Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
Michele Waslin
(0 comments, 69 posts)
This user hasn't shared any profile information
Home page: http://immigrationimpact.com
Posts by Michele Waslin
Alabama’s Extreme Immigration Law Could Cost State Billions, Report Finds
05 days ago
Implementing Alabama’s extreme immigration law (HB 56) would be incredibly expensive. That is the bottom line of a new report by University of Alabama economist Samuel Addy entitled A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the New Alabama Immigration Law. According to the report, the law could cost Alabama up to $11 billion in GDP and nearly $265 million in state income and sales tax. The loss includes 1) implementation, enforcement, and litigation expenditures; 2) increased costs and inconveniences for citizens and legal residents and businesses; 3) reduced economic development opportunities because it creates a poor business climate; and 4) the economic impact of reduced aggregate demand due to some unauthorized immigrants leaving and therefore not earning and spending income in the state.
Addy creates an estimate of the costs of HB 56 by using a model that assumes that unauthorized workers vacate jobs in agriculture, construction, accommodation, and food service and that between 40,000 and 80,000 workers earning between $15,000 and $35,000 leave the state. Different estimates are provided for losses of 40,000; 60,000; and 80,000 workers. He concludes that the law would result in:
- A reduction of 70,000 to 140,000 jobs;
- A reduction of $2.3-$10.8 billion in Alabama’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or 1.3-6.2 percent of the stat’s 2010 GDP;
- A reduction of between $56.7 and $264.5 million in state income and sales tax collections;
- A reduction of $20 to $93.1 million in local sales tax collections.
Although HB56’s proponents often claim the bill will bring potential benefits to the state, Addy does not find significant state savings from decreased benefits for unauthorized immigrants. He concludes that unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and are not a drain on the economy. Furthermore, he does not see increased public safety as a likely outcome because unauthorized immigrants are not responsible for disproportionately high crime rates.
Addy also responds to arguments that the new immigration law is responsible for decreased unemployment in the state. Contrary to what proponents of the law are claiming, it does not appear that legal residents and citizens are filling jobs previously held by unauthorized immigrants. Also, in the four sectors that most often employ unauthorized workers (agriculture, construction, lodging and eating establishments), unemployment is not falling.
The report concludes that the costs of the new law are large and certain, while any potential benefits are unclear. “From an economist’s perspective, the question Alabama and its legislature have to ponder is this: Are the benefits of the new immigration law worth the costs.” Based on the work of Addy and others, the answer has to be a resounding “no.”
Photo by Willamor Media.
Romney Uses Restrictionist Code Words to Describe Immigration Policy
01 week ago
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney stole a page from the restrictionists’ playbook this week when he promoted the idea of “self-deportation” during a presidential debate. “If people don’t get work here,” Romney stated, “they’re going to self-deport to a place where they can get work.” Rather than initiate a constructive solution to our nation’s immigration problems, Romney is jumping in bed with immigration restrictionist groups who support policies that tear American families and communities apart, devastate local economies, and place unnecessary burdens on U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants.
Romney’s use of the term “self-deportation” is not at all surprising given his recent collaboration with Kris Kobach, the current Secretary of State of Kansas who continues to serve as chief legal counsel to the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), an arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
Kobach, the self-professed author of several state and local immigration-control bills, advised Romney on immigration during his 2008 presidential bid and has long-promoted the strategy of “attrition through enforcement”— the immigration-control strategy to drive away the unauthorized population by making their lives so miserable that they will choose to “deport themselves” rather than remain in the U.S.
“Attrition through enforcement” laws—like Arizona’s SB1070 and Alabama’s HB56—were explicitly designed to interfere with the everyday activities of immigrants and go far beyond denying unauthorized immigrants work. These laws deny access to housing, school, work, and even water and electricity to anyone who can’t prove legal status. The laws’ supporters have made it clear that making people miserable and encouraging them to leave the state is the intended consequence of their policies.
It’s troubling that a serious Presidential candidate would adopt the code words of extremist immigration control organizations and propose that making people’s lives miserable so that they’ll leave is an acceptable policy goal. By using the term “self-deportation,” Romney is making it clear that he is on board with restrictionists groups’ strategy to force all unauthorized immigrants to leave the U.S., regardless of the time they have spent here, U.S. citizen family members, and their years of tax contributions.
Doesn’t this country deserves to hear more detailed and thoughtful approaches from politicians and policy makers—approaches that offer a way forward rather than divisive and punitive so-call “solutions” to unauthorized immigration?
