Conference on Immigrants and Race

"If ten years from now people can look back and see that this year of honest dialogue and concerted action helped to lift the heavy burden of race from our children’s future, we will have given a precious gift to America" President Clinton, Saturday, June 14,1997

On Monday, July 13, 1998 the International Migration Policy Program of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Georgetown University Law Center co-sponsored a Conference on Immigrants and Race at the Law Center’s moot court amphitheater. This event was organized in an effort to contribute to the dialogue begun by President Clinton’s Initiative on Race. Twenty-six scholars, policy makers and community leaders gathered to discuss the challenges of incorporating newcomers effectively into a multiethnic society and the effects and implications of this process on Black Americans and, more generally, on race relations. Seeking to move beyond the black/white paradigm that has dominated discussions on U.S. race relations and the deliberations of the Initiative, the Conference proved to be a thought-provoking exchange on the importance of and process for including immigrants more squarely within Clinton’s notion of "One America." Among those in attendance were the Chair of the President’s Advisory Board, John Hope Franklin, and Board Members Linda Chavez-Thompson, Angela Oh, and William F.Winter.

Jessica Matthews, President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, opened the event by reflecting briefly on America’s struggle with the concept of race and the idea of the American "melting pot". She challenged the panelist and audience to go beyond the theme of racial conflict to discuss possible solutions. Noting that the U.S. serves as a model of a successful multiethnic state, Matthews argued that America’s solutions to racial conflict would have a broad resonance throughout the world.

Following Jessica Matthews’ address, Alexander Aleinikoff read a statement on behalf of Leo J. O’Donovan, President of Georgetown University. In his statement, Leo O’Donovan expressed the Catholic Church’s concern for the plight of migrants, its pledge to continue to fight discrimination, and its efforts on behalf of the world’s forty-five million displaced persons.

(Click here to read the text of Leo O’Donovan)

Demetrios Papademetriou then introduced Douglas Massey who delivered the keynote address. Massey began by exploring the complex sources from which immigration stems. He stressed that immigrants are not typically drawn to the United States simply by a desire for a better life but also by three more fundamental and subtle forces: economic growth and development, human capital formation and social capital formation.

Massey observed that economic growth and development has expanded the market economy to the far reaches of the globe and has incorporated most economies into the global market. These transformations have pushed both rural and urban immigrants into the international labor market. In that sense, immigration is simply the labor component of the ongoing globalization in which the United States has played a central role. Once immigration begins, Massey argued, the intertwined forces of human and social capital formation take over to sustain it. The experience of working in an advanced industrial economy transforms people by giving them new perspectives and ambitions, as well as access to new information and knowledge. These new "qualities" in turn make them more productive and more valuable in the international labor market. Migration also produces a social transformation that allows migrants to help their friends and relatives gain destination entry and employment into the host labor market and thus significantly reduce existing barriers for those to follow. Consequently, human and social capital accumulation tend to become self-perpetuating. Over time there is a cascading effect in which these intertwining forces come to dominate the migration process. Once begun, it tends to acquire an internal momentum that makes it resistant to regulation and control.

Massey observed that given the United States’ role as a dominant economic power in a global market, it is not surprising that it is the world’s largest receiver of immigrants. Immigrants drawn to the United States are not coming from the poorest parts of the globe, but rather from dynamic developing areas with which the U.S. has established extensive contacts. Furthermore, they are of diverse origins, represent a variety of class backgrounds, and contain large concentrations in both the high and low skill categories.

Having examined the fundamental forces that drive contemporary immigration flows, and the nature of U.S. immigration, Massey shifted his focus to explore the existing connections between immigration and race. In doing so, Massey questioned the general argument that the presence of immigrants is detrimental to the welfare of minorities by undermining the wages, employment, and overall working conditions of native born American workers. He argued that studies done in the 1980’s have consistently found that the effects of immigration on natives and native minorities were either trivial or slightly positive. He pointed out, however, that while immigration itself has had only trivial effects on the labor market, some of the public policies aimed at regulating immigration have had a negative impact on the wages, working conditions, and general welfare of the poorest workers in the U.S. The implementation of employer sanctions under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), for instance, which made the employment of unauthorized foreigners illegal, led to increased racial and ethnic discrimination against both legal migratory workers and native-born workers who happened to share the racial and ethnic characteristics of some immigrant groups. Employer sanctions also led to the reorganization of some low wage labor markets toward increased reliance on subcontracting as a means of avoiding liability for hiring undocumented workers. Massey argued that the subcontractors’ fees for absorbing the new legal risks have reduced significantly the wages of all workers in these industrial sectors — a byproduct that has he characterized as "self-inflicted".

Massey next addressed the fear of ethnic balkanization (brought about by the high concentration of immigrants in only six gateway states) and that process’s alleged effect of increased competition for jobs and out-migration of working class Americans(1). He argued that better econometric studies have indicated that the underlying transformation of the labor market is responsible for both the arrival of immigrants and the departure of natives. In other words, Massey believes that these events are not related as cause and effect. Rather, they are connected by the broader transformation of economic relations—economic relations that are in turn affected by changing technology and the worldwide integration of factor and labor markets.

