Professor Hagstrom - February 23

In class today, we approached the topic of immigration from a different angle than we have in the past. In previous classes, both with Professor Hagstrom and others, we discussed historical problems and the rudimentary and key issues of how immigration has affected us since our country’s founding. However, this Tuesday we discussed how the United States has approached immigration in light of the August 22, 1996 reforms and current regulations for federal programs.

Several of the facts we learned were expected, for example: since the beginning of federal programs (even with progressive reforms) non-documented immigrants were ineligible for the vast majority of federal programs. Even so, aside from this exclusion, there are also two different classes of immigrants who reside in the United States legally: qualified and not qualified immigrants. These two separate levels of qualification determine whether an immigrant is eligible for federal programs.

Qualified immigrants include lawful permanent residents (LPRs). These residents hold “green cards.” This also includes refugees and persons granted asylum. This group of immigrants is qualified to apply for assistance from federal programs. On the other hand, non-qualified immigrants include the obvious: undocumented and illegal aliens. This also includes non-immigrants with temporary visas and immigrants with legal troubles. These non-qualified immigrants are excluded from all federal programs, such as Medicaid. However, they are entitled to emergency medical care, school breakfast and lunch programs, and homeless centers, among others.

Our class continued by discussing the other changes from the 1996 welfare reforms. Block grants to states and stricter work requirements (30 hours per week) accompanied these reforms. Professor Hagstrom concluded this section of the class by probing the following question: What is the cost of public assistance for undocumented immigrants? We referenced the Tumlin and Zimmermann reading, addressing how California, New York, and Texas all had different responses to immigrant welfare. Finding that working is encouraged or forced by reforms, we questioned what might be the negative effects of mandating work?

Undoubtedly, the solution to these complex problems is challenging. However, alternatives to better approach the problem of financing welfare for immigrants can possibly be addressed through several different alternative solutions, including: goals to increase self sufficiency and finding new ways to assist the neediest while reducing costs (a problem that has plagued the United States Congress for centuries). Finally, we learn many of the basic fiscal costs of undocumented immigrants. According to a 2002 study, costs include Medicaid and food assistance, among many others. However, benefits include income taxes and increases in business tax payments.

Put simply, the finance of immigration is an increasingly complex topic. While immigration certainly forms constraints on different federal programs, it also has proven highly beneficial and has even stimulated the economy at times. The 1996 reforms allowed welfare and other federal programs to become more explicit in their distribution of resources, but it still unclear why certain groups of immigrants gained assistance why others do not. Why do certain immigrants have the ability to prosper, while others suffer in economic disparity? Tumlin and Zimmermann help address these questions through their examination of three separate cities, but it is evident that these challenges are far from solved. The issue of immigration economics will continue to be a crucial component of federal program reform in the future.

Tuesday, February 16th

The Economics of Immigration

On Tuesday, we began with the question of what exactly economists do. Professor Hagstrom gave us an overview of the responsibilities of an economist, what he/she studies, and how, generally speaking, he/she does so. In thinking about immigration as an economics question, professor Hagstrom told us that we should think in terms of Immigration versus Immigration policy. Whereas immigration deals with who can come to the U.S. and under what conditions he/she can come, immigration policy concerns rules that apply specifically to immigrants once they have entered the U.S. legally of illegally (do you pay taxes? receive welfare? etc.).

Before moving on to the evolution of policy in the U.S., we became acquainted with the many different kinds of immigrants that are present in the U.S., as well as the language we use to talk about them (citizens, noncitizens, naturalized citizens...). We also looked at numbers for the first time, and we were able to begin conceptualizing what percentage of the U.S. population is composed of immigrants, how many are legal, how many are illegal, etc. We learned that 53 % of U.S. immigrants come from Latin America.