Photo by Gage Skidmore.
New Report Says Legalization Would Result in $1.4 billion in Revenues for Houston, Texas
02 weeks ago
A new report issued this month by the Greater Houston Partnership (GHP), a business advocacy organization, confirms that legalization of unauthorized workers would result in those workers earning higher wages and paying more taxes. Potential Tax Revenues from Unauthorized Workers in Houston’s Economy uses data from the Pew Hispanic Center to estimate the number of unauthorized immigrant workers, by industry, in the Houston area. Then, assuming that legalized workers would earn the prevailing wage in their industry, GHP estimates their projected incomes to which it applies the standard tax rate.
GHP estimates that, if all unauthorized workers in the Houston region were legalized and they and their employers paid Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and federal income taxes, additional tax revenues would exceed $1.4 billion. The report also demonstrates that even with less than 100% legalization, there are still significant potential revenues. For example, if only 25% acquire legal status, an additional $356.1 million in tax revenues would be generated.
This study examines an important question about what legalizing the currently undocumented would do. However, it does have a few problems stemming from some of the assumptions made about the undocumented population.
The report assumes unauthorized workers and their employers are not currently paying any taxes and that only legalization would require them to pay taxes. However, we know that many undocumented workers and their employers already pay Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, and federal income taxes. Once legalized, many would likely get better jobs with higher wages, not the prevailing wage, meaning they would pay even more in taxes than the report estimates.
The report should also include sales and property taxes which are already paid by unauthorized immigrants right now. The gains from these taxes would also likely increase because legalized workers making higher incomes would spend more on consumption and pay more tax.
Despite those concerns, the new GHP report adds to the literature that legalization is an economic plus for our communities.
Hopefully, this report will encourage more people to look at what immigration brings to an economy as opposed to the usual discussion over how much unauthorized immigrants cost—discussions which often cite dubious sources. Conveniently absent from many of those discussions is the fact that these immigrants are workers, taxpayers, and consumers who benefit the economy in significant ways. More importantly, in contrast to spending billions of dollars on mass deportation, legalization would lead to higher tax revenues and higher consumption which boosts the economy.
Photo by arielp.
ICE Releases Memo Outlining Justification for Making Secure Communities Mandatory
03 weeks ago
An October 2010 ICE memo from ICE Deputy Legal Advisor Riah Ramlogan to ICE Assistant Deputy Director Beth Gibson has finally been made public after a protracted legal battle. The nine page memo, obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation, presents ICE’s legal arguments for making the Secure Communities Program mandatory for all jurisdictions in 2013. This memo overrides and contradicts an earlier ICE memo that argued that S-Comm was not mandatory.
This is the latest chapter in a lengthy debate over whether Secure Communities is mandatory or voluntary. Initially ICE claimed that the program—which runs the fingerprints of individuals booked in local jails through federal databases—was voluntary. However, when states attempted to opt out of the program, they were told that they could not. In August 2011, ICE terminated its Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) with the states, stating that the MOAs were not necessary and that ICE would continue to expand the program unilaterally. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano also clarified that all jurisdictions would be required to participate in Secure Communities by 2013.
For years, immigrant advocates have asked ICE on what legal basis they base making Secure Communities mandatory. The “mandatory memo” now points to three statutes that give the Attorney General the authority to collect and exchange criminal information, establish a cooperative framework between the states and federal government to exchange criminal information, and make the DHS and FBI databases interoperable. The memo also recalls a FY2008 bill that appropriated $200 million for ICE to “improve and modernize efforts to identify aliens convicted of a crime, sentenced to imprisonment, and who may be deportable, and remove them from the U.S. once they are judged deportable…”
None of these statutes, however, mention Secure Communities or create a mandatory program. As UncoverTheTruth.org points out, “the statutes predate Secure Communities by between six and sixty years” making this a “post-hoc justification for a policy” ICE is eager to implement.
The earlier memo voiced concerns that states may raise Tenth Amendment arguments and that a court may find that ICE cannot compel local law enforcement agencies to participate in Secure Communities. The new memo reaches the opposite conclusion, finding that “compelling participation in Secure Communities in 2013 does not raise constitutional concerns.”
