O Border (Security), Where Art Thou?

As the battle in Congress to hammer out a bill for comprehensive immigration reform rages on, it is heartening for an academic like me to see the strategic use of research by pro-immigration advocates to make their case. In the past several days we have seen a report from the Congressional Budget Office revealing that the legalization of immigrants in the U.S. would lead to a significant reduction to the deficit--nearly $200 billion dollars injected into the economy through increased tax revenue—over the next decade. Other research shows that having immigrants in your county has been shown to increase home values, and could do so even further if some of the undocumented become legal. A finding long known in sociological circles, the current wave of Mexican immigrants, the largest immigrant group in the U.S. right now, is adapting to American society and culture in much the same way, and perhaps even at a faster pace than previous waves of immigrants, including Italians and Germans. We also see polls that show well over 70 percent of Americans wanting immigration reform before the end of the year. So, why would there be any question at all about passing immigration reform in Congress? It has been on the table since the November election as a Presidential priority in Obama’s second term. Yet, we continue to see our politicians debate and as with most issues, facts rarely drive politics.

Well, that is not exactly true. Some would have you believe that the culture war is what has Americans wary about immigration reform. Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington sounded the alarm in 2004 that Latin American immigrants and Mexicans in particular would fundamentally change the United States because they do not adapt to our cultural norms. As opinion-writer and political scientist Stephen Nuño points out, assimilation is a two-way street. The facts above show that the current wave of immigrants has changed; while there is no doubt that the United States has changed, too. I would argue that two-way assimilation is inevitable, regardless of which groups you are talking about. Think about it when you are eating those tacos, drinking a pilsner, cheering a Japanese pitcher, and snacking on frankfurters as you enjoy the “all-American” pastime this summer. All immigrant groups have deposited some of their culture on us and we have enthusiastically embraced it time and again. Sometimes cultural changes are more consequential than sports and they are unequal, messy, and contentious, but resisting them is like trying to stop the sun from rising. There is no doubt that there is unreasonable xenophobia, and reactionary laws that actually impede the assimilation process, such as the banning of ethnic studies in Arizona. There is also evidence from countries like Canada, that intentional policies that provide a balance ofassimilation and multiculturalism work, but these issues aren’t even the center of what is really being argued in Congress. The cold hard fact that is currently at the core of the disagreement is money, but again it is shrouded in misinformation.

Preying on the small minority of people who really are xenophobes, pundits and politicians would have you believe that the sticking point is border security. If we give legal status to the 11 million or so undocumented residents of the U.S., what is to prevent yet another wave of illegal immigration, just like we saw after the last amnesty in 1986? But for all intents and purposes, the facts show that net immigration from Mexico has all but stopped. Some of it is due to increased border security and the record number of deportations overseen by the Obama administration; however, a lot of it has to do with the fact that Mexico has one of the fastest growing economies in the world, and with a growing middle class with more job opportunities, there is no need to migrate to a country where opportunities might not even be there because of our own precarious economic situation. The idea of needing more border security is a real red herring then. So, why is it being argued?

One of the groups with a large membership that is opposed to reform is the union representing Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.One might think that increasing the number of legal immigrants would make their job easier; you’d be right. It would make their job so easy that they might see their way out of a job. Right now, Homeland Security spends over 18 billion dollars on border security, which makes it the largest Federal law enforcement agency; even larger than the FBI. Simply waving the legal wand and making an easier path to citizenship would put a lot of ICE agents out of work. To ensure their job security, senators reached a bipartisan “compromise” that would add thousands of new agents and increase Homeland Security spending eventhought the immigration numbers show we really don’t need them. Further, ensuring that there are at least some migrants who remain in the U.S. who do not have legal status (by not covering them under the proposed law), we also ensure that the private corporations that build prisons also get their share of money. Now those are numbers you can count on.

Why Does Everyone Hate Ruben Navarrette?

-->
-->

In the realm of Latino media, Ruben Navarrette has solidified his role as a force of supernova proportions.  Whether on the left or the right, his ideas push buttons, and as he would probably hope, drive them to think about why they agree or disagree with his opinions; unfortunately, that is what rarely happens. Instead, there is an onslaught of attacks riddled with logical fallacies that would make college writing professors very sad. I would know, because I am a college professor, and as is Ruben’s style, I will highlight some of my credentials. I am a developmental psychologist and social worker who teaches courses in those general areas, while my focused research is on Latino well-being and access to higher education. As a Harvard-educated Latino who cares deeply about immigrant communities and just immigration reform, I try to stay abreast of not only the latest academic and policy information around those issues, but also prevailing attitudes among those not sequestered in the ivory tower and other elite circles. I teach at a state university in Chicago, where many of the students are Hispanic, from immigrant families, are immigrants themselves and who are DREAMers. It is this latter group who have been the source of much of the recent controversy in regards to Navarrette’s writing. His opinion is useful because it considers the vast middle, rather than the cemented opinions of the far left and right. I don’t always agree, but I do think his ideas are really worth considering

