Immigration the Impact of Immigration

Immigration

The Impact of Immigration on the United States Economy

Demographic Consequences:

American identity has historically centered on the ethnocentric proclivities of its ruling classes, which are generally constituted of white descendents of European settlers. The result is a nation in which socioeconomic, political and experiential realities are shaped significantly by ethnic background. Thus, even as immigrant groups arrive in the U.S. In numbers that are altering the general demographic makeup of this nation, the American identity continues to revolve on the myth of the white Christian man. A reality which emerges in our research is that America is in one regard moving ever closer to its rhetorical claims of a pluralistic society. But with the steady arrival of peoples from all parts of the developing world -- more frequently than not of non-white racial makeup -- there is a relative disconnect between demographic realities and the core expectations of the American identity. As the discussion in this chapter will demonstrate, largely through a consideration of the Hispanic experience in the United States, this disconnect is the edifice to a system that is unequal in myriad and problematic ways.

This remains so even as a shift in the ethnic makeup of those arriving in the United States -- initiating in the early 1980s and continuing to present day -- has a significant bearing on the racial proportion of the American population. As Takaki remarks "this emerging demographic diversity has raised fundamental questions bout America's identity and culture. In 1990, Time published a cover story on 'America's Changing Colors.' 'Someday soon,' the magazine announced, 'white Americans will become a minority group.' How soon? By 2056, most Americans will trace their descent to 'Africa, Asia, the Hispanic world, the Pacific Islands, Arabia -- almost anywhere but white Europe.'" (Takaki, 2)

This helps to quantify a condition in which the perception of that which it means to be 'American' must increasingly be adjusted. One of the major reasons for the transition in immigration patterns is the process of globalization which in recent decades has attempted to draw those nations of the 'developing' world into a single global economy. As a result, nations in Latin America, Asia and the Middle East are increasingly playing a major role in the global economic scheme and in the demographic distribution of those in search of opportunity. This is opening the door to the United States for those arriving in search of specific market opportunities such as for the countless Indian immigrants arriving with specialized technology training; for those arriving as part of the formulation of a growing labor class such as those leaving Mexico in search of better wages in the U.S.; and for those escaping political strife in embattled regions of the world such as the Middle Easterners and Africans making their homes in America.

As noted in the first chapter of our discussion though, this is not a trend which has been received with enthusiasm by all sectors of the U.S. population. As the United States has experienced a well-publicized and hotly debated inundation of new citizens, its public leadership has remained statistically slanted to the advocacy of those in the hegemonic class. Here we turn to the example which will dominate our research in proportion to the way that it dominates the domestic conversation on immigration. The continuing wave of Hispanic demographics to the U.S., incited by the proliferation of free trade and the promise of a more vibrant economy in the United States, has inclined a continually intensifying arrival of Spanish-speaking citizens to the most robust employment market on the North American continent. This has been met with both resistance, mostly founded on American labor class presumptions of increased job competition, and with excitement, generally held by those who recognize the overarching economic opportunities present in such swelling immigration patterns. The immigration policies in the United States have been elevated to amongst the premier social and political issues of the day.

At the heart of the issue's importance are the economic realities driving so many individuals to seek opportunity in a United States which is only fitfully receptive to the absorption of so many foreign born peoples. The fastest growing of such groups is America's Hispanic population, which is increasingly establishing a pertinent demographic identity in the U.S. As a result of its sheer size. So denotes Cisneros (2009), who refutes the idea that it is even feasible to stem this tide of arriving immigrants given many of the broader patterns of globalization and economic ambition that have led to the influx from parts South of the U.S. The Cisneros article reports that "according to the most recent Census Bureau projections, about 60% of total U.S. growth will come from the Latino population -- that's almost 100 million additional people. One in four Americans will be Latino. This holds true even if the border fence that Congress and the Bush administration authorized proves impenetrable -- which is highly unlikely." (Cisneros, 1)

And as the population of Hispanics continues to rise, so too does their presence in locations where previously, ethnic diversity had not been a defining characteristic. This means that at present, immigration is helping to redefine the cultural and social makeup of many parts of the country, especially those where agricultural and production-oriented labor are central to the economy. To this end, as it redefines ethnic or racial realities in the United States, immigration also levels a determinable impact on the economic systems in place. By considering its interaction with legal, educational and labor-oriented opportunities, this part of the discussion will point to broader questions concerning the relationship between current immigration trends and the likely outlook for the future of the American economy. Although some research suggests that the increasing number of immigrants hurts the natives and local economy by increasing unemployment and decreasing the minimum wage, there are many more points of evidence that show that immigrants do not affect the native and local economic condition; rather, they bring diversity and vitality to local communities.

