his belief that this was only the tip of the iceberg. He pointed to the breadth of the violations—advising the company on how to deport, the collusion on names and apprehensions, and the undermining of other agencies—as potential evidence that the collusion between ICE and Signal may have necessarily involved a number of ICE officials.

If this is the case, a swift and thorough independent investigation is necessary. While the initial transgressions occurred under a different administration, the conveners of the press conference said it is the responsibility of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton to ensure that none of the ICE workers perpetrating this collusion remain employed, and to ensure the safety and well-being of the hundreds of Indian workers who were taken advantage of.

Photo by: CompassRoseK8

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano unveiled yesterday, exemplifies the enforcement mentality which pervades the federal government’s approach to immigration. The two immigration-enforcement components of DHS—Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—consume 30% of the department’s total budget, while the immigration-services component, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, is allotted a mere 5%. However, the budget request does throw a few much-needed crumbs to programs such as Asylum and Refugee Services and Immigrant Integration and Citizenship.

The DHS budget request for FY 2011 totals $56.3 billion—an increase of 1.7% over the department’s enacted FY 2010 budget. The funding requests for the three immigration-related components of DHS break down as follows:

• CBP: $11.2 billion (a decrease of 2% from the enacted FY 2010 budget).

• ICE: $5.8 billion (an increase of 2%).

• USCIS: $2.8 billion (an increase of 2%).

The budget request for the E-Verify electronic employment-verification system ($103.4 million), which is housed within USCIS, represents a decline from FY 2010 ($137 million). But the number of positions devoted to the program would increase to 338 (from 298 this year).

Despite the emphasis on immigration enforcement, the DHS budget request also includes two notable increases for services within USCIS:

• Asylum and Refugee Services/Military Naturalizations: $207 million (up from $55 million in the enacted FY 2010 budget) and 744 positions.

• Immigrant Integration and Citizenship: $18 million and 23 positions (up from $11 million and only 3 positions in FY 2010).

Unfortunately, in the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, the DHS budget continues to throw billions of dollars into enforcement-only measures which for decades have proven unsuccessful at dealing with unauthorized immigration, and which do nothing to help the millions of would-be immigrants trapped in visa backlogs. Until U.S. immigration laws are overhauled, DHS will continue its fanciful (and expensive) quest to enforce a broken immigration system.

Photo by Adam Norwood.

Immigration and Latino advocates continue to take stock after last week’s State of the Union Address, which some interpreted as the final nail in immigration reform’s coffin for 2010. Predictably, Democratic leadership reasserted their ongoing commitment to immigration reform legislation the day after. Less predictably, however, Senator Schumer’s main Republican partner in the Senate, Lindsay Graham, came out the following day in support of moving forward on reform in an interview with The Atlantic:

I think the idea of border security as a confidence builder is the way to start. Most Americans are very practical and reasonable. They’re upset about broken borders and our out-of-control immigration system. They will buy into a comprehensive solution if we can prove to them, and only if we can prove to them, we don’t have twenty million more illegal immigrants, ten years, twenty years down the road.

And when it comes to the illegal alien population, if the definition of amnesty is you got to deport twelve million people, or put twelve million people in jail, then we’ll never have a comprehensive solution, because that’s just not workable, it’s not practical.

To me, amnesty would be forgiving people, like Ronald Reagan did, with no consequence, and not repairing the system. Amnesty is what we have today. What I would like to see is the illegal immigrant population come out of the shadows, be biometrically identified, be required to learn English, pay the fines for their crime, and get right with the law. If they want to be a citizen, get in the back of the line, not break into line.

And to my Republican colleagues, I can understand the politics of this is difficult. Big things are hard to do. But I believe in 2008, we lost a lot of ground with the Hispanic community because of the rhetoric and the tone we set on immigration.

Speaking of losing ground with Latinos, the National Congreso Latino met in Texas this weekend with a local newspaper, reporting:

Latino conventioneers said today President Obama virtually ignored their constituency in his state of the union address this week and that the mid-term elections could serve as a referendum on his administration.

History tells us that the Latino vote is not a dependable liberal constituency for the Democratic Party. If anyone’s political calculation assumes Democrats can hold onto Latinos without reforming immigration and addressing their other concerns, they are dead wrong. Latinos have turned out in force in past elections for Republicans candidates like George W. Bush.

Obviously, the best way forward for an immigration reform bill is a bipartisan approach—an approach advocated by the President in his unprecedented televised Q&A with Republican lawmakers at their annual retreat last week in Baltimore. The President said:

Bipartisanship—not for its own sake but to solve problems—that’s what our constituents, the American people, need from us right now. All of us then have a choice to make. We have to choose whether we’re going to be politicians first or partners for progress; whether we’re going to put success at the polls ahead of the lasting success we can achieve together for America.

Some have even calculated that after an endless and bruising healthcare reform battle, immigration reform, which has been already been debated ad-nauseum, might just be the issue that both parties can tackle to show the public that difficult things can get done in Washington.