Professor Hagstrom then discussed the evolution of immigration policy. This was helpful in respect to the last unit, which professor Lopez taught on history. We were able to think about the major historical moments she pointed out and thus try to understand what was going on when different laws were being enacted or changed. We began in the early 1800s, a time when virtually all immigrants were welcome, as America was a growing nation in need of a populus. We moved from there throughout the next two centuries, marking major dates such as:

1864 -- contract labor was allowed

1882 -- contract labor outlawed

1906 -- English speaking requirement for laborers begins

1920 -- per country annual limits begin

1942 -- allowed guest workers to fill labor shortages

1965 -- switched from a European based program to a family/work based program, green cards

1990 -- added a diversity lottery

I have selected the most significant dates from the list. This time line gave us a sense not only of the progression of U.S. immigration policy throughout the past two centuries, it also gave us insight into the thought processes behind these changes and their correspondence to the movements we know were going on at these different times.

We then discussed the readings (Papendemetrious and Martin) and looked at the different kinds of visas that are currently available in an attempt to better understand the process and condition of immigration today. There are two different routes to a visa: permanent and temporary. There are a number of problems with this system, about which we learned that many people across the political spectrum agree is broken. Because of the manner in which temporary visas function and are assigned, illegal immigration is, more often than not, encouraged as it is the easier, more efficient route. We talked about the possibility of provisional visas, and how they could potentially solve many of the loopholes in the current system.

We ended the class with a more general question, one that Professor Hagstrom asked us to look at from a number of different perspectives: What is the U.S. immigration system doing to protect jobs? We have to remember that the purpose of immigration policy in our country is not to help people from other countries, and we need to keep in mind who exactly is threatened or directly effected by immigration, both legal and illegal.

Thursday February 11th

In class on Thursday the 11^th, we were to have read “Chicano!” which was a brief history of the Mexican-American struggle for equal rights. Much of the article dealt with Reies López Tijerina and his quest to reclaim lands across the southwest that had been taken by the Anglos or the federal government. The article also touched on the fact that Chicano movements around the southwest during this period “exhibited differences…which at times created divisions” between movements. These differences mostly stemmed from what each regional group defined as a priority; there were many different facets to the Chicano Movement. In class, we discussed these at length, with some of the more prominent examples being: better education, land rights, better treatment in the workplace, and proper treatment in courts.

We also discussed César Chávez. Although Professor Lopez was not too keen on the analogy, she told us that Chávez could be considered the Martin Luther King, Jr. of the Chicano movement. Just like MLK, Chávez was one of the most symbolic people for his respective movement because he was able to bring a wide range of people together. His grape boycott, which began in 1965, was the first time the conditions of agricultural workers had been brought to attention; these people were some of the most disenfranchised people in the United States at the time.

To end class, we read the poem I am Joaquin by Corky Gonzalez. We were asked by Professor Lopez to read the poem and then ask ourselves “What story are we hearing?” Gonzalez’s poem takes many stories from Mexican history and combines it into one consecutive narrative and presents it as an alternative to American assimilation; Chicanos had no desire to become a part of the “American Melting Pot.” This poem was also a way for the Chicano movement to unite. With the class divide between Mexican haves and have-nots widening, the need for cultural survival was paramount.

Movie on Sunday Feb 7 - Chicano! Quest for the Homeland

Sorry this took me a few days - I wasn't sure if we would be discussing the film in class and I wanted to hold off until then.

The focus of the documentary Chicano! Quest for a Homeland is the Chicano Movement of the 1960s. A lot of the film was focused on the actions of Reis Lopez Tijerina, the leader of the Alianca group, who claimed federal land as their own due to a treaty from twenty years earlier between the US and Mexico. Millions of acres were taken from the original landowning families. In 1965, the US Forest Service revoked half of the grazing permits. Then in the spring of 1967, people faced federal charges for occupying the land of the forest reserve. Much of Tijerina's earlier actions revolved around citizen's arrests. One of the first was of Alfonso Sanchez, the District Attorney who placed federal charges for occupying forest reserve lands.

Another important member of the Chicano Movement was Corky Gonzalez, a former boxer who became involved in Democratic politics. He registered many Mexican-American voters for John F. Kennedy and started the Crusade for Justice. Gonzalez strived for national attention and visibility for the Chicano Movement.