Hispanics are one of the fastest growing demographics in the United States. Patterns of immigration, especially from Mexico, have led to a dramatic upsurge in the population of Hispanic-Americans. In urban industrial centers and rural regions alike, immigration draws many Hispanic groups to enter the United States in search of employment or greater opportunity. As a result, Hispanic immigration presents a trend which directly contrasts that in white and European-descended demographics, such as noted by Cisneros (2009). Cisneros points out that "if demographics is destiny, consider this: there are roughly eight Latino births for every death, whereas white births and deaths are nearly even. While more-homogenous developed countries like Japan, Italy, France and Germany are aging rapidly, this Latino baby boom could be a major engine of growth for the United States." (Cisneros, 1)

In one sense, this is because the close proximity of Latin America to the United States and the increasingly lax lines of separation promoted by globalization between neighboring countries is increasing the demographic presence of Hispanics in the U.S. Indeed, in a self-proclaimed plurality such as the United States, Hispanic culture has come to occupy a significant and salient part of our collective public life, linguistic heritage and cultural makeup. In many ways pertinent to both our past and present, Hispanic culture is a definitively important strand of American identity. Thus, it is ironic to say the least that this proliferating group remains so poorly represented in our political culture, as will be explored later in this account.

And naturally, in a nation with the troubling racial history of the United States, it is unsurprising to say the least that many Hispanics feel either disenfranchised from the democratic process or they feel themselves isolated from the broader culture of the U.S. As a whole. This is a condition, however, which is more than likely to change in the face of current population patterns that suggest Hispanics are arriving to this nation in numbers to great to ignore. To this point, a report issued by the U.S. Census Bureau denotes that "the nation's Hispanic population increased 1.4 million to reach 45.5 million on July 1, 2007, or 15.1% of the estimated total U.S. population of 301.6." (Bernstein, 1) This makes the collective group identified as being Hispanic the single largest 'minority' population in the United States, outnumbering African-Americans by roughly 5 million people and serving as the largest minority group in 20 states, as opposed to the 24 where this is true of the black population. (Bernstein, 1) These conditions help to demonstrate a clear, visible and growing population that in specific areas is even large enough to constitute a cultural hegemony in communities and regions where that presence is dominant. This includes parts of California, Texas, Florida and New Mexico, the last of which sees Hispanics as occupying 44% of the population. (Bernstein, 1)

When represented in numbers such as this, the label of minority begins to appear as inappropriate. And quite indeed, this idea of the Hispanic as a minority group in the United States is a concept itself based in prejudicial reasoning. We can see that minority status has far less to do with population size, and instead seems very much to be inclined by race, ethnicity and political power instead. This label of minority status is in many ways used as a tag by which certain groups are detained from political unity or effectiveness.

To a large degree, this is a condition which relates to the nature of the Hispanic demographic, which in spite of its cultural diversity, is typically perceived by the larger American public as a single unified entity. This is both untrue and reflects the ethnocentric qualities of the white American political body that have tended to relegate the Hispanic population to representation that is not proportional to its true presence here. Indeed, "although Mexican-Americans continue to be the largest group within the Latino population, increasing immigration from other Latin American means they are perhaps the most culturally diverse population in the United States, representing 17 distinct nationalities and cultures of Latin America." (Munoz, 1) Given that each group represents its own ethnic minority in the U.S., the splintering effect that this has on their political unification can be stultifying, limiting the ability of the 'Hispanic demographic' to achieve a shared set of electoral priorities, to project shared candidates and to gain full representation on policy decisions impacting Hispanics directly.

In spite of the growth which the demographic has enjoyed, its overall status is still one of a minority. This means that many of the social, cultural and economic structures giving foundation to impulses for entrepreneurial expansion are less accessible and even more willfully resistant to the entrance of those viewed as ethnic minorities. Such is especially evident in settings where a predominantly Caucasian business community shares a reciprocal relationship with the social hierarchy that has long been a presence in many parts of the U.S. This is creating a number of strains on the Hispanic cultural community which are being addressed through a combined strategy of unity and political activeness.

Chapter 3: Public Sector Consequences:

The previous chapter discusses the demographic realities which suggest that immigration populations are growing at such a rate that these will soon far outnumber the white American who is seen to define the nation's ethnic identity. The example of the Hispanic demographic reveals that such groups are often subjected to minority status implications, particularly in terms of public representation and access to public services. This owes dually to America's resistance to the presence of immigrants and to its tendencies toward economic status as a function of race.

The tax laws which apply to immigrants throughout the United States have a direct bearing on the political and socioeconomic status of the American Hispanic community. In the federal forum, "the creation of the TAX ID number (ITIN) in 1996 by the IRS was aimed at collecting income tax from those people who do not have Social Security Numbers." (Mejia, 3) This would effect the American immigrant population insofar as many of its theretofore undocumented immigrants, though not in possession of the legal right to work, would still be faced with a responsibility to pay taxes. For many of those aspiring to open businesses or achieve legalized status, there is an incentive to paying taxes, with the fulfillment of this responsibility improving chances at citizenship. Small business owned by Hispanics and individual citizens have exercised an increasing presence in the tax-burden of the American public budget.

