Continue reading »]]>

Campaigning in Florida this month, GOP Presidential candidates continued to display a general lack of understanding of the state’s diversifying Latino population. While it’s well-documented that the Cuban-American population is currently a strong political force, the emerging story in Florida is that the state’s future voting population will become increasingly Latino, but less Cuban.

While it’s normal for political candidates to pander to today’s registered voters, they undermine the long-term electoral prospects of their party when they fail to recognize Florida’s changing demographics. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau reveal that increasing numbers of Florida’s children are non-Cuban Latinos. Overall, Latinos make up 26% of persons under age 18.

More striking, however—given Florida’s long association with Cuban immigration—is that the Cuban-origin portion of the Latino population is shrinking when you look at the youngest Floridians.

While Cubans are a majority of Florida Latinos over age 70, every Latino age group below 70 is becoming increasingly non-Cuban. Cubans are more than half (54%) of Florida Latinos aged 65 and over, but they are only 22% of Latino children in the state. Simply put, the Cuban population is getting older while a younger, non-Cuban Latino population continues to grow.

In fact, Cubans today are a minority of all Florida Latinos. The state’s Latino population is one of the most diverse in the nation: 29% Cuban, 20% Puerto Rican, 17% South American, 15% Mexican, 11% Central American, and 9% of other Latino origins.

Candidates and the party they represent are focusing on elections in Florida, not the future electorate. In doing so they are risking the long-term success of their party. The increasingly diverse Latino community in Florida is only going to be receptive to rhetoric and immigration policies that benefit all Latinos.

Photo by heacphotos.

Continue reading »]]>

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has outdone itself when it comes to shoddy research. In a recently released report on “demographic changes” in Arizona, FAIR utilizes an almost random assortment of statistics to make its case that the state’s unauthorized immigrants are fleeing in droves thanks to get-tough immigration policies. The report occasionally pays lip service to the impact on unauthorized immigration of the 2008-2009 recession, as well as persistently high unemployment rates that continue to this day. Yet FAIR concludes, without evidence, that state-level immigration enforcement has been the single most important factor causing the decline of the unauthorized population. In reality, this conclusion is not supported by the data which FAIR presents.

FAIR’s report is painfully self-contradictory. It opens with the bold statement that the “efforts of Arizona policymakers to deter the settlement of illegal aliens in the state and to encourage those already in the state to leave have made major advances in their objective.” To bolster this statement, the report offers a bountiful supply of numbers on declines over the past few years in the size of the state’s foreign-born population, foreign-born Latin American population, and unauthorized immigrant population—not to mention reductions in the poverty rate, birth rate, and crime rate. Strangely enough, some of these statistics—such as those on the drop in crime—document trends which began before Arizona had enacted any harsh immigration laws.

The report does mention, offhandedly, that punitive state immigration policies may not account for all of these demographic trends given the presence of other factors, such as “the effects of the recession, loss of jobs and growing unemployment.” Yet this acknowledgment of reality is immediately followed by the muddled argument that “the confluence of all of these factors constituted a strong message that Arizona was no longer a desirable destination for illegal aliens and that already settled illegal aliens faced increased exposure to identification and deportation.” At the very end, the report is back to making the sensational and unsubstantiated claim that the state’s demographic changes “resulted from local law enforcement activities as well as legislative changes designed to make Arizona less accommodating for aliens seeking illegal work in the state.”

While FAIR is certain that get-tough laws in Arizona have provoked an exodus of unauthorized immigrants, other observers with a less fanciful attitude towards data sound a note of caution. For instance, Juan Pedroza of the Urban Institute has pointed out that “it’s tough to tell whether (and how many) immigrants have left a community if you are looking right after a state passes a law. It can take years of evidence to test claims of a mass exodus.” Moreover, “growing evidence suggests that most immigrants (especially families with school-age children) are here to stay, except perhaps where local economies are particularly weak.”

In a related vein, a report released last year by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) evaluated the impact of the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA), which made it mandatory for the state’s employers to use the federal E-Verify employment-authorization system. The report found that, while the law did motivate some unauthorized immigrants to leave the state, it also pushed many of those who remained “into less formal work arrangements.” As a result, “policymakers must weigh the sought-after drop in unauthorized employment against the costs associated with shifting workers into informal employment.” In other words, reality is more complicated than FAIR’s misinterpretation of demographic statistics would suggest.

