Tuesday, November 27, 2012

The Browning of America




“Preparing for the Browning of America” by Daniella Gibbs Leger is an interesting article because it discusses what the implications of the browning of America will be in the near future. Meanwhile, the article “The Changing Face of America: Time-lapse map reveals how non-whites will become the majority in U.S. within 30 Years” by the Daily Mail Reporter approached the issue of the browning of America in a more visual way to demonstrate what the projections actually look like. The second approached the issue by providing a lot more detailed statistics about what will actually occur. Before goggling the term “Browning of America”, I never realized how much the majority of the population in the United States was actually shifting. Being from northern California, I’ve seen in recent years the growing number of Latinos, but it never really occurred to me that the population has been shifting across the United States. One of the most interesting statistics that I stumbled upon had to do with the different areas that African-American and Hispanics are most densely populated. The Daily Mail Reporter writes, “The U.S. black and Hispanic populations are mostly concentrated in the South – but whereas the black population is centered in the Southeast, Hispanics are mostly in the Southwest” (Daily Mail Reporter). This statistic really stood out to me because you never realize that these populations live on completely different sides of the country. Why is it that both groups are most densely populated in the South? The maps that are shown on the second link are especially depictive of these trends. I also found the second article interesting in that it incorporated the opinions of individuals on the trend of the browning of America. I found a quote by an Asian American especially interesting. The Daily Mail Reporter shares, “Another commentator added: ‘I am Chinese American and I objected to the grouping under Asian as coloured…Chinese, Japanese and Koreans are not coloured. Our complexion is white if not whiter than Caucasians’” (Daily Mail Reporter). Are they classified as being a part of the browning of America simply because they are a minority group? In that sense, are all groups that are considered to be apart of the minority currently going to be classified under this notion of the browning of America? I think if this term is to be widely accepted, I think there needs to be a common definition of what it means for our nation to be browning---what groups are classified under this movement?

                Both articles stressed the importance of the change in government and funding that needs to take place in order to keep the standard of living up in this country once the “browning of America” turns into being the majority of this country. Leger writes, “As we noted in a recent report, Hispanics and especially African-Americans felt the brunt of the economic downturn and are recovering at a pace slower than whites And if we don’t address these disparities, as the country becomes more diverse, it will have a negative impact on our economy” (Leger). I found this observation to be especially interesting as both articles touched on the importance of reforming education, health care and reducing poverty rates. If this kind of change does not occur, soon our economy will suffer even more as these groups will become the majority. Leger also made a great observation about how the United States is going to face the future different from other countries. Leger observes, “If you look at places like Japan and some European countries, they have a rapidly aging work force with a diminishing number of young people to take their place. Thanks to our booming youth population, we will not face that issue. And our booming youth population is due almost entirely to communities of color” (Leger).  How interesting! If the United States didn’t have these colored communities that were booming in population growth, then the United States would have negative population growth. I never really thought of this situation that way. If you are to look at Japan, they are a very homogeneous population and that fact that all of there people are very affluent and often put their career before having a family probably greatly contributes to their population decline. This is not the case in the United States with the colored groups—and this is not to say that they are not educated or not going to the universities – but rather that these groups have strong tradition values of family which probably contributes to their continued population growth that will soon over take the white population as the majority.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Daniels Chapter 16


After reading this chapter, I became more aware of the overall attitude towards immigration now. Although the book only speculate into the 1980s, Daniels acute observation of a recent return to nativism still holds true in 2012. Daniels points out, “There is one further reason to believe that immigrants will retain its central position on the American agenda: the rediscovery of the immigrant tradition by the American people” (407). It’s interesting that he makes this observation at the time the book was written and it is still very much a centerpiece of both party platforms. Also, the nativist policies of today are unlike those before because now they are not as intentionally racist.