Still, according to a report published by Watson (2006), "the Hispanic community is the largest non-banking population in the United States, according to a federal agency, and also happens to be the fastest-growing." (Watson, 1) This has precipitated a circumstance in which many of America's Hispanic citizens function with cash only. There is a sizeable underground economy in the nation's collective Hispanic communities, where producers, suppliers, employers and employees all work with cash as a measure of remaining undetectable to American immigration officials. This is an economic duality which may only be addressed by refining immigration laws to establish parity between employment and tax policies. At present, the incongruity is creating a lost economic opportunity which could be reinvested in America's always increasing need for a diversity of Spanish-speaking services and the apparent want in the economy for the labor which the Hispanic immigrant groups bring to the market.

Over the last decade, the United States economy would become increasingly dependent upon Hispanic labor, as illustrated in a comment by former U.S. president George W. Bush. Speaking before the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, he noted that "the unemployment rate amongst Hispanics has dropped to 5.7%, a figure still too high -- but that is down from 8.4% over the past two years" (Bush, 1) This rapid improvement appears to reflects the overall success of Hispanics at entering and contributing to the economy through employment. As we will address later in the course of this discussion however, unemployment among this group is decidedly relative given the degree to which this immigrant population is notoriously undocumented. This makes figures on the subject of employment reliable only with respect to legally documented immigrants, a perspective that excludes consideration of a statistically significant demographic.

Still, immigrant groups from Latin America are beginning to make inroads into America's important small business culture, which serves as an avenue for community leadership and the type of political influence necessary to harness the benefits present in the public sector. To this end, the widespread presence of independent contractors, which embodies a popular conception of the Latino immigrant community, is being complemented by a rising culture of ownership. In the United States at large, a 2005 released Consensus Bureau report estimated that between 1997 and 2002, "Hispanic-owned businesses jumped 31% to 1.6 million." (Hoover, 1) This is a decidedly positive indicator that suggests increasingly more Hispanic immigrants are finding advantages to becoming taxable and documented citizens of the U.S. That notwithstanding, growth patterns of recent decades have created a mixed set of conditions for its Hispanic immigrants which stands in the way of the desire for or event the accessibility of citizenship.

In numerous regards though, the U.S. is still very much a racially homogenized country which has fostered many institutions, social patterns and political strategies intent upon obstructing the advancement of Hispanic entrepreneurialship. This is a difficult cross-section of circumstances under which many Hispanic business owners continue to improve prospects for their communities and organizations while attempting to combat sometimes virulent forms of economic exclusion. And yet, as many Hispanic political activists or public representatives have come to acknowledge, it is only through a unity that crosses over national and ethnic borders within the U.S. Hispanic population that the group will be able to seize on its ample political potential. In some contexts, where projections suggest that Hispanics are likely soon to occupy an utterly dominant population ratio, it becomes even clearer that there is a value in this unity. For instance, "according to the demographic estimates of the U.S. Census Bureau, Latinos will become the majority population of California by the mid 21st Century and the largest ethnic and racial group in the United States." (Munoz, 1) This means that the idea of Hispanics as a minority population is not only no longer applicable, but in such contexts as California, it is increasingly becoming understood that its implications are inherently motivated by racial inequality. It is thus the extent to which political unity is possible between Hispanics of differing national origins that motivates the catch-all terminology at least within Hispanic cultures. Any allowance of this label and its tendencies to diminish the relevance of national cultural differences may be regarded as a carefully conceived device for political coalescence.

In spite of this, the political orientation of the Hispanic population continues to present us with an extremely mixed outlook. There is no question that the needs and concerns of Hispanic populations are extremely important on the political landscape. Truly, for their personal investment in issues relating to labor laws, immigration standards, naturalization processes and free trade laws within the Americas, Hispanics do register as crucial targets in any political contest. Political candidates have demonstrated a keen awareness of their growing organizational influence, as denoted by the positions aforementioned and attributed to Senator McCain and President Obama respectively. Such candidates have publicly reflected on the need to define with consistency and sensibility America's policy on immigration, which especially where Latin American immigrants is concerned, remains problematically undefined. Nonetheless, it is a highly politicized concern. This is evidenced by the Garcia (1996) source, which reports that "in presidential elections, in particular, political candidates have taken special care to appeal to the Hispanic vote since Hispanics are concentrated in five key states - California, New York, Florida, Texas, and Illinois - states that together comprise over half of the electoral vote majority needed for election to the presidency." (Garcia, 1) the scale of the population makes it one which no candidate can afford to overlook and the direct relationship which the population has to some of the above-mentioned policy issues means that in such contexts, candidates will make it their purpose to cater where appropriate to dominant Hispanic demographics, particularly on a state electoral level.