FAIR’s numerical screed against unauthorized immigrants in Arizona does not rise to the level of serious research. Too many variables go unaccounted for, too many assumptions are made, and too many conclusions are predetermined. State-level immigration enforcement is one among many factors that influence the decision of an unauthorized individual or family in Arizona as to whether they should stay or leave. Untangling those factors involves complicated research of a kind that FAIR cannot provide.

Photo by Tania Zbrodko.

Continue reading »]]>

Immigration has never been a numbers game. When people think of immigration in America, they likely call to mind fear-fueled myths perpetuated by immigration restrictionists, like “immigrants are stealing American jobs” or “immigrants are a drain on our system.” Sadly, numbers and facts have rarely been part of the discussion, especially as state legislatures continue to take immigration law into their own hands. Today, however, the Immigration Policy Center published 50 state fact sheets updated to show just how much immigrants, Latinos and Asians contribute to our country as consumers, taxpayers, workers, entrepreneurs and voters—facts state legislators would do well to consider before passing legislation that drives immigrants, undocumented and documented, from their state.

Legislators in Alabama passed one of the most extreme anti-immigrant laws (HB 56) last year in response to the state’s “immigration problem.” According to the Pew Hispanic Center, Alabama’s undocumented population was 2.5% of total population (or 120,000 people) in 2010—lower than in 22 other states. While Alabama’s undocumented may be smaller than other states, however, their economic contributions are not. Alabama’s undocumented contributed more than $130 million in state and local taxes in 2010.

As Alabama continues to drive undocumented immigrants and their contributions from the state, they also run the risk of alienating documented immigrants, Latinos and Asians in the process. Alabama’s Latino and Asian populations’ combined purchasing power was nearly $6 billion in 2010. Alabama faces a $979 million budget gap in FY2012.

In California, whose undocumented population paid $2.7 billion in state and local taxes in 2010, some recently attempted (and failed) to overturn the California DREAM Act—two laws which allow undocumented students to enroll in California’s public colleges and universities and apply for state-based funding. Studies show that by 2025, California will not have enough college graduates to keep up with economic demand. The California DREAM Act may play a critical role in boosting the number of college grads.

Another part of Georgia’s extreme immigrant law (HB 87) went into effect this month, requiring people to show certain forms of identification before they can get among other things, professional business licenses. While this may seem pretty standard, business leaders in the state are worried that this will slow commerce, cause serious processing delays, and hurt an already struggling economy. At last count, Latino and Asian businesses in Georgia had sales and receipts of $20.6 billion and employed nearly 110,000 people.

State legislatures, the majority of which convene this month, are likely to continue to consider restrictive immigration legislation this year, but it’s critical that they consider exactly how much these punitive laws will cost their state. States are far from fully recovered from the economic recession and many still face large budget shortfalls into FY2013, according to Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

Facts don’t lie. Immigrants, Latinos and Asians have and will continue to account for large and growing shares of state economies and populations. Can state legislators really afford to alienate such a critical part of its labor force, tax base, and business community?

Continue reading »]]>

Economists readily acknowledge the economic contributions of immigrant entrepreneurs to the U.S. After all, we wouldn’t have one-quarter of all public companies in the U.S.—companies like Google, Yahoo!, and Intel which employed 220,000 people and generated more than $500 billion in one year—without them. But lost in that acknowledgement are the contributions of immigrant women entrepreneurs who last year made up 40% (or 980,575) of all immigrant business owners in the U.S. This week, a new report, Our American Immigrant Entrepreneurs: The Women, takes a closer look at these women and examines the obstacles and pathways to establishing successful businesses—businesses that have created American jobs and generated millions in taxable revenue.

According to the report, there was a significant rise in immigrant women entrepreneurship over the last 10 years. According to the Census, 575,750 foreign-born women who immigrated as adults claimed to be self-employed in their own business as of 2000. Ten years later, however, that number has increased to 980,575 or 40% of all immigrant business owners in the U.S.

But that success isn’t always easy to come by. Of the immigrant women interviewed, many faced gender bias and difficulties securing start-up capital. Many women also reported that banks were hesitant to provide start-up funds due to the small size of their businesses. Yet, through their own determination and help from friends, associations, networks, colleagues and families, these women were able to establish successful businesses.