A major event in the Chicano Movement was the 1969 Denver Youth Conference. Here, issues were addressed such as women's roles in the movement. Women began to press for equality within all aspects of the movement. Additionally, a fifteen-point plan was drafted with a poem as its preamble, describing the search for the homeland of Aztlan, an Aztec myth than came to represent the southwest United States. Furthermore, issues such as the war in Vietnam were addressed - while Mexican Americans made up 12% of the US population, they accounted for 20% of the deaths in Vietnam.

Tuesday February 9th

In class on Tuesday February 9^th we discussed the impact of the Mexican-Americanization Movement, the consequences on class consciousness, the role of Mexican American’s in WWII and collection of these factors on Mexican American youth and American culture at large.

We began class by touching on George Sanchez’s concept of ‘American Ambivalence’ where he describes the consequences and fears instilled through forced Americanization. These were, Sanchez’s explains, experienced after the 1930’s and President Hoover’s ‘Repatriotization’ act. Professor Lopez then explained the consequences to the voice of Mexican Americans during the Hoover years. Professor Lopez highlighted the campaign ideals that effectively silenced Mexican Americans and their needs during the 1930’s and extending until the war. We then discussed how this instilled a sense of perpetual fear within the Mexican American community and resulted in a need to maintain ties and a focus on the events occurring in Mexico in case they were to be deported.

This lead into a discussion regarding the true contribution made by Mexican-Americans during World War Two and the lack of recognition for their sacrifies. We began by examining four photographs. There was one that I found particularly interesting which was a photograph of a group of American women stationed in Brussels sent to aid with the European front. At least one of the girls was Mexican-American. This was interesting as it demonstrated the role Mexican-American women played in the war, the intermingling of different races, and the education these girls must have received in order to be valuable enough to be sent abroad. Similarly it was able to highlight the need, contribution and value Mexican-American women were able to provide to the US war effort. Professor Lopez continued to articulate the lack of evidence in historical documents of the Mexican-American contribution, let alone that of Mexican-American women.

We continued on to discuss Vicki Ruiz’s depiction of class-consciousness specifically in the 1940’s and during the war. We followed on to examine the notion of opposing forces and the idea of social space, which culminated in the concept, and common concern of inter-ethnic relations. Furthermore, Ruiz examined the role of the Mexican-American women taskforce, and specifically addressed the impact of Dorothy Rae Healy, Luisa Moreno and the significance of the creation of the UCAPAWA-CIO. Ruiz further discussed the idea of public space, which displayed the impact Mexican-American women played at home in aiding the war efforts. Ruiz identifies the changes in labor unions and the campaign of women for equal rights. Ruiz highlights and example of this within the Mexican-American female community with the campaign for stronger, better workbenches to replace the existing tattered, splintered ones that ruined their work uniforms. We discussed further that by asking for such a small change in women’s equality, very little was actually changed, and the real issue of wages became a more difficult objective to reach. Ruiz highlighted finally, that a leader needed to come from within their community and ranks, which lead into our discussion of the significance of Dorothy Rae Healy, Luisa Moreno and the idea of ‘Rosie the River’. Lastly, we discussed the concept of class-consciousness as the possibility of a coalition between different communities – an idea which began to seem plausible in the ever blending world and the time of war.

We ended class by discussing the Zoot Suit Culture and the wartime Xenophobia that accompanied these times of intermingling. The Zoot Suit fashion was enjoyed by much of the urban youth: Mexican-American, African-American, and even Anglo youth. However, it was interpreted as insensitive and flamboyant in a time of conservation and selfish and provided a scapegoat and a means to target the Mexican-American youth. This lead to many young Mexican-Americans being attacked as a result of the fear of inter-mingling through war efforts. This also threatened the white-man’s idea of masculinity and provided a greater sense of fear and loss of culture.