It is obvious that ICE has put much time and energy into finding a legal justification for proceeding with their plans to implement Secure Communities in all jurisdictions, regardless of the desires of local jurisdictions. This justification completely ignores the many concerns about the program, including the concerns of the DHS-appointed Secure Communities Task Force, which have still not been addressed. The ultimate question is not whether ICE can make the program mandatory, but should it be mandatory.
Secure Communities has resulted in the deportation of thousands of immigrants with minor criminal records or no criminal records at all; it has jeopardized public safety by eroding community trust in the police; it has resulted in civil rights violations. Expansion of Secure Communities must be seriously re-considered.
Photo by miss mass.
ICE, Local Governments Make Important Changes to Immigration Detainer Policies
03 weeks ago
Despite the ongoing controversy surrounding ICE’s Secure Communities program, there have been some recent positive developments on the issue of immigration detainers—a tool used by ICE and other DHS officials to identify potentially deportable individuals who are housed in jails or prisons nationwide. Local governments in New York, Illinois, California and now Washington D.C. have taken steps to limit their compliance with ICE detainers. Additionally, ICE has recently issued a new detainer form which provides more clarity to local law enforcement agencies.
Due to the expansion of the Secure Communities program, the use of immigration detainers has increased dramatically over the past several years. Detainers are official requests from ICE to local law enforcement agencies that ask them to notify ICE before releasing an individual from custody. Once an individual is identified through the Secure Communities program, ICE may issue a detainer, temporarily detaining an individual so that ICE has the option to take custody.
Immigrant advocates, however, have documented many problems with the use of detainers and numerous lawsuits have been brought forth on behalf of individuals illegally held for long periods of time under detainers. Some cities have been forced to pay thousands of dollars in damages to U.S. citizens illegally held under detainers, and individuals held up to 3 months—far more than the statutory maximum of 48 hours.
Over the last year, New York City; Cook County, IL; and San Francisco, Sonoma, and Santa Clara Counties, CA have announced they will limit their compliance with detainers by proscribing conditions that must be met in order for detainers to be honored. Most recently, city council members in Washington, D.C. introduced Bill 19-585 which would limit non-criminal hold periods to 24 hours, require federal reimbursement for the District’s costs, and only permit the detainment of individuals who have been convicted of dangerous and violent crimes. A January 6 hearing on the bill brought out dozens of city residents and activists in support of the bill.
Additionally, in response to complaints about the lack of clarity around detainers, ICE issued a new detainer form (Form I-237) last month which clarifies that:
- Detainers are a request and are not mandatory.
- Emphasizes that the LEA cannot hold the person for longer than the 48 hour maximum and that the detainer should not impact or prejudice the individual’s conditions of detention.
- Allows ICE to make the detainer dependant on the individual’s conviction rather than an arrest. ICE also requires that individuals receive notice of a detainer issued against them.
- Provides instructions for individuals who have a civil rights complaint regarding the issuance of the detainer.
ICE also announced a new 24/7 toll-free hotline – 855-448-6903 – that individuals being held under a detainer can call if they believe they are U.S. citizens or victims of a crime.
While these changes do not resolve all of the problems regarding immigration detainer policies, they are a welcomed change to lack of clarity that has clouded the issue for too long.
Photo by Lou Oates.
USCIS Seeks to Unify Families Facing Separation through Revised Waiver Process
01 month ago
Today, the administration took another important step toward fixing one of the most notorious problems with our broken immigration system—the 3 and 10 year bars. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today that it was filing a notice of intent to change a rule which would streamline the application process for many relatives of U.S. citizens currently eligible for permanent resident status, thereby minimizing the amount of time that applicants would have to be away from their families before being admitted into the United States.
Under current rules, thousands of people who qualify for legal status must leave the U.S. to obtain their permanent resident status, but as soon as they leave, they are immediately barred from re-entering the U.S. for 3 or 10 years because of their unlawful presence in the United States. Many are eligible for a family unity waiver (which waives the bar to admission if extreme hardship to a spouse or parent can be established), but the way the law is currently implemented, the waiver can only be applied for from overseas That process can often take many months or even years, deterring otherwise eligible applicants from applying for legal status who instead remain unauthorized in the U.S. rather than risk separation from their families. (For more information on 3 and 10 year bar, see this fact sheet by the Immigration Policy Center.)
Under the proposed “in-country processing” rule change, spouses and children of U.S. citizens who apply for residence, but need a family unity waiver to re-enter the United States, will be allowed to apply for the waiver without leaving the U.S. The new rule seeks to help only spouses and children of U.S. citizens, not spouses and children of legal permanent residents, and does not alter or revise the eligibility standards for green cards or waivers. The proposed new rule would only affect persons whose sole need for a waiver is based on having lived in the U.S. without authorization (persons seeking a waiver on other humanitarian grounds must still leave the U.S.)