The Immigration Reform Act of 1986 is a very interesting piece of legislation to examine closely. I thought it was interesting that the bill is noted for being nativist in nature but not overtly racist like its counterpart in the 1920s. Despite the aversion from obvious racism, it was interesting to note Republic Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming had to say about cultural homogeneity of the country. Simpson writes, “Furthermore, if language and cultural separation rise about a certain level, the unity and political stability of our nation will—in time – be seriously eroded” (391). I found this quote to be most interesting because it is almost a contradiction to saying that this bill was not intentionally racist. Here, Simpson is asking for the country to become more uniform in language and culture in order to stay politically stable, yet America has been founded on the very backs of immigrants from all different nations, languages and cultural backgrounds. The cultural diversity of our country is what makes it unique, yet Simpson is asking us to come together as one. I can understand why there is a strong push for all using English, but I never understood why there is a strong push to be culturally united.

Along these lines, I found the discussion of Amnesty which was established under the Immigration Reform Act of 1986 quite interesting. In order to become eligible for amnesty you had to meet one of two requirements, either  an “illegal alien who could prove that they had been in the United States continuously since December 31, 1981” or  “demonstrate that they had worked in U.S. agriculture for at least ninety days between May 1, 1985 and May 1, 1986” (392-293). Under these provisions, 3.1 million people were accepted into the program to eventually be granted citizenship, but there were many obstacles to face along the way. Some of the requirements included: “have no criminal convictions or pending prosecutions, submit a negative test for AIDS antibodies, not have been on welfare and otherwise demonstrate financial responsibility, and demonstrate knowledge of the English language and United States history” (393). This seems like a lot to ask of someone just to be granted citizenship. In addition, many native born Americans barely know United States history or can say they’ve never had a criminal conviction. In addition, most people applying for amnesty were males from Mexico but their families were not eligible for amnesty, especially their children, because they had not been working here. Although amnesty seemed like a good idea, it also managed to create a lot of additional problems linked to chain migration. Also, people coming after the cutoff date were not eligible for amnesty.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Daniels Ch. 14


Daniels- Ch. 14 Blog Entry

I found it interesting to learn that the majority of Asian immigrants ended up settling in the western states. On top of that, some groups also settled within certain regions within California. For example, the Asian Indians coming in the first group settled mainly in the Imperial Valley and the northern Sacramento Valley in California. I find it interesting that a lot of these Asian groups tend to stick with each other in where they settle and help each other assimilate/get their footing once they are in the United States. The Chinese immigrants are known for their Chinatowns which are dispersed throughout the country. The most famous of the Chinatowns are in San Francisco. For the fresh-off-the-boat Chinese immigrants, they are more likely to live within these inner-city Chinatowns. Daniels writes, “There is, however, a greater tendency for recent immigrants to be poorly educated, deficient in English, and to work in the low-paid service trades, such as laundries, restaurants, and the sweatshop enterprises typical of the inner city” (355). The more well to do and educated American born Chinese tend to live outside of Chinatowns and hold more middle class occupations. I found it interesting that the Asian Indians would often create jobs for those relatives and others coming in after them once they were here. Although many Asian Indians are highly educated, they often flock towards opening businesses such as newspaper kiosks and convenience food stores (although this is more common in London and Copenhagen).  As business owners, the Asian Indians have the ability to hire workers and create jobs. Daniels shares, “What these operations have in common is a need for large numbers of low-paid employees, which is often filled by newly arrived relatives who enter as chain migrants” (363). This is a way in which they can help their family members come in.