Maria Sobrino, for example, came to the U.S. from Mexico and started her own dessert company, Lulu Desserts. She noticed the absence of a Mexican comfort food, gelatinas or flavored gelatins, and began experimenting with samples. Due to difficulties securing capital, Sobrino had to start small and constantly reinvest in her business. “Do you know how many people laughed at my idea of having gelatinas and selling them with a little jar three hundred cups a day that I was doing?” Sobrino asked. “Today we sell about fifty million cups a year of gelatin, and we distribute to supermarkets.” Lulu Desserts currently generates $9.2 million and employs a host of marketing, sales, and delivery personnel.

Sheela Murthy, an immigration attorney from India and graduate of Harvard Law School, agrees that a passion to succeed was essential in establishing her own law firm—a firm which today generates $4-5 million a year and employs 70 people. Rubina Chaudhary, also of India, had trouble securing capital for her engineering management firm at first. Now, however, as president of MARRS Services, Inc., she manages multimillion dollar public contracts, employs 50 full time staff, and consults with large public and private clients.

These are just some of the many stories of immigrant entrepreneur women who, despite gender and racial discrimination, started their own businesses. And they want nothing more than to create an easier path for other immigrant women to do the same. They recommend easier access to start-up capital and federal loans for women- and minority-owned business, reform of bureaucratic hurdles, access to clearer information on state and federal regulations, and a continued discussion on how to address the barriers women face in the workplace.

In fact, making it easier for all entrepreneurs—including immigrant women—to start businesses which create American jobs, stabilize communities, and generate millions in taxable revenue seems like something every American would be wise to support.

Continue reading »]]>

Last week, a new report released by the Pew Hispanic Center found that nearly two-thirds of all unauthorized adult immigrants currently living in the U.S. (10.2 million) have been here for at least 10 years and nearly half of them (4.7 million) are parents of minor children. The longevity of their U.S. residency and pattern of parenthood suggest that these unauthorized immigrants are integrated into American society, challenging the notion that ramped-up enforcement measures like Arizona’s SB 1070 and Alabama’s HB 56 are effectively driving unauthorized immigrants back to their countries of origin.

Using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 Current Population Survey, the Pew Hispanic Center estimated that:

• 35% of unauthorized adult immigrants have resided in the U.S. for 15 years or more (a number that doubled since 2000)
• 28% for 10 to 14 years
• 22% for 5 to 9 years
• and 15% for less than five years (a number that has fallen by half since 2000)

Pew also found that nearly half of all undocumented immigrants in the U.S. (4.7 million) are parents of minor children. Additionally, Pew estimates that roughly 9 million people in the U.S. live in a mixed-status home—meaning that at least one immigrant parents is undocumented and at least one child is U.S. born.

After living in the U.S. for 10 years or more, many in mixed-status homes, it’s reasonable to assume that these unauthorized immigrants are integrated into American society—they live here, they send their children to school here, they go to church here, they pay taxes here. The idea that harsh state immigration enforcement policies are “working”—that is, forcing unauthorized immigrants to return home—just doesn’t seem to hold water.

As Pew’s report concludes, the data “reflects the fact that relatively few long-duration unauthorized immigrants have returned to their countries of origin.” While some may return to their home countries, others likely migrate to neighboring states, states where they have family or can find work.

Clearly, the current enforcement-only approach to addressing immigration isn’t working. In fact, state immigration laws like Alabama’s HB 56 are actually hurting states’ economies—wasting scant resources, burdening state businesses, stirring distrust in communities and creating a hostile environment that will likely steer foreign investments elsewhere.

What we need, say experts like Doug Massey of Princeton University, is an earned path to legalization—a path that even conservative voters think is necessary. According to Massey, given the recent post-recession dip in migration from Mexico and the apparent lack of self-deportation of unauthorized immigrants who have long resided in the U.S., “there is really only one thing that remains to be accomplished … the creation of a pathway to legalization for long-term undocumented residents.”

Until then, Congress and states legislatures will continue to waste time, resources and money on enforcement measures that do nothing to address the realities of our broken and outdated immigration system.

Photo by Nathan Gibbs.