This “in-country processing” proposal means that USCIS could grant a provisional waiver here in the U.S, and many applicants would not face the same waiting period outside the country. It is important to note that applicants would still be required to depart from the U.S. before receiving final approval and legal status. But eligible immigrants will be encouraged to go through the process rather than remain unlawfully in the U.S.
Although the actual rule change will not go into effect for several months—a “notice of intent” to change the rules governing the adjudication of waivers for the 3 and 10 year bars was published in today’s Federal Register and will be followed by a call for comments and a comment period—the revision will make a huge difference in the lives of many U.S. families.
Applicants currently face long separations from their U.S. citizen family members as well as dangerous situations while they wait. Many waivers are processed in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, a city wracked with violence over the last several years. This small step of allowing these family members to apply for and receive waivers inside the U.S. may save them from long, potentially dangerous separations from their families.
Some may argue that this rule change is an example of the president overstepping boundaries and bypassing Congress to reform the immigration system. These claims are wrong. While Congress writes the laws—including the 3 and 10 year bars—the executive branch decides how to execute the laws through rules and regulations which align with their priorities and current agency resources. The waivers are currently processed overseas because of an administrative rule, and the current administration has every right to change that rule, just as all administrations before them.
The Obama administration is proposing a rule change that will partially ameliorate one of the most contradictory rules of immigration law, thereby encouraging legal immigration and helping to keep U.S. families together.
Photo by Kevin Luu.
New Reports Track Devastating Impact of Alabama’s Extreme Immigration Law on Residents
01 month ago
Despite recent court decisions and interpretations from the state’s Attorney General that limit implementation of Alabama’s draconian immigration law, HB 56, much of damage has already been done. Two recent reports by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the AFL-CIO further illustrate the ways in which HB 56 is complicating many aspects of daily life. Both organizations sent delegations to Alabama to interview a wide variety of Alabama residents and found that the fallout goes well beyond the official implementation of the law’s provisions and extends to personal relationships. Both found that the law is just one part of an agenda to deny people fundamental rights.
HRW points out that the provisions of HB 56 not only deny unauthorized immigrants education, utilities, housing, and other basic necessities, it also denies them fundamental rights. Unauthorized immigrants are denied due process and access to the courts, which cannot enforce contracts between an “alien unlawfully present” and any other party. Immigrants also have unequal access to remedies for victims of crimes because they are fearful of calling the police when they are victimized by crime. People who “look” or “sound” like immigrants are subject to discriminatory document verification.
HRW found that since the law was implemented, employers have refused to pay their employees, landlords have refused to make critical repairs, and lawyers, judges, and court interpreters have threatened to report suspected unauthorized immigrants. Countless children have lost valuable time in school as parents have withdrawn them, or are simply afraid to drive them to school.
The law has also created an environment in which harassment, discrimination, and abuse are prevalent. Private individuals and businesses have taken it upon themselves to demand proof of legal status from people they suspect of being unlawfully present. One woman reported that a clerk at a major discount store told her she needed proof of U.S. citizenship to fill a prescription. HRW also reported that strangers make disparaging or abusive remarks in public, and that school children are being traumatized and bullied by their classmates.
Even commenting on the negative impact of the law is sufficient to raise the ire of some Alabamans. In the AFL-CIO report, Steve Dubrinski, the owner of Max’s Deli, explained how his business had been affected after he publicly expressed concerns about his business because his fully documented Latino workers may leave the state. Dubrinski received ugly hate-filled emails, and a local radio talk show host called on people to boycott his deli. Dozens of people posted negative online reviews claiming that people should not patronize Max’s because the workers are all “illegal.”
These stories are shocking and heartbreaking and they need to be told. Staunch supporters of the law may not care that HB 56 violates international human rights or that it engenders discrimination and harassment or that daily life is becoming exceedingly difficult for immigrants—these are the intended consequences of the law.
Americans who want a practical solution to our immigration problems understand that laws intended to make life miserable for certain persons are not the way to go. All Americans must also ask themselves whether HB 56 represents the best America has to offer or whether we can do better.