Class on February 4

Today was our second class with Professor Lopez and we discussed the social fluidity of Mexican Americans working in the Cotton fields in Texas during the period of the Great Depression. We examined and discussed pictures from Neil Foley’s the White Scourge: Mexican, Blacks, and Poor Whites in Texas Cotton Culture. The first picture depicts black sharecroppers picking cotton. Though at the time blacks and whites often worked side by side in picking cottons, this picture does not show any white people. The next picture showed a family of Mexican sharecroppers. We discussed the social hierarchy in this community. Temporary workers were the lowest on the totem pole, followed by tenants, then sharecroppers like this family, followed by land owners who are the oldest. This picture was taken in 1937 and demonstrates the shift in level of permanency of Mexican workers in the cotton industry in Texas. At first most immigrants were Mexican men, but this picture shows that more families were coming. Although the American government sent approximately 1/3 of Mexican immigrants back to Mexico, but employment agencies needed workers so they recruited some Mexican families. Mexican workers who had families were more likely to be committed to working throughout the season. The next picture demonstrated that Mexican families that may have first come in as temporary workers were able to move up in social hierarchy and eventually achieve some level of status. This picture depicted a Mexican family with an automobile and dressed nicely. This demonstrated that some Mexican’s had disposable income and were achieving a level of higher status. The next picture we discussed was of a white family sitting on their porch playing with their children. This family was pretty well off and demonstrated that even in 1939 there was a leisure class that benefitted from other poor workers. The next picture was of a sign hung outside a restaurant that said “we serve whites only, no Spanish or Mexicans” This demonstrated that during the depression there was a racialized society and that Texas operated under Jim Crow-like laws. This most likely resulted from the fact that the whites were worried about lack of money and jobs and therefore blamed all their problems on immigration as we always do when an economic crisis strikes. This sentiment led to rampant racism during that time.

We then discussed the construction of whiteness in America during periods where there was an influx of immigration. During the time of lots of Mexican immigration there was a difference seen between dark and light skinned Mexican. In 1910 there was a Mexican dictator named Diaz who wanted to modernize Mexico and therefore wanted to take land away from indigenous Mexicans in order to build railroads. They got pushed up towards Oregon. Until 1917 there was an explosive atmosphere and tension between light and dark skinned Mexicans. Eugenicists construct what it means to be white and that white is good. This happened initially when lots of Irish immigrated here. They were at first not seen as being white and there was at first a lot of black and white mixing. However, the Irish, wanting to be accepted into society, started race wars against the blacks. By making a “common enemy” with those considered white in America, the Irish became accepted into white society. The Italians did this to. Thus some lighter skinned Mexican’s of Spanish, rather than pure Mexican descent did the same type of thing so that they might be considered to have more Nordic features and thus be considered “white” and achieve higher status than darker skinned Mexicans.

We went on to discuss the differences between Mexican communities before the treaty of Guadalupe and Mexican life in cotton farming. The Cotton crop is a cash crop and is extremely dependent on the economic market. People could lose everything in one bad season. Before the treaty, Mexican communities dealt more in trade and had diversified crops so they weren’t so reliant on just one thing. However, after the treaty when Mexican ranches were taken they were forced into the “king cotton” civilization where they had to sharecrop and were entirely dependent on cotton in the new hierarchical Americanized system of racial polarity. We then discussed the immigration quotas of 1920 and 1924 that let people in based on a racial hierarchy. Immigrants that were already in this country were not welcome. There were race wars and competition between Mexican Immigrants and those from Eastern Europe.
We continued to look at more pictures from the White Scourge. We saw a picture of a lynching that represented the strata of whiteness and the need to exclude people in order to feel powerful. The other pictures showed an employment agency recruiting seasonal Mexican workers who were brought in despite immigration quotas, and the picture of an older black couple who still had to work despite their advancing age. We also looked at a picture of all the workers of a giant farm coming out for the funeral of the farm owner. This was reminiscent of the slave age, when the only day a slave would have off was for a master’s funeral. These pictures depicted the harsh slave like conditions of the cotton plantations in Texas.
We moved on and began a discussion about the place of Mexican women in society and how it was different from that of American women. Mexican women were respected and had agency of their own. They were permitted to own land. Midwives were considered wise and were respected even above Mexican men. Spiritual leaders and healers who were women also had high status. Additionally, because men often had to leave and find seasonal work elsewhere, women took care of the land while they were gone, which was of integral importance to the Mexican community. We will continue to talk about the role of women in class next week.

