Transcript Immigration, Naturalization, and Latino Empowerment

Immigrant Naturalization
and Immigrant Settlement
Political Science 61 /
Chicano/Latino Studies 64
November 29, 2007
Exam

Second exam – December 6, 2007



Goals




In class
Not cumulative, but you can bring examples from the first
half of class
Analysis and comparison – essay
Reward for careful reading of assigned readings –
identifications
Balance between sections
Essay question in advance?
From Last Time
Immigration Reform and the
Opportunities for Cross-Group
Alliances
Short-Term Goal of
Protests Met


Criminalization provisions of HR 4437
quickly left the debate
… at some cost



700 miles of wall authorized
$4.4 billion (most not appropriated)
Also, took key mobilizing issue from
protest organizers

Low turnout in May 1, 2007 protests
Long-Term Significance Great
For Latino Community

Positive – Legalization



Engine of empowerment and electoral growth
Provides added protections for U.S.-born family members
Negative – Legally recognized temporary status


The longer it continues, the more it creates a legal
underclass that becomes central to the economy (and
shifts the position of capital in immigration debates)
The more it is likely to divide Mexican America/Latino
communities internally
Issue Less Salient in Asian
American Communities


Smaller share of Asian immigrant population
is unauthorized
Unauthorized population composed
differently



Short-term visa over-stayers
Indentured labor
New “point system” would benefit higher
share of potential Asian immigrants
Also, Not Likely to Build
Alliances with African Americans

Leadership of African American organizations



See immigration as a civil rights issue
Generally supportive of “reform”
At the mass level



Support less clear
Economic cost of immigration paid disproportionately by
low-skilled urban workers
Growth in Latino population reduces Black electoral
power at the local level (remember readings on
Villaraigosa mayoral races)
Conclusions

Advocates of various reforms increasingly seeing
status quo as better than change




Enforcement advocates fear legalization as a lesson for
the future
Legalization advocates fear new enforcement, fines,
touchback, and bureaucratic requirements
Business leaders see that enforcement remains
sporadic (so they don’t have to fear loss of labor)
People who pay price for status quo: 12 million
unauthorized immigrants
Today’s Lecture
Immigrant Naturalization and
Immigrant Settlement
Naturalization Primarily Issue
for Latinos / Asian Americans

Percent of adult citizens who are naturalized
(2004):





Anglo – 2.6%
Black – 3.8%
Latino – 24.8% (3.3 million)
Asian American – 62.3% (2.9 million)
Total number of naturalized citizens (2005):
14.9 million
Percent Citizen and NonCitizen Among Adults (2004)
100
90
80
70
Citizen
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Noncitizen
Anglo
Black
Latino
Asian
American
Naturalization Steadily on
the Increase


Lagged response to increase in immigration after
1965 immigration act
Not a linear increase however (doesn’t keep up
with immigration)

Threats generally increase demand for naturalization




Proposition 187/Welfare Reform in mid-1990s
HR 4437 and anti-immigrant rhetoric today
Community resources to help immigrants naturalize also
increase in these periods
Naturalization will stay high for foreseeable future

But, 8 million eligible immigrants have not naturalized
Naturalization, 1976-2005
Naturalization:
Opportunities and Barriers

Immigrants’ perspectives



Do immigrants want to naturalize?
Why do immigrants interested in naturalization
not naturalize?
Government perspective


Who should be offered citizenship?
What characteristics should they have?
Do Immigrants Want to
Naturalize?

Best evidence – answer is yes

Just 15 percent of all Latino adults report no
interest in naturalizing

Among eligible Latino immigrants



8.7 percent say naturalization “not very important”
3.8 percent say naturalization “not at all important”
No reliable attitudinal data on Asian immigrants,
but

Asians immigrants who naturalize do so soon after they
become eligible
Behavioral Evidence

Latino immigrants

Approximately, 2/3 of eligible have done
something concrete to naturalize



Taking English classes to prepare for exam
Taking civics classes to prepare for exam
Yet, only half of those who try, succeed
Why the Gap?

Confusion



Bureaucracy





Fear of consequences of failure
Concern about loss of home-country citizenship
Form complex
INS/BCIS impenetrable
Bureaucracy expects steady flow of applicants,
immigrants apply in response to threats
Cost
Absence of community-level assistance

Naturalization works best as a community-wide
experience
Who Should be Offered
Citizenship?

Statute



Five years legal residence
Not limited by gender after 1922, race/ethnicity
after 1952
Required skills/characteristics




1790
1795
1906
1950
–
–
–
–
good moral character
renounce former allegiances
speaking knowledge of English
reading and writing knowledge of English
Statute Isn’t the Primary
Barrier, Implementation Is

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
/ Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services (BCIS)




Decentralized
“N” / “S” often gets lost to enforcement functions
Not antagonistic, but also not helpful
Doesn’t respond well to pressure
Naturalization: Overview

Immigrants interested in pursuing citizenship


Formal requirements relatively minimal


Many more start than finish
But they have steadily increased in the 20th
Century
U.S. government doesn’t promote citizenship
and INS/BCIS hinders
Immigrant Settlement: Does
Government Play a Role?

Yes

Education, a resource for young immigrants and
the second generation



English as a Second Language (outside California)
Non-needs-based social-welfare programs and
insurance programs
… and No


Immigrants excluded from many needs-based
social welfare programs after 1996
Limited support for naturalization promotion
U.S. Comparison to Other
Immigrant-Receiving Countries

Somewhere in the middle

Canada




State promotion of multiculturalism
State encouragement of naturalization
Immigrants eligible for government assistance
programs
Germany



Difficult for immigrants to naturalize
Children of guest-workers not eligible for citizenship
Immigrant financial assistance only for ethnic Germans
Settlement Policy

U.S. has never thought comprehensively
about developing policy to incorporate new
immigrants



Left largely to the states and, mostly to the
private sector
Liberal naturalization policy and civil rights,
otherwise sink or swim
Opportunity to link the interests of Latinos
and Asian Americans (and other
immigrant/ethnic populations)
What Would this Policy
Arena Look Like?

Needed resources for incorporation






Adult English language training
Job training/re-training
Short-term voting rights
Revisit 1996 Welfare Reform
Promotion of dual-citizenship
Tensions



Cost
Native-born American perception that their ancestors
made it on their own and today’s immigrants should also
Link between citizenship and voting rights
Costs of Neglect High

Multigenerational failure to incorporate
immigrants and their children



Europe is now facing
Consequence in U.S. potentially much higher
because of size and diversity of immigrant
population
Unintentional resource for intergenerational
immigrant incorporation: 14th Amendment

U.S.-born children of immigrants are citizens
regardless of parent’s status
For Next Time
Please bring a possible ID from the
readings since the midterm to class
Marta Tienda and her colleagues speak of
the Hispanic future (and, by extension,
the minority future) as an “uncertain
destiny.”




Why?
What public policies need to be implemented
today to ensure that “uncertain” becomes an
empowered future?