It’s easy to blame the President, the Congress and everyone else in Washington for the delay, throw in the towel and make declarative sentences about immigration reform being dead. However, there is still a beating heart in the process with ongoing signs of life, including productive negotiations between business and labor groups on the issue of future flow, Secretary Janet Napolitano’s report on her ongoing pursuit of comprehensive immigration reform in the coming year and again, and Republican Senator Lindsay Graham’s public enthusiasm for tackling the issue.

This could actually be the best time for immigration reform, Republican’s could move away from extreme factions of tea-baggers to prove to their anti-establishment constituents back home that they can think independent of their party and solve tough problems.

The late conservative thinker, Richard Nadler, always advocated that rather than running away from the immigration issue, Republicans should step up to help shape it. Early last year he put it this way:

At some point, conservatives must reflect on how many allies, and how many issues, we are willing to sacrifice in a fey and futile attempt to get field workers, busboys, and nannies out of the country. The steady drumbeat of restrictionist defeat invites—no, requires—conservatives to revisit a concept we have glibly reviled: comprehensive immigration reform. The relevant question is no longer whether we want it, but what we want from it: what forms of border security, crime control, and employment verification. Every hour we postpone a border reform that respects the interests of employers and Hispanics, our entire agenda suffers.

Photo by criggchef.

Unless you were hanging on every word in Wednesday night’s State of the Union Address, you might have missed that the President reaffirmed his commitment to fixing our broken immigration system. His commitment wasn’t as specific as many of the things he has said about immigration reform in the past. In fact, this glancing mention of immigration reform has already caused a backlash among activists—many of whom are disappointed that the message was too muted and without teeth. But upon closer inspection, you might find that President Obama’s message of bipartisanship, American values and the importance of diversity translates into moving forward on immigration reform.

True, the President could have called for immigration reform as a component of rebuilding our economy. He missed a golden opportunity to make that link. And true, he could have laid out the case for immigration reform more systematically or made it clear that the White House and DHS are both working feverishly behind the scenes to make immigration reform happen. That would have been a welcomed message. President Obama did, however, deliver a more subtle message—a message aimed at Congress.

Take a look at the framing of the immigration statement from a rhetorical perspective. It wasn’t in the “jobs” section of the bill (although it should have been), but was instead in a section about governing and getting bipartisan cooperation. The arc of President Obama’s address goes something like this: jobs, jobs, economy, jobs, health care, foreign wars and terrorism, good deeds abroad, and then the following:

We must continually renew this promise. My Administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws – so that women get equal pay for an equal day’s work. And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nations.

In the end, it is our ideals, our values, that built America; values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe; values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren’t Republican values or Democratic values they’re living by; business values or labor values. They are American values.

Translation:

My agenda this year is going to keep moving forward. If Congress won’t cooperate in doing the right thing, I can do it administratively. I have revived the nearly dead civil rights division so it can prosecute cases again after 8 long years without a real commitment to civil rights. I am finally going to get rid of discriminatory policies preventing gays to serve openly in the military. While I could do this on my own, I want to work with Congress to make it happen. And I still support comprehensive immigration reform that mirrors what Janet Napolitano laid out recently—a three legged stool where “everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation”—which means a path to legalization for the 12 million undocumented immigrants who would help revive our economy and continue to provide the rich diversity that makes the country strong.

Remember, Congress, we are nation of immigrants and immigrants vote. The values of our immigrant nation are what still drives us (that is, we are all immigrants) and sooner or later we need to fix the immigration problem. This isn’t a Republican or Democratic problem (read bipartisan) and it isn’t a business or labor problem (read the coming together of these two groups to solve immigration issues is vitally important.) It’s an American problem.

Translation, of course, is an art not a science. Many people will, no doubt, not read all of these subtleties into the speech. But consider the wide range of issues the president could have mentioned. The fact that immigration reform, framed within the context of quintessential American values, made it into the speech at all is surely significant. Also of significance is the fact that for the first time, Spanish language network anchors—from CNN en Español, Univision, and Telemundo—were invited to the traditional pre-State of the Union lunch with President Obama.

For days to come, the State of the Union Address will be taken apart line by line until the next big Presidential event—the release of the budget. Hopefully the President will learn before then that he can’t solely speak in Congressional code and expect the public to be satisfied. In the meantime, congressional leaders on immigration, such as Sen. Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Reid (D-NV) and Rep. Luis Gutierrez, continue to beat the drum for immigration reform and deliver the President’s coded message—immigration reform is still a top priority for this Administration, but we need to work together in order to move forward.

Photo by the White House.

In last night’s State of the Union Address, President Obama’s comments on immigration were simple, ‘we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system—to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation.’ It was neither detailed nor overly passionate, but signaled that immigration reform was still a priority for his administration under a broader push for greater civil rights.