Professor Lopez, 2/2/10

Today was our first day with Professor Lopez. The main theme of the class was the frequent omission of a Mexican perspective and account in U.S. history. We began with a John Wayne clip from The Alamo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6Y3SMMrVJs&feature=PlayList&p=29A7E6E1B05FC6B6&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=19), which helped to portray common accounts of Mexican-American relations: that of the Americans being brave and just, while the Mexicans were savage and deserving of their defeat. The Alamo is still referenced today as being an example of American freedom and democracy, while the Mexican perspective is generally all-together ignored.

We discussed the omission of non-Anglo perspectives in U.S. history as they apply to different events. For example, high school classes learn about The Manifest Destiny as a time of innocent exploration and American citizens realizing their "divine" right to expansion. Seldom do we consider the U.S. residents who were not included in this destiny (slaves, women, etc.) or the people whose land was being acquired (that of the Native Americans, Mexicans). We discussed the concept of American land acquisition as a concept of annexation rather than conquest, and of U.S. history's omission of accounts of the culture and land before Anglo-Americans "found" it.

We then looked at important dates from a Mexican-American account, which Vicki Ruiz emphasizes in her article, "Nuestra America: Latino History as United States History." Professor Lopez focused on three time periods as follows:
1830-1848: "The Conflicts" This was a time of Anglo settlement on previously Mexican land, which was made possible in part by unrest and disorder from the country's recent independence. During this time Anglo-Americans attempted to push Mexicans into Central Mexico. This was also a period of racialization and dehumanization of Mexicans, some of which still remains today.

1848: End of Mexican-American War
1848-1875: "The Resistance" During this time, both Mexican-Americans and Anglo-Americans acted in a push-and-pull cycle of violence. An increasing number of Anglo-Americans migrated to the contested lands, and conflicts surrounding racial hierarchies exacerbated already-raw relations between residents of the area.

1875-1900: "Subordination" The Texan Rangers continued lynchings of Mexican-Americans and Mexican identity was largely ignored, as Anglos emerged as the racially dominant social group.

Finally, we discussed several documents from Vargas' book, Major Problems in Mexican American History. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was significant as it ended the Mexican American War, and also set the stage for future relationships between Mexicans and Americans in the contested areas. One significant problem with the treaty was its purported inaccessibility to the masses. Mexicans had to decided whether they wanted to adopt U.S. citizenship or retreat to the new Mexican border within a year of the treaty's signing, yet it is difficult to determine how such citizens would know about this choice. Furthermore, the treaty was full of loopholes and ambiguity that ended up exploiting Mexican land ownership and in many cases, allowing Anglo-Americans to take over formerly Mexican land. We discussed the story of Joaquin Murieta in a police journal, which illustrates the stereotyping of Mexican Americans as savage, sub-human, violent land hoarders. Meanwhile, the Anglo-American is portrayed as innocent and justified in his constant state of pioneering.

We were left with a few questions to ponder over the next couple of weeks. Firstly, why was the matter of landholding so tenuous for the Mexican-Americans? We addressed this question in part through considering the importance of racialization of the hierarchies. Secondly, what caused the anti-Mexican sentiments? For this question, we considered the unawareness of the incoming Anglo-Americans, who were often immigrants and at times clueless about their surroundings. This fear of the unknown often turned into hostility, which was then fueled by Mexican stereotypes and the dehumanization that had occurred in these areas. Professor Lopez concluded this class period by mentioning the economic instability of the West during these times of hostility and shifting relationships between the Mexicans and Americans.