Federal Verification System Won’t Help Alabama Determine Legal Status Under New Law
01 month ago
While the devastating impacts of Alabama’s over-the-top immigration law, HB 56, continues to be felt by Alabamans, there have been a recent string of victories. In addition to a federal judge’s ruling this week temporarily blocking state agencies from denying mobile home registrations to immigrants who cannot prove legal status, the state’s Attorney General also recently issued a memo limiting the scope of the law. It is becoming more and more evident that enforcing HB 56 is not as clear cut as its proponents thought it would be.
Section 30 of the Alabama law makes it a felony for an “alien not lawfully present in the United States…[to] enter into or attempt to enter into a business transaction with the state” or a political subdivision.” From the beginning it’s been clear that state agencies are interpreting “business transaction” very broadly resulting in devastating consequences. For example, since HB 56 went into effect, there have been numerous stories of people in Alabama being denied government benefits and services—including water, gas, and sewer service—if they’re unable to prove their lawful status.
In response, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange recently issued new guidance to state agencies limiting the definition of business transaction and limiting the circumstances under which state agencies should check immigration status. Strange concluded that “‘business transaction’ includes professional licenses, such as a nursing license or a license to practice law. It does not embrace the provision of services that governmental entities may provide such as water, sewer, power, sanitation, food, and healthcare.” This is a very important development that will hopefully mean that state residents are not denied critical life-saving services.
However, under this new interpretation, local government agencies must still verify legal status in order to issue business and professional licenses and other services, and these agencies are complaining that enforcing the law is “almost impossible.”
They have been told they must verify applicants’ legal status using the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, but the fact is that SAVE is not really set up to do that. SAVE is an electronic, fee-based system used to verify that a person has the immigration status his documents indicate or that the immigration information he has provided is accurate for government benefits and licensing agencies or other lawful purposes. SAVE is not a magical database that can provide a simple yes or no to the question of whether someone is legally present in the U.S.
Furthermore, state agencies must apply to use SAVE, but the federal government has not approved the vast majority of Alabama agencies for SAVE yet. The provisions of Alabama’s law may fall outside of what SAVE was intended for, and it remains unclear whether Alabama state agencies will be approved to use SAVE.
Some people have suggested that state agencies, and even private entities, use the E-Verify system to verify legal status. But E-Verify can only confirm work authorization, which is not the same as legal status. There are many people legally present in the U.S. that are not authorized to work here.
People keep hoping for a magic database that they can plug anyone’s name into and get a simple “legal” or “illegal” response. That database does not exist. Immigration is an incredibly complex issue, and Alabama is finding out that enforcing its new immigration law is not smooth sailing.
Photo wranger.
House Subcommittee Hearing Underscores Problems with Secure Communities Program
02 months ago
Congressman Steve King (R-IA), Subcommittee on Immigration Policy & Enforcement.
Today, the House Immigration Subcommittee held a hearing on the Secure Communities program (S-Comm)—an enforcement program that has been rife with controversy since its inception in 2008. Today’s hearing featured statements from a variety of witnesses and members of Congress which further underscored the problems inherent with the program and immigration enforcement in general. S-Comm is currently active in more than 1,700 jurisdictions and is on target to be nationwide by 2013.
Gary Mead of ICE described the current status of S-Comm and the reforms that ICE has made to the program in light of concerns that have been raised. Mead touted the record number of deportations in FY2011, and reported that ICE has deported more than 114,000 immigrants identified through S-Comm.
Julie Myers Wood, former Assistant Secretary of ICE, acknowledged that ICE’s resources are limited and prioritization is necessary. She also acknowledged that S-Comm would result in more identifications that ICE could handle and suggested that ICE improve it’s efficiency so more immigrants identified through S-Comm can be processed for potential deportation. If ICE does not have enough detention space, Wood continued, alternatives to detention and monitoring should be used so that ICE does not have to release anyone. Furthermore, Wood argued that expanded use of stipulated removal—in which the immigrant agrees to be deported—and Rapid Repatriation—through which immigrants can obtain early release from jail if they agree to be deported—can reduce the burden on the court process.
Sheriff Sam Page of Rockingham County, NC—who has relatively limited experience with S-Comm—said that he and other sheriffs are seeing an increase in illegal alien crime activity. He claimed that S-Comm works well in his community, does not cost his agency anything to implement and that the “program and protocol for ‘Secure Communities’ is reasonably simple.” He explained:
If it is determined that the arrestee was not born in the United States, the person is fingerprinted…and the prints are then compared against the Federal and Immigration and DHS print database. Then our trained booking officers notify ICE personnel whether there is a print match. Even if there’s not a match, we arrange an interview with an ICE agent and the arrestee.
