Immigration Q&A
[Quess what year this was written; relatedly, what aspects are not relevant in 2016
(Q) What is the single most important requirement (other than “papers” of course) concerning personal advancement for immigrants in the United States?
(A) If a Hispanic speaks Spanish, the typical American will label him an “Immigrant.” In contrast, if he speaks English, he is described as “bilingual.” In other words, use of the English language changes the “status” of an individual from a legal term to a descriptor of skill. To be clear, for the individual who wants to rise beyond the level of his parents, wherever they reside, language capability does not mean the ability to simply say “hello;” it does not stop with the ability to adequately verbalize. It means the ability to both speak and write coherently in English. And sorry Googlers, you cannot click on a website link to find something pertinent to show your boss when it’s 9am and he wants your written report on his desk by noon. With respect to accent, if one cannot speak and write in English, then accent is irrelevant. If one is truly skilled in the English language, then accent is also fundamentally irrelevant, even if it is admitted that sometimes a job application may be rejected with the excuse given as “non-understandibility.”
[Political Implication: immigration advocacy groups should be vigorously promoting English to all immigrants; to not do so is a disservice to those who represent their constituency.]
(Q) If you have command of the English language, but lack “papers,” what happens?
(A) Each individual of course makes his own ethical decision. With command of the language, one has a better chance of getting a job, albeit illegally, but this only buys time until the Human Resources manager reports back that the social security number presented at the time of initial employment did not match up with the one in the BCIS computer. Besides, in most cases, the fear factor (of discovery) will mean that the job accepted is beneath the educational qualifications of the individual.
[Political Implication: simplistic though it may seem, if one has command of the English language, there is a chance of becoming a valued employee, which means there is a better chance of something really good happening, like sponsorship for the path which ultimately leads to residency.]
(Q) What if there is no demonstrated intention to seek papers?
(A) The employee referenced above is working on borrowed time; given the current immigration situation, the work situation can actually extend for many years, depending on the nature and disposition of the employer. The would-be student without papers will be limited to a few schools which look the other way with respect to a social security card and/or are willing to take anybody who will pay the highest tuition rate.
[Political Implication: if you are in the United States for an extended period of time without papers and have no apparent intention to seek papers, because the process is difficult and long, do not bother to seek your definition of “justice,” because you neither have political standing nor a legitimate case to present. It is recognized that intention is not the only factor of course, as the regulatory landscape changes periodically, there is a high chance of paperwork screw-ups because of the lengthy delays involved in any immigration case, and the requirement, for certain individuals, to return home for up to 10 years in order to move ahead with status adjustment, is almost self-defeating in terms of resolving the current crisis.]
(Q) If you know English and have papers, what is the value of the academic degree?
(A) Considerable, huge, all-important!!! Without a degree, you cannot get in the door in most places to have the conversation you seek about fulfilling your career job aspirations. Potential employers perceive immigrants who hold academic degrees earned in the United States as hardworking individuals who are serious about upward mobility and have a good work ethic, thus making them better employees and a trusted bridge between the business and the Spanish-speaking community.
[Political Implication: when immigration reform ultimately takes place, it is highly likely that people with English skills and with education and/or pursuing same will be in a relatively advantageous position.]
(Q) Is an American college degree synonymous with a particular level of knowledge?
(A) Unfortunately no. Over the years, as the goal of maximizing the number of people with degrees has been pursued, there has been an inevitable slippage in educational standards at all levels. As a consequence, the degree does not connote the historical level of knowledge. Therefore, there is a push for those with Associates degrees to pursue their Bachelor’s, with the latter urged by the marketplace to get their Master’s (in the skill set relevant to their career goal). For academic and high-level technological positions, a Ph’d is often a requirement. At each educational level, fortunately the anticipated lifetime compensation rises significantly, typically more than enough to justify the incremental investment. At the same time, immigrants who may have earned advanced degrees at institutions comparable to the top American universities are overlooked, even considered less capable, if they struggle with the English language.
[Political Implication: many countries have immigration regulations which specifically favor newcomers with particular academic/career disciplines. Given the composition of American graduate schools, wherein the higher-tech component is dominated by foreign students, and the heavy retirements projected near-term for math and science employees in this country, it would be entirely natural for those disciplines to receive additional and favorable attention in any immigration legislation.]
(Q) Does not a college degree have other usefulness?
(A) Individuals coming from countries where they have earned a degree but have been disappointed in their inability to quickly find a job in their career area often still value the American university degree as increasing their ability to open doors back in their home country, to which they want to return. In those cases, in the extreme, the American degree—as a nice piece of paper properly framed and hung on the wall—may be more important than the knowledge it purportedly represents. Interestingly, age and gender are important additional factors in this regard, as in other countries, there is typically more bias toward hiring younger applicants and males than is true in the United States.