Navarrette’s column argues that some DREAMers, the young college-age immigrants, who were brought to the United States illegally by their parents, typically before high school age, are undermining their own efforts to achieve legal status. Through acts of civil disobedience and making demands, he argues that they will alienate people who might otherwise be sympathetic to their cause. After all, culturally and linguistically, these youth are American, are good citizens (small “C”), and the U.S. is the place they have come to know as home.  For many Americans, this is a compelling group to help out by changing our laws. We want these young, ambitious, smart, college-educated people as part of our country, making contributions. Change does not happen rapidly, although as Americans we believe that we can cultivate, or even demand things to change. This is where the DREAMers and their most ardent supporters and Navarrette part ways. Stephen Nuño, a professor in Arizona, made a similar argument against DREAMers’ actions a few weeks prior to Navarrette’s column, but Ruben has a particular knack for ruffling people’s feathers.

For the DREAMers change is not coming fast enough. It has been over ten years since the bill meant to regularize their status was introduced to Congress, and while it has come close, it has never reached the President’s desk. This is certainly a cause for frustration. Feeling that their backs are against a wall, some DREAMers have turned to forceful and illegal public acts, such as locking themselves in the chambers of a congressman to publicize their desires. For such behavior, Navarrette argued that DREAMers should get a “scolding” (or was it a “spanking”? I forget because as a Latino he frequently resorts to figurative corporal punishment with his subjects; hide the chanclas).

By definition, civil disobedience is illegal. That is not the question here. Nor is it a question that these youth are unauthorized to be here or “illegal.” It is not even a question for many, Navarrette included, whether DREAMers should get some form of authorized status, if not full citizenship. The question has been the method, civil disobedience, but no one who has responded to Navarrette has even touched that issue. 

A quick aside, Navarrette has been a writer for a long time and his views in favor of immigration reform are easily available. He is really transparent about his biases, a law and order, traditional family values, capitalistic moderate, who has experienced his share of ethnic bias, making him sensitive to laws that systematically exclude groups primarily on the basis of their origins. He is in favor of immigration reform that provides some form of legal status for immigrants who are here crime-free, but without authorization. In short, he is like most Latinos. He is also an opinion columnist, and in this great treatise from Malcolm Gladwell, the best-selling New Yorker writer, we see that we all have opinions, but the key is to be aware of when those opinions lead to bias. Navarrette jokingly asserts that his columns are “dripping” with bias, but in reality, the man has strong opinions, based on thoughtful reasoning, and being aware of his biases is actually an advantage that allows him, or anyone for that matter, to construct a good argument. It is here where the college professor in me has noted the woeful shortcomings of those who try to refute Navarrette, even other college professors.

At the most base level, people have launched epithets toward Ruben about his weight, intelligence, and compassion. These types of ad hominem attacks can be satisfying in the moment, but they do little more than prove the point that brash, in your face tactics do little to further a cause. Individuals have also attacked his politics, as if that alone would be a reason to discredit his argument. He has been called a Republican and a Tío Tomas, the Latino version of an Uncle Tom, but there is little evidence of this in the history of his writing as he frequently takes Republicans to task and is not reluctant to call those in power to task, even if it means he may suffer as a result. What kind of Tío Tomas would do that? The more content-minded critics of Navarrette have approached him as a straw man, trying to argue for why we should offer an amnesty to DREAMers, but as I mentioned before, this was never the original point. Navarrette is for immigration reform that is in line with most advocates of the DREAM Act.

So, it has taken about a thousand words to get here, but the argument is about the effectiveness of civil disobedience as a method for achieving social change and the answer is not clear one way or the other. Even the very left American Civil Liberties Union, offers arguments both in favor and against the approach. DREAMers have made comparisons of their efforts to the Civil Rights movement, in which civil disobedience was part of the strategy. While not a perfect comparison, let’s consider the point: Martin Luther King’s speech at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial was given with a permit. James Meredith had the Supreme Court and police escorts in his favor as he entered the University of Mississippi. Cesar Chavez’s hunger strike broke no laws and affected no one directly, but himself. While we romanticize Rosa Parks, and this is not meant to diminish her spontaneous act, much social change happens through legal channels, especially when what is ironically being argued for is legal status.

I am not trying to defend Navarrette. He can do that for himself. I am arguing for substantive debate. So, please consider the actual points being made and the potential consequences. I think the outpouring of opinion is wonderful; Latinos have really arrived in terms of having political opinions that are aired. Now let’s just make sure they are well thought out and productive, rather than reactionary and trivial. We will all benefit from such a true open exchange.