And yet, the idea of the Hispanic population voting in a bloc, in much the same way as do minorities such as African-American, Jewish or gay voters, remains elusive and unlikely. Owing of course at the root to the fact that the Hispanic population is not homogenous, but is derived of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Dominican and Cuban immigrants just to name a dominant few, we find that different backgrounds have produced differing political proclivities. In spite of the unity either foisted upon Hispanics by their shared racial relegation or by their collective efforts at representation, this remains an unusually splintered political population. As our research tells of Hispanics, "they are perhaps the most diverse group in the U.S. Hispanics trace their ancestry to twenty-two different nations, and their experiences in the U.S. are just too different. Some Hispanics can trace their family's presence in the United States back several centuries, while others are first-generation immigrants." (Garcia, 1) the result of this condition is that the Hispanic population is consisted of a number of characteristics which inherently limit the impact of political participation.

Not the least amongst these reasons is the reality of immigration in the United States. Due to a lack of clarity in its laws, an often obstructive path to citizenship and the overarching condition of economic disparity that frequently finds Hispanic immigrants working in America under temporary or illegal status, many Hispanics which make up this enormous population simply cannot or will not vote. As the Garcia text notes, this has significantly blunted the electoral impact of a population which is proportionally much larger than its representation. Accordingly, Garia reports that "in the November 1988 election, for example, fifty-two percent of all Hispanics legally in the U.S. did not vote because they were ineligible. (the illegal population, estimated by the Census Bureau to be 1.7 to 2.9 million people - the majority believed to be Hispanic - cannot vote in U.S.. elections, of course.)" (Garcia, 1) ]

This suggests that the degree of its participation may not be reflective of the populations desire for political representation, and may instead suggest an institutionalized context in which immigration restrictions are preventing this ethnic group from achieving a commensurate level of ethnic representation in the U.S. government. In one regard, it would be unrealistic to view this as a totally unintentional byproduct of legislative processes. There is most certainly a reciprocal relationship between the poor treatment afforded Hispanic immigrants by way of poorly defined policy and the disinclination of these same groups from participating proportionally in either voting or holding office.

Certainly, one of the causes for this that emerges even beyond the inequities of our law is the relative inconsistency of their political orientation. Indeed, it is often quite well understood that in America's two party electoral system, certain ethnic groups have long-standing historical ties to certain parties. The liberal inherencies of the modern democratic party, for instance, have drawn more typically leftists minority groups such as African-Americans and Jewish voters in majority numbers. Likewise, the conservative posture of the Republican party has drawn it high levels of support amongst religious Christians and many working class white voters. No simple affiliation can be established concerning the Hispanic population, which across the last three presidencies, has shown a clear proclivity toward democratic voting but which nonetheless is divided significantly enough to be demonstrative of a multifaceted political orientation. Though high levels of Hispanic support would help both Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama coast to victories on leftist platforms, the conservative Bush would also perform well in this area. Though his Hispanic voting numbers do not compare to those of his democratic counterparts, Bush would enjoy a degree of support amongst Hispanics which would make them his strongest minority voting bloc as a whole.

Accordingly, we find that "in 1992, there were 22.4 million Hispanics in the United States and 5.1 million voted, of whom 61% voted for Democrat Bill Clinton. Those figures increased in 2000 to 33.3 million Hispanics, 7.5 million of whom voted and 35% of whom voted for Republican George W. Bush. Currently, there are 44 million Hispanics, and in the election last November 12.1 million of them voted, of whom 9.7 million, or 80%, voted for Obama." (Agencie EFE, 1) These voting patterns denote that at the very least, Hispanic voters have taken part in elected the last three American presidents. And especially in Bush's cases, where the involvement of a minority group might seem unlikely to say the least, it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that in the context of his very slim electoral victories, the Hispanic vote would be more than decisive.

Even still, there is cause to believe that the attention paid to this important group during electoral season is, similar to much of the campaign process as a whole, inherently diversionary where the issues of primary importance to Hispanic communities are concerned. The media is, among other parties, guilty of perpetuating an approach to this political demographic that underscores the policy disregard to which Hispanics are often treated. Though many outlets exist for Spanish speaking media in the United States, these outlets are very typically accorded far less resource than that which is available to mainstream and English speaking media. And here, many Hispanic political activists have levied the complaint "that the mainstream media focuses more on the spectacle of a politician campaigning in Hispanic areas -- and on the fiestas and cultural notes that they hit -- than on the pressing issues that face Hispanics and are at stake in their political choices." (Portada, 1) Given the sheer enormity of the immigration issue, and the degree to which many crucial areas of Hispanic-American life remain below acceptable standards, this misdirection can be damaging to the process by which this group seeks its representation.