[Political Implication: it is somewhat hard for an individual who gets papers solely to facilitate back-and-forth travel to his home country and/or who gets a degree for its “face value” to argue to the prototypical American resident/homeowner that the former is investing time, energy, and money in becoming a full-fledged resident/citizen of the United States.]
(Q) Is not there something fundamentally unfair in the whole immigration discussion, given the history of American territorial acquisitions?
(A) Er, uh, yes, but—sorry! Nonetheless, in the world of geopolitics, what is done is usually done unless there is an appetite for a cathartic war (name the last one which fit this description) or a series of wars which inevitably leave more innocent people dead than the historical culprits, who usually are long deceased.
[Political Implication: recognition of prior bloodshed in redrawing maps still should be part of the background discussion about that elusive “fairness” concept in dealing with “illegal” immigrants.]
(Q) What about the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) and its impact on immigration?
(A) If I am a Mexican farmer, for example, and my bushel of corn (if yellow, not white) has to compete with that of an American farmer whose bushel has its real costs offset by a subsidy from the American taxpayers, it does not seem fair. If I consequently cross the border to work on that American farm, it does not seem like a criminal action because the playing field is not truly level. This extends to other countries and products.
[Political Implication: resolution of equitable economic relationships, most importantly between the United States and Mexico, would be disproportionately important to gaining political acceptance of a package of immigration reforms. The whole issue of “free” trade agreements causes ordinary eyeballs to glaze over, but is actually quite central to a broader philosophical discussion of immigration.]
(Q) Are immigrants net contributors to the American economy?
(A) Entire staffs of research experts have come to opposite conclusions. The negative argument focuses on two factors: the cost of required Kindergarten-12th grade public education and healthcare expenditures. With respect to the former, there are policies with respect to student eligibility for college aid which prevent a positive outcome to society’s educational investment, so you cannot blame the aspiring immigrant. Concerning healthcare, the whole system is a mess, to which all sectors, including heavy immigrant users of charity care, are contributors.
[Political Implication: there are specific legislative steps which could be taken to rectify the educational situation—they have been adopted by some states but federal legislation is needed. Healthcare requires an overall re-do, with no special spotlight on immigrants.]
(Q) What is the attitude of immigration advocacy groups with respect to immigrant criminal activity?
(A) Similar to the knee-jerk reaction of certain racial groups when “one of theirs” is apprehended (and, in the case of immigration, lacks papers), there is an unfortunate tendency of immigration advocates to be silent on (1) the issue of whether a crime has been committed, (2) the necessity of labeling that person, if convicted, as a criminal regardless of his immigration difficulties and/or the economic misfortunes of his family back in the “home country,” and (3) the need to publicly state that, at a certain level of criminal activity, such an individual should be promptly deported.
[Political Implication: an easy way to dissipate public goodwill and legislative support would be to inadvertently appear to be advocating that all illegal immigrants should be protected regardless of the propensity of some to commit crimes. In contrast, it would aid the cause of immigrant advocates to be the first in the chorus which supports booting the bad guys out of the country.]
(Q) “I know many people who do not file an income tax return. Is that a good idea?”
(A) This is not a bright idea if you are trying to convince people that you have been in the U.S. for more than a few months, that you are genuinely interested in becoming a full-fledged participant in this country, and that you realize taxes have to be paid. To put a point on the latter, over a certain income threshold, a tax return must be filed even if no taxes (either incremental or absolute) are owed and no refund is due. Lacking a social security number, a person can obtain a tax ID number.
[Political Implication: this is simple–file a tax return, using a Tax ID number if needed. It is a crucial part of creating a paper trail that is part of a possible demonstration that, despite your illegal status, you really want to be here. Expect nothing politically if you are not willing to do this.]
(Q) What has been the political role of immigration advocacy groups?
(A) By frequently seeming to indiscriminately support all illegal immigrants and all demands by these individuals, the mainline advocacy groups may have worsened the situation by turning off people looking for reasonable compromises. Their inability to match their parade fervor (on one occasion stupidly including flags of their home countries) with political support for the aborted Kennedy-McCain bill (even though some were quietly in favor of it) exacerbated the adverse climate with respect to immigration. Advocacy groups must by definition want the number of illegal immigrants to be reduced; otherwise they have zero chance of a satisfactory political outcome.
[Political Implication: advocacy groups must make the classic decision: do they want to be “right” or do they want to “win.” If they stay with the former as their dominant theme, the number of “justice now” signs will be matched by the number of political losses. If they decide that the latter is more critical, then they will work hard behind the scenes to, for example, provide prospective to the myriad of details in a bill like Kennedy-McCain, which is referenced as the only attempt in recent years at compromise.]