Transnationalism Appears Again!

We next heard from Mark Krikorian, from the Center for Immigration Policy, author of The New Case Against Immigration. Of all the speakers, he presented the most academic sounding case, although I may only believe this because he cited my favorite sociologist, Peggy Levitt, and her book that I've used in several projects, The Transnational Villagers. In general, he seemed to pull from a data bank with which I am familiar, which gave him credibility in my mind. Even though we interpreted the facts differently, we seemed more or less to agree on the facts about immigration.

Most of the attendees who had trouble with his speech disliked his first point: as far as impact on society goes, documented or undocumented status. (Well, he used the terms "legal" and "illegal," but the "illegal" comes from the manner of entry: a person cannot be illegal. Only an action can.) According to Krikorian, low-skilled immigration provides the real threat. Low-skilled immigrants come into a modern society and they are farther behind this society than their 19th and 20th century counterparts. On a federal level at least, documented immigrants "cost" the government 3x as much as undocumented, because of taxes withheld and services not available.

At this point, I felt like cheering. I was sitting with people who thought that pressing 1 on the phone for English was a hardship imposed by illegal immigration -- something I had thought was a joke made only by Stephen Colbert, funny due to hyperbole.

Next, Krikorian explained why mass immigration proves a problem. Our society can no longer absorb immigrants the way it used to. He did not make a distinction between the types of people or their attitudes in modern versus historical immigration -- also points in his favor. The first reason he gave for an immigration problem was my favorite concept in immigration: transnationalism! He transported me momentarily back to some of my favorite sociology classes as he explained how modern technology provides the opportunity for immigrants to live in two worlds. The idea behind transnationalism is that immigrants, or rather migrants, belong to both the sending and the receiving communities and are shaped and shape both. Krikorian argued that modern technology which allows transnationalism to happen changes the experience of immigration.

Next, he claimed that our society as changed towards "multiculturalism," and thus it is "unsuited" to assimilate people. We have lost our self-confidence as an American people. We no longer say the Pledge in school. We celebrate cultures, but no Americana. This means immigrants will, as far as I could tell, make our culture fall apart.

Here, I found nativism couched in the clothes of modern understandings of immigration. He sounded good, but he made the mistake of assuming that we have an ideal "American" culture, which is by default good and worthy of protection. Who can define this culture? If you can, explain to me why immigrants threaten it.

Finally, Krikorian advocated against "comprehensive immigration reform." We do not need to grant amnesty, nor do we need to increase legal routes for immigration. Instead we should ask "who should we allow into America?" what he called "zero-based budgeting." And he told us who: families (spouses and children of citizens only), a certain number of high-skill immigrants, and humanitarian refugees who have no other location to go and no chance of resettlement in their home. These groups would bring 400,000 immigrants a year to the United States.

From the Mouths of Babes

Walking out of church today, I overheard a cute blonde girl talking to her mother:

"Why does he speak Spanish?"

"Because that's what his mommy and daddy taught him."

Problem solved.

How much better the world would be if we could all see it that simply! Regardless of questions of documentation, how many immigrants should come to the US, and what they should be doing, the fact remains: learning a foreign language is hard. And while it's impractical to convert everything to Spanish or whatever language area immigrants speak, perhaps we could all be more patient and understanding if we remembered that the reason immigrants speak Spanish (or another language) is the same reason we Anglophones speak English: it's what our mommies and daddies taught us.

The Borders of Our Lives

Since I started this at school, it only makes sense to include some of the highlights from my last weeks here. Now that I have turned in my final paper as an undergraduate, I have a few spare moments.

Two Wednesdays ago, my favorite class, Latino/a Migration, co-hosted a community forum on immigration and border issues. We've had a sister class all semester who were the other half of the co-host: Life on the Hyphen. They get the cool name, which has made me jealous all semester, but we speak English and are not Literary and Cultural Studies, which gives us infinite points. Both classes had worked in research groups to study some aspect of migration within Williamsburg; a group from both classes had gone to the US-Mexico Border over spring break.

Our professors put together the forum so that the people who had traveled to the border could present the projects they had done based on their experiences. As the other groups interviewed community members, we invited them to the forum.

We hoped to spark dialogue in the Williamsburg community about immigration -- the city does a good job at making people invisible, and while there is some safety in staying hidden, there is also a problem in allowing part of your population to be an invisible people, especially when they are a vulnerable people.

The thing that got me was that only the border groups presented. That placed the focus of the forum far away, in Arizona and Mexico, rather than right here in the 'burg. Maybe I'm too impatient and eventually, if this class happens again, they'll be ready to say what they find about Williamsburg. Maybe this only needs to spark a dialogue, and starting far away can help do just that. Also, I don't know who attended this forum: whether we were speaking to people already knowledgeable in this area, or if we were opening people's minds.

Conclusion of my life: I want to know more and see what happens from here.