And yet, today, a positive transition is underway, concurrent with the change in government from Bush to Obama. Though Bush would enjoy positive support amongst Hispanics, his administration's hardline tactics against immigration would prove an alienating stance, beginning a new and stronger association between Hispanic voters and the newly progressive presidency. So would this be clearly noted by one Hispanic Democratic adviser, who noted that "Hispanics will become empowered not just because of their increased numbers. 'A large part of what is shaping is not just the numbers and when the sleeping giant is going to awake, but it really is affecting the way Democrats are talking, and they are talking from a position of strength and moral obligation.'" (Ratcliffe, 1)

Even still, today the Hispanic population remains one with a significant degree of growth potential ahead of it. According to numbers compiled in 2007, with 29 million Hispanic adults counted in America, only 13 million of these were registered to vote. This means that quite a significant ratio of Hispanic voters remains disconnected from a political process with direct bearing on these individuals. (NDN, 1) With the issues facing the United States in its southbound neighbor, and with Mexico contributing roughly two-thirds of all Hispanic immigrants to the United States population, the importance of Hispanic involvement in the American political process is absolutely tantamount to the demographic's elevation of economic, social and educational status here within.

Chapter 4: Public Service Consequences:

As noted in the previous chapter, many of the disadvantages suffered by immigrant groups in the United States are a product of legal exclusions. In the United States, and especially on regional and municipal levels where local cultural prejudices may win out over more progressive national trends, legislative action has been taken in many ways to stifle advancement opportunities for immigrant groups. A specific act of disenfranchisement that is relevant to our consideration is the effort by many venues to establish institutional conditions that make it more difficult for immigrant populations to participate in the public educational system. By connecting documentation of citizenship with the entitlement to school, some parts of the country are sending a clear message that it is not fair for illegal aliens to obtain the benefits paid for and availed to naturalized citizens such as a public education. However, our research suggests that the decision being rendered by many municipal or statewide referendums to legally obstruct undocumented or illegal school-age immigrants from attending American public schools is in fact an approach to contending with immigration that is as damaging to the prospects of the American economy as it is to the denied individuals. To this end, "a large population of school-age immigrants might appear to add fiscal pressure via added expenditures, even if the subsequent income taxes paid by them in their adulthood and by their native offspring more than compensate for the increased spending." (Auerbach et al., 176)

More than that, it seems wholly irrational to continue to create a class of American citizens which is fundamentally excluded from the benefits of public service or welfare based on poorly defined immigration standards. Regardless of the level of exclusion visited upon such demographics, they are nonetheless widely present in this country and when given unequal opportunity, tend to make their presence known in negative ways. As the Cisneros text reports, in those populations where Hispanic immigrants are most widely present, there are myriad indications that their experience is one of disadvantage, and that its detriment to the economy transcends just this immigrant group. Cisneros finds that, for instance, "in California, the underperformance of Latino students has pushed the state to the bottom of the heap -- 45th among 50 states in educational attainment. On the other hand, if we invest in services that lift Latinos into the middle class, they could become the dynamic heart of a continuing American success story." (Cisneros, 1)

That is an ambition, however, that must face up to a set of deeply entrenched obstacles. For immigrants of all origins, the United States has historically been less-than-hospitable, particularly in terms of cultural adaptation. For Hispanic immigrants, this has taken the form especially of linguistic exclusion and isolation, which in certain contexts, has functioned to limit immigrant access to public services, equal use of the legal system and access to employment. Though it is a popular refrain amongst those who would obstruct immigration opportunities that such groups have a responsibility to learn English if they are to succeed in the American economy, there are even substantial obstacles to this accomplishment which are a reflection of poor public service with respect to immigrant adaptation. As Cisneros reports, "adult Latinos often wait years to be admitted to English classes. Services in America's cities -- where the bulk of Latinos live, work and spend their money -- have deteriorated over the past eight years. Local governments will be even more hamstrung by the current economic crisis. The new administration will need to focus on chipping away at these roadblocks to the middle class." (Cisneros, 1) as we will address hereafter in the chapter relating to the legal policy debate concerning immigration, this is an uphill battle that will pit progressive leadership against entrenched layers of exclusionary practice.

Chapter 5: Technology, Productivity and Economy Consequences:

Certainly, it cannot be denied that the current wave of immigration, the vast majority of it produced by an influx of Mexican laborers, has produced permeating conditions in our collective labor force that have considerably impacted the whole of the economy. Such is to be expected, with illegal aliens alone comprising more than 10 million undocumented inhabitants of the United States. This is not only a statistically significant sum, but it is one that directly relates to the employment of illegal labor. To this end, "according to the Department of Labor, at least half of the nearly 2,000,000 crop workers in the United States are illegal aliens. The cheap labor they provide is crucial to the $30-billion U.S. farm industry." (Parker, 1) This is not only a tremendous sum of labor and money which is annually contributed by the low-cost, high-yield commodity of immigrant farming, but it is also a sociological condition which helps to almost naturally divine the course of our labor force. Indeed, as most labor experts and economists acknowledge, the jobs occupied by these newcomers are seldom those for which native dwellers or naturalized citizens are likely to compete. Quite to the contrary, we are increasingly finding that the jobs filled by immigrants are more often than not those for which these would otherwise be a personnel shortage due to a lack of interest in the work or due to a workforce that is either too educated or too financially invested in its education to consent to subsistence on the agricultural labor market. As Borjas' (1995) research indicates, over the course of the prior three decades, "the relative educational attainment of successive immigrant waves fell dramatically in recent decades." (Borjas, 3) This is a phenomenon the implications of which are twofold. In one regard, it may be accurate to suggest that the United States as a culture has become increasingly difficult to access for outsiders, either for social or economic reasons. Certainly, this is a recurrent point of consideration in the present research. But in another respect, it is also true that the United States has in recent decades become increasingly a destination less specifically for ethic minorities from developed states and more for members of larger national populations from the developing sphere. Mexico's rising influx is a case in point. The lower economic and educational indices in Mexico than in such formerly significant emigre populations as the Soviet Union, East Germany and Japan would help to produce a trend whereby its entrance into the United States would by market inherency place the Mexican labor population at a decidedly low cost to the production or agriculture firm. For those companies seeking to profit primarily off of the domestic employment of cheap labor, undocumented immigrants have served as an attractive source.

To an extent which may be perceived as cynical but is nonetheless consistent with America's historical treatment of immigration populations, it may be argued that this is one of the primary imperatives for failing to effectively establish a consistent path to American citizenship. Namely, by failing to accommodate legal status for those already present in the United States, the government succeeds in creating a class of laborer which is stripped of its rights. These rights might include the formation of unions, access to a living wage or protection from inhumane conditions and hours. For undocumented immigrants, fear of deportation is sufficient to prevent any attempt at defending these rights, making for a cheap and committed source of labor. This contribution to America's productivity has largely paralleled clear patterns in immigration. According to Pitti (1988), "growth has been especially strong among Latino and Asian populations, with the Latino population increasing over fourfold between 1970 and 2000. This increase has been dual in nature, with both legal and illegal immigrants entering the country in significant numbers. 'While the Bracero Program and the entry of countless numbers of undocumented workers have received the most scholarly and journalistic attention, there has been a parallel increase in immigration of Mexicans with permanent visas.'" (Pitti, 5)

Thus, both legal and illegal, such immigrants have become a primary part of the American labor force as a whole. A primary result has been the increasingly embedded presence of this demographic in the over labor outlook. Between 1995 and 2005, the percentage of Hispanic laborers in the overall federal labor class rose from 5.9% to 7.4%, achieving this increase in market share at a rate greater than any other minority group during that time. (Springer, 6) This rising index paralleled a general growth in the American economy, with occupational mobility allowing for the emergence of an Hispanic labor class dominating specific job markets, such as the food services/hospitality industries, independent contract labor and other short-term occupational sectors. Referring to earlier claims concerning the demographic stagnancy of the American white population, this is of a particular economic importance. This is because America's domestic-born baby-boomer generation is currently entering and nearing retirement age, leaving in its wake a generation significantly smaller than itself to serve as the primary source of labor, service and productivity. This demographic imbalance constitutes a genuine threat to America's economic stability, with the influx of immigrants from Spanish-speaking nations emerging as one of the very best paths to balancing our retiree population with our labor population.

We might consider this fact a jumping-off point for addressing the misconception that the flood of immigration is 'taking away jobs' from Americans. Such is a perception not founded in economic reality but perpetrated by the cultural tendencies of many Americans to favor isolation from ethnic 'others'. Far more often, a resistance to immigration is indicative of the proclivity by many parts of the American public to express an outward xenophobia that extends from racialist ideologies. Indeed, as our research has indicated, there is a "close connection between possessing restrictionist immigration attitudes and having an isolationist perspective along a broader array of international issues." (Espenshade, 535) There is only the scantest of genuine founding to this fear, with immigrants in fact more typically not just fulfilling jobs where the need for low cost labor is believed to be present but even more so, are allowing the proliferation of markets.

As indicated by our research, "past immigration has had no obvious impact on native unemployment. It might even have been beneficial for the economy and for native employment to the extent that it acts as a source of flexibility." (Coppel, 5) This is to suggest that the more diversified a labor market is able to behave, the more dynamic its containing economy becomes. In the case of the American economy, the ability to produce agricultural output, skilled contract work and service industry support at a premium cost is allowing for an overall more positive performance in each of these contexts. The result is that immigration is creating a more robust, and therefore more equally beneficial job market for native inhabitants.