                One of the most interesting things about this chapter was the difference between the Vietnamese and the rest of the Asian Immigrants.  Unlike their Asian counterparts, the Vietnamese were more pushed out of Vietnam as opposed to being pulled to the United States. Daniels shares, “Rather than self-selecting immigrants reasonably well-qualified for success in America, Vietnamese, or many of them, have been poorly equipped for life in an urban society” (368). The majority left in the aftermath of the Vietnam War. Daniels continues, “Had they not been refugees—and refugees about whom the United States, with good reason, had a guilty conscience—most could not have qualified for admission” (368). This is alarming to me that the United States forced so many people to leave Vietnam! Daniels mentions that by 1990, the number of Vietnamese War refugees and their children in the United States will exceed 1.25 million. That’s so many people that have come to the United States that were pushed out of their homeland due to an unnecessary war. The most alarming thing to me about all of this is how many of the Vietnamese people struggle to get ahead in society. Many are poorly educated and have low incomes. Most of them are below the poverty line and more than a quarter of all Vietnamese families receive some sort of U.S. government aid. Also, many of them choose to live in California because they tend to receive more government aid here. The United States created this problem!

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Daniels Chapter 13


Coming to America—Chapter 13: Changing the Rules Blog Entry

After reading this chapter, it was interesting to learn what the difference was between a refugee and an “asylee”.  According to Daniels, he writes, “An asylee is a person who applies for entry into the United States while already here, either legally, such as a person who came in on a student or visitor’s visa or, as has often been the case since 1980, arrived illegally” (Daniels 346). I found it interesting that an asylee still had to meet the same standards and conditions that a refugee had to meet with the exception that they were already in the United States. Also, one other interesting difference between the two is when they are counted towards the immigration statistics. A refugee appears in the statistics under the year that they arrived whereas an asylee is counted when their status is approved. This new category added to refugee did not even get added until around 1968 when the UN sought to broaden the definition of “refugee”. I thought it was interesting that when looking at Table 13.4 titled “Number of Refugees and Asylees Admitted, 1981-1985” that the number of refugees was significantly higher in every year in comparison to asylees. For example, in the year 1982, there were 93,252 refugees counted whereas there were 4,731 asylees counted in the statistics for a total of 97,983. Because the definition of an asylee is much narrower, there are far fewer individuals that fall under this category. In addition, Daniels notes, “The 1980 Act put a cap of five thousand asylees annually, although almost immediately, partially because of federal court orders, that cap was exceeded and in 1984 more than doubled” (Daniels 346). According to statistics, the actual number of asylees in 1984 was 11,627. They really did almost double the cap!! I just think it’s interesting that more asylees are not granted. Is this because people are fearful of applying and being turned away? Does the conflict/discrimination in your country have to be so great in order to just be considered? Being an asylee does not automatically make you a citizen. Just like a refugee and other immigrants, it takes five years for an asylee to be eligible for naturalization and to gain all the rights of citizenship as well as be able to bring in relatives.

I found the Mariel Crisis that began on April 21, 1980 to be most interesting. This crisis was over “the right of asylum for some 3,500 dissident Cubans in the Peruvian Embassy in Havana” (Daniels 347). Fidel Castro announced that anyone who wanted to could leave Cuba as long as they went straight to the United States. As this was announced, boats were charted from the Mariel port in Cuba to Key West and other ports along the Florida shores. Daniels notes, “In a matter of weeks some 125,000 Cubans had arrived, shattering all notions about an ‘orderly’ refugee policy” (Daniels 347). These individuals simply came in without permission and were bringing all of their relatives and friends with them. President Carter, although initially opposed to this, had to turn in favor of support to them because the situation was well publicized. After much dispute, Daniels notes, “In July 1985—more than five years after the crisis—all but about 2,500 of the Marielitos were allowed to adjust to permanent resident alien status, and in 1990 most of them would begin to be eligible to bring in family members” (Daniels 348). For the longest time, the status of these asylees was questioned and they were forced to wait in limbo because they were neither considered to be refugees or asylees. Part of the reason why they were finally granted to stay was because they were seeking political asylum from a communist leader. Meanwhile, the people of Haiti who were seeking relief from severe economic conditions were denied asylum and sent back to Haiti. It is interesting to see what distinctions are made between the right reasons to admit asylees and the wrong reasons to admit them.