However, President Obama’s minimalist approach to the issue has set off tensions on both sides of the issue. One particularly anti-immigrant crusader characterized the President’s comments on immigration as some sort of “code,” noting that ‘he (Obama) seemed to be trying to signal to the supporters of “amnesty” and comprehensive immigration reform that he was still behind them, but in words that the voters watching on TV wouldn’t understand.’ On the other hand some pro-immigrant groups have begun writing the obituary for immigration reform after last night, feeling the President just didn’t say enough.

Perhaps the President could have said more. He could have called for immigration reform as a component of rebuilding our economy and laid out the case for reform more systematically—making clear all the work going on behind the scenes at the White House and Department of Homeland Security to make immigration reform happen. But it’s important to remember a couple of things.

First, the mere mention (or lack of one) of an issue in the State of the Union cannot be underestimated. The Washington Times writes about what a SOTU mention can mean to public policy issues:

“A State of the Union address can launch major reforms, focus the nation’s attention or spark international tensions. But for many groups looking to advance their agenda, just earning a mention by the president is the Holy Grail. “It can have a very significant impact,” said Bob Dinneen, chief executive officer of the Renewable Fuels Association. Mr. Dinneen cited President George W. Bush’s address in 2006 as a case in point. In the speech, Mr. Bush talked about the need to stop the nation’s “addiction” to foreign oil and to embrace ethanol and other renewable fuel sources. “It really teed up a discussion about energy policy and led to the passage of the energy bill in 2007 that resulted in the renewable-fuel standard in this country,” Mr. Dinneen said. “So it was an important catalyst.”

Second, early this afternoon the Senate leadership discussed the ongoing work happening on immigration reform, with no signs of retreat. Congressional Quarterly (CQ) reported on the press conference today:

Senate Democratic leaders say they intend to press ahead with an immigration overhaul bill despite waning enthusiasm for the measure among many in their caucus. “It is something we’re committed to do,” Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters on Thursday. “And we’ll do it as soon as we can.” Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, who is leading the effort to draft a bill, said, “We are making good progress.”

It’s a well-known fact that the road to reform is uphill—that success demands resilience, commitment and dogged determination with no room for drama or distraction. Anyone in the fight for immigration reform knows that reform can’t come fast enough; that lives and futures are at stake. But determining the future of immigration reform on a “word count” in the State of the Union address is bad strategy. Instead, immigration advocates should keep Presidential promises in perspective, redouble their efforts and continue to hold Congress’s feet to the fire. As the President said last night, he can’t do it alone.

Photo by Sheep purple.

Representatives Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Gary Miller (R-CA) would like the public to think that they have the same concerns as most Americans today, releasing a joint statement expressing anxiety over the 15 million Americans currently without work. On its face, their statement—“we must enforce our current immigration laws to ensure illegals do not take away jobs that rightfully belong to American and legal workers”— makes sense. In a vacuum, if our economy provided only a set number of jobs available for American workers, Messrs. Smith and Miller would be correct. However, this is just not the case.

The notion that unemployed natives could simply be “swapped” for employed unauthorized immigrants is not valid economically. In reality, native workers and immigrants workers are not easily interchangeable. It is unrealistic to expect unemployed native workers to travel across the country or take jobs for which they are overqualified. Worse, removing millions of workers (at an enormous cost) from our economy would further reduce tax revenues and consumer spending, resulting in even more job loss.

In short, a better way to create jobs for Americans would be to legalize many of the unauthorized through comprehensive immigration reform, which would allow them to pay even more taxes and spend even more to stimulate our economy. These contributions would provide more jobs for American workers. The facts, not the talking points, show that immigrants who legalize improve their education, improve their wages, move out of poverty, buy homes, and become invested in their communities.

Particularly troubling is Miller’s statement about his home state: “At home in California, almost weekly I hear from my constituents that illegal immigration is exacerbating the unemployment crisis.” Yet, as the Immigration Policy Center, the University of Southern California and more recently, the California Immigration Policy Center have reported, immigrants are vital to California’s flailing economy and without them, California’s dire budget situation might even worsen. California’s immigrants comprise more than a third of California’s labor force, and pay more Social Security taxes on average than U.S. born households. If all unauthorized immigrants were removed from California, the state would lose $164.2 billion in expenditures, 72.9 billion in economic output, and approximately 717,000 jobs.

Everyone is looking for someone to blame for today’s economy, but we would do well not to blame those may be able to help us out of the crisis.

Photo by ryanjreilly.

“Well, I think one of the things the President will — has talked about and one of the things you’ll hear him mention tomorrow and in the coming days, similar to what I’ve said on cap and trade, and that is that if — we’ve started a process on this and if Congress can put together the way forward, a coalition to get the way forward, then it’s something we’ll work through.”

While the President’s top priorities continue to be jobs, the economy and health care, it is equally important for the President to renew his commitment to comprehensive immigration reform—reform that, if passed, would benefit our ailing economy through job creation, wage increases and increased tax contributions.