Chapter 6: Standard of Living Distinctions:

Before considering segregation patterns as exemplified by the group in question, it is worthwhile to make an academic caveat. In some manner, it may be suggested that are core qualities to the American ethnic experience that incline the individual to desire some degree of enclave settlement. That is, "some scholars have suggested that stable diverse neighborhoods are an exception to the rule in the United States. These scholars argue that diverse neighborhoods are rare because racial attitudes and preferences to live next to individuals of the same race foster self-perpetuating social process that lead to neighborhood succession, rapid population change and 'inevitable resegregation.' (Sandoval et al., 6) This is a theory common amongst academics who resist economic and discrimination-based theories on the subject. However, this is a theoretical framework which from the perspective of this study tends to fully to dismiss important sociological realties regarding American patterns of ethnic disenfranchisement and resistance to the collective advancement of immigrant groups. This is to suggest that there is often a direct correlation between the segregation of a population and its socio-economic disposition.

Indeed, if we may site only one negative economic indicator pertaining to the effects of immigration on the overall American employment outlook, it is "that immigration may have contributed to the increase in wage inequality" that had persisted through the 1980s and that has resurfaced again over the last decade. (Borjas, 3) However, it is with no small degree of import that we note the context of this statement. Certainly, this is far less indicative of a negative effect rendered to our economy by the presence of immigration than it is revelatory of the exploitation which many newcomers can expect upon their entrance into the American economy.

A consideration of such case studies as that offered by Angela Stuesse, which documents the terrible working conditions and the dramatic range of general labor violations that afflict the poultry workers of Mississippi. A part of the country, as hinted at earlier, which has been quite limited to this juncture in its exposure to the current wave of immigration, Mississippi is well-recognized as a historical hotbed for racial bigotry and a distinct inequality for ethnic others. The fact that so many immigrant laborers remain largely undocumented makes them quite ripe for abuses, Stuesse illustrates, as many within this population are unable to resist labor-rights violations, work hazards or other forms of mistreatment, generally for fear that whistle-blowing would result in deportation. Certainly, America's currently restrictive approach to immigration suggests that this fear is well-founded.

And yet, almost invariably, this exploitation is enjoined to an opportunity that is greater than those available in Mexico. Within the context of the research available to us, we may note that "the persistence of relatively high real wages in the United States creates pressure for immigration, legal and illegal, form Mexico. The continuing volatility of the peso reinforces these pressures by contributing to periodic steep declines in Mexican wages." (Hanson et al., 1337) Inclined by natural market forces to turn to the American market, such immigrants will inherently demand a lower sum than will American laborers, particularly if it is there intent to return to Mexico with the earned sum. In fact, this period has had the effect of infusing the Mexican economy with American dollars as migrant laborers arrive home after seasons of lucrative work at what we might consider low wages. This should have long-term consequences that are beneficial to the U.S., as an improved Mexican economy will promote greater partnership between the two nations in documenting and controlling the flow of immigration.

Certainly though, all evidence suggests that at this juncture, the presence of immigrant labor in the United States is directly correspondent to other indicators our economic prosperity. With the intensification of free trade, we have yet to see much evidence that the relocation of production and service industries has any real benefit to the Average American consumer. However, a positive primary result of globalizing forces has been the increasingly embedded presence of this demographic in the American labor force.

The United States economy would become increasingly dependent upon Hispanic labor, and immigrant labor in general, with the perception of the threat to American jobs producing myriad legislative approaches to the matter but registering little interest to employers and organizations benefited from the market pertinence of incoming cheap labor. Amongst the legislative efforts, many opponents of immigration trends have sought to disenfranchise immigrants and to obstruct them from accessing legal citizenship, access to public resources or the opportunity for legal treatment by law enforcement or by the courts.

Even in the midst of integrative progress for most other groups, the seemingly unending flow of Hispanic arrivals has come into contact with a number of social, economic and legal obstacles that have detained them from moving further outside of their often segregated contexts. To this end, though segregation in all neighborhood types experienced a statistically significant downward momentum throughout the 1990s, "Latino majority neighborhoods were the most likely of neighborhood types to be segregated in 2000." (Sandoval, 1) This is to indicate that in the midst of overarching patterns to the contrary, Hispanic immigrants continued to experience some of the lowest levels of integration.

Chapter 7: Immigration Policies:

As a result of the conditions cited in all of the previous chapters, we have reached an economic juncture where the profitability of certain industries actually fully depends on the retention of immigrant labor groups. A seemingly intended byproduct of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), America's relationship with its neighbor to the South as becoming increasingly interdependent. By encouraging American companies to relocate operations to Mexico, NAFTA appears to favor the unfettered exchange of labor forces. And for the United States, it is contended, there is an economic comparative advantage which precipitates that two economies of antithetical scales -- such as in the relationship between the U.S. And Mexico, for example -- will offer balance to one another under the parameters of free trade.