This description of his agency’s process is not consistent with how S-Comm works, raising concerns about whether he and other local law enforcement agencies are properly implementing the program.
Finally, Art Venegas, former Chief of Police of Sacramento, testified about the challenges that S-Comm creates for community policing and community safety. When the program is activated, immigrants are fearful of contact with the police and crimes go unreported. Venegas explained how immigrants who are arrested and identified through S-Comm but then are not convicted of any crime are still deported. Venegas continued:
It seems we are agreeing to turn the long-stand principle of “innocent until proven guilty” on its head for certain groups of people. If you are an immigrant, and you are charged with a serious offense, you are “guilty until proven innocent” and you will be referred for deportation. As an immigrant myself, and as an American, I cannot support that differing standard.
Democratic members took the opportunity to point out the continuing concerns over S-Comm and its impact on racial profiling, community safety, and victims and witnesses (Gary Mead claimed ICE has never deported a victim of domestic violence.)
Republicans pushed their agenda, complaining that ICE had not provided information that had been requested and insisting that 300,000 “criminal aliens” had been identified by S-Comm and ignored or released by ICE. The source of the 300,000 number remains unclear. Representative Steve King questioned how Chief Venegas had arrived in the U.S. as an immigrant and repeatedly asked whether racial profiling was prohibited by federal statute. When Venegas mentioned the Civil Rights Act, King claimed that those who wrote the Civil Rights Act didn’t know what racial profiling was.
In summary, there was much grandstanding and talking past one another and very little constructive debate over the controversial program.
Photo by Gage Skidmore.
Children of Immigrant Entrepreneurs Excel Educationally, Report Finds
02 months ago
The contributions of immigrant entrepreneurs—innovation, job creation and economic growth—are often cited by economists as strong reasons to reform our outdated immigration system. However, the kids of immigrant entrepreneurs receive relatively little attention. Delving into the experiences of these adult children of immigrants provides a new lens through which to witness the struggles and triumphs of parents and their children as they pursue the American Dream.
A new report by the Immigrant Learning Center (ILC) puts a human face on the children of immigrant entrepreneurs. Adult Children of Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Memories and Influences shares the stories of 36 children of immigrants representing a wide variety of countries of origin and family businesses. Some were born in the U.S. and others immigrated here in childhood. While their stories differ, they all have one thing in common: their immigrant entrepreneur parents and experiences growing up around the family business heavily influenced their desire to pursue an education and the American dream.
All of the young adults interviewed witnessed firsthand their parents’ struggles as they integrated into their new home in the U.S., ingraining them with a strong work ethic. They spent long hours along side their parents in their place of business. While most gained valuable experience taking on various activities, many parents shielded their kids from manual labor, encouraging them instead to interact with customers, keep the books, or other business-related tasks. Because they often had better English language skills than their immigrant parents, many of them served as de facto language brokers. Spending time working alongside their parents provided them with valuable business and social skills, giving them the confidence that allowed them to excel in school.
Pen Khek Chear, whose parents came to the US as Cambodian refugees, said:
“My dad did not want to teach me to be a jeweler [like him] because he was afraid I would like it. My parents wanted me to get an education and be a ‘respectable professional’ and not have to do ‘hard labor.”
Pen obtained a Master’s in Social Work from Boston University.
Because of their own struggles, education is very highly valued by immigrant entrepreneur parents, and the young adults interviewed had achieved high education levels. Many of the people interviewed had pursued graduate school after graduating from college. They related how their immigrant parents wanted them to excel educationally, get good, stable jobs, and live more comfortable lives than their parents had. The kids recognized that their parents had performed difficult manual labor, and had sacrificed their weekends and worked all the time so that they could pursue higher education. ILC found that “there is an inherent appreciation among the adult children of immigrant entrepreneurs for the sacrifices their parents made to ensure that they have successful careers and lead normal lives in their adopted homeland.”
Like many American families, the immigrant entrepreneurs highlighted in this study want their children to excel and have opportunities that they themselves did not have. While their children may not always get along with their parents, they recognize the tremendous sacrifices their parents have made for them. Not only did the young adults interviewed excel in school and in their careers, but they also chose careers that allow them to give back to the community. The American Dream is alive and well in these immigrant families.
Photo by leungchopan.