This is an assertion, however, typically assigned as a response to the fear that the diminishing of restrictions on corporate internationalization combined with the lower wages permissible in smaller market economies would have the inevitable effect of moving American jobs to other countries. Ironically, this is a fear far more justified than what which suggests that immigrants in the United States are taking American jobs. In fact, any loss of lower-tiered American jobs in production or agriculture have been outsourced to Mexico and even cheaper markets in Asia Minor and Southeast Asia.

When in 1993, the North American Free Trade Agreement passed through U.S. Congress, it altered relations between the United States and Mexico, encouraging the notion that free trade was intended to place both nations on equal footing, eventually. In the years which have ensued, this is proving to have been flawed logic, however. The comparative advantage to the United States had been represented by the certainty that its capacity to manufacture high-quality goods and services at a more successful rate than other countries in concert with its increased access to international consumer markets would ultimately lead to its acquisition of compensatory economic gains to the loss of its jobs. But this certainly would not be of a benefit to the native American laborer.

The purpose of this part of the discussion is primarily to demonstrate that across the last decade and a half, the United States has appeared to vigorously pursue an agenda of market internationalization that would suggest an inherent economic openness to cross-border labor participation. And indeed, the market economy tends to bear this out, employing so many millions of immigrants as it does. However, America's legal policies tend to represent an altogether different interest. The last two decades, which have seen the greatest influx of Mexican immigrants to date, have also produced some of the most stringent regulations aimed at stymieing this trend with that "enactment of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) launching a new period of restrictions and border militarization. Between 1986 and 1996 the U.S. federal government sought to restrict both documented and undocumented Mexican immigration." (Holt, 865) it was unsuccessful in doing so, with the encouragement of NAFTA establishing an unending flow of laborers into the American economy. During the late 1990s and into the turn of the millennium, the United States remained the top destination in the world for immigrants, bringing in just under 800,000 new inhabitants annually. (Coppel, 8) and during these periods, by no direct connection, the United States enjoyed some of its highest employment rates in modern history.

Thus, it is apparent that resources should be dedicated to helping integrate more seamlessly immigrants into an economy which both requires their work and will benefit from their contributions, especially as we near the retirement age of the Baby Boomer generation. For the first time in history, America's retiree generation will eclipse in size its workforce generation, making the ongoing flood of immigrants to the United States a boon which may in fact be the only thing that ultimately protects the U.S. from an economic tailspin.

And yet, fully in spite of these important economic considerations, today the United States is struggling to determine how best to stem the tide of illegal immigration. At present, the most salient of 'reforms' on the subject is that arguing in favor of a perimeter wall demarcating the line between the United States and Mexico. It is the intent of this project to stifle untracked hopping across incomparably porous borders, but is also raising the hackles of many immigration advocates that, aside from its human rights considerations, view the wall as a foolhardy and costly project that will not only fail to stem the tide of immigrants but will spend money in an effort to prevent its own further opportunity for fiscal return. The benefits presented to the U.S. By immigrants that are either temporary or permanent, explored here in, make it difficult to justify the restrictions, rather than reformations, that seem to extend almost exclusively from American policymakers. Certainly, though immigration has become a commonly accepted part of the labor equation in the United States, it is still highly charged and impractically addressed in the political forum.

But it is important that we consider a strategic shift in the approach taken to dealing with immigration that is conscientious of the economic realities yielded here. The United States has persisted on the behalf of social and cultural tenor to exploit immigrant labor with demonstrating an unmistakable hostility toward incoming immigrants, legal and illegal. Nowhere is this more evident than directly at the Mexican border, with the desire to stymie immigration has precipitated a swell in the violation of human rights that is provided with no meaningful regulatory oversight. The aggressive stance of legislators toward the prevention of illegal immigration has seen myriad unnecessary and even tragic manifestations at the point of confrontation, "especially a sharp increase in mortality among unauthorized migrants along certain segments of the Mexico -- U.S. border. The available data suggest that the current strategy of border enforcement has resulted in rechanneling flows of unauthorized migrants to more hazardous areas, raising fees charged by people-smugglers, and discouraging unauthorized migrants already in the U.S. from returning to their places of origin." (Cornelius, 661) This is to indicate that current immigration efforts at this front have not only failed to deter immigration and have not only allowed for the perpetration of gross human rights abuses, but they have also stimulated even greater effort on the part of those determined to enter the United States to do so without being monitored or detected. The fact that immigrants have been so determinably intimidated by American border patrols and the legislation empowering them may be seen as an ultimately negative economic action, preventing those which could otherwise become documented, legal and tax-paying citizens from ever surfacing on an institutional level in the United States. Thus, if it may be deduced that there is a 'drain' on our economy in which non-taxpaying residents bypass contributions to the system while benefiting from America's higher wages, it may also be argued that this is a subterfuge stimulated by American's institutional hostility toward immigrants.