Massey then turned to the issue of the racial and ethnic composition of the United States. Noting the prediction that the United States is on its way to becoming a society wherein people of European origin will no longer be the majority as the numbers of Latin American, African American and Asians continue to grow, Massey drew parallels with the early part of the century when the Dillingham Immigration Commission expressed similar fears that places such as Chicago and Cleveland would cease to be dominated by white northern Europeans and become overrun with Poles and eastern Europeans. Massey pointed out that while this did indeed occur, it was accompanied by a simultaneous change in the definition of race and ethnicity. The racial line shifted to incorporate this group into the common definition of an "American" to such an extent that this concern no longer was a consideration. In addition, intermarriage between people of different origins and the changing nature of self-identification accelerates assimilation in a process that continues at a robust pace, especially among second and subsequent generation ethnics and among immigrants as they move up the education and income ladder. (Massey sees the political manifestations of this reality in the move to incorporate a multi-racial category in the U.S. census.) Assimilation, in turn, leads to further shifts in racial lines and changes again the definition of an American without a great deal of controversy or thought.

Despite his rather optimistic view of the prospects for assimilation, Massey acknowledged that racial discrimination and divisions remain a fundamental cleavage in American life. The future in this regard, Massey argued, will depend on the features that govern the likely trajectory of incorporation for the various immigrant groups. These features include the pace at which different groups are absorbed into the social and economic structures of the United States, the degree of discrimination that different immigrant groups encounter in the labor market, the overall structure of the U.S. economy and the opportunities for mobility that it offers. The "resources" immigrants bring to the U.S. themselves will also influence a group’s rate and process of assimilation. Class resources— such as education, incomes and occupational skills— determine where in the U.S. economic structure immigrants are likely to end up and the final status they are likely to achieve. Immigrants’ social resources and the degree to which they are socially connected to people already residing within the U.S. will help channel them into certain segments of the U.S. economy.

The degree to which immigrants encounter discrimination is the second factor that will affect immigrants’ economic and social assimilation. In addition to discrimination in the labor market, housing discrimination is also prevalent. For instance, with growing segments of immigrants of Afro-Caribbean origin, high levels of "black-white" discrimination persist in cities with large black populations. In addition, Hispanic and Asian immigrants with darker skin tones tend to encounter a higher degree of discrimination in the housing market. When immigrants with darker skin are channeled into segregated neighborhoods characterized by limited opportunity, poorly funded schools, and generally disadvantaged surroundings; their rate of absorption is affected.

Massey’s third major variable in an immigrant group’s assimilation into the American society is the overall structure of the U.S. economy and the opportunities for mobility that it offers. The great absorption of immigrants from Europe facilitated a fundamental structural transformation of the American economy that allowed workers with modest educational backgrounds to attain "middle class" status. This economy no longer exists. Since 1973, the U.S. has been moving toward higher levels of income inequality with education becoming the key differentia between those at the top and those at the bottom. Immigrants with low levels of education face great challenges in advancing in the new U.S. economy. As a result, contemporary assimilation has become highly structured and segmented. On one hand, groups with class and social resources prior to coming to the United States are able to successfully insert themselves into privileged positions within occupational hierarchies and to pass this status on to their children. On the other hand, immigrants without educational resources— and with the added disadvantage of color— will encounter discrimination in both the labor and housing markets and the odds for their advancement will be significantly more daunting.

Massey concluded by emphasizing that while immigration and race are indeed connected, they are not connected in the ways that people typically believe. Many of the problems often associated with immigration usually result from the existing racial structures of American society, he argued. Indeed, immigrants often suffer the same disabilities as their native minority counterpart. For Massey, the way to both maximize the assimilation of immigrants into the United States and to promote racial equality is to direct vigorous enforcement efforts toward anti-discrimination in both the housing and labor markets, make heavy investments in education, and address the growing wage inequality. Ameliorating this last trend would not only aid the minority population and give them greater opportunity for upward mobility, but would also abate white hostility. Massey argued that the "angry white male" phenomenon so frequently mentioned in the press has a very real basis in economic reality and is rooted in the fact that wage inequality for white males has risen farther and faster than for any other group in the United States. Politicians, however, have failed to address the fundamental causes of this anger and have instead deflected this anger toward immigrants and other symbolic groups. This political tactic, Massey pointed out, has only served to heighten U.S. racial tensions.

Panel I

Race and Immigration: Beyond the Black White Paradigm

Bill Ong Hing chaired the first panel entitled, "Race and Immigration: Beyond the Black/ White Paradigm". Hing pointed out that immigration policy has always challenged the U.S. sense of racial identity since immigrants do not fit easily into the rigid racial categories of "black" or "white." In his presentation entitled "Historical Constructions of Race," panelist George Sanchez supported Hing’s view noting that although Asians and Latinos are not black, they are still located in a caste system that is inferior to that of whites and thus sit "outside the zone, on the negative side."(2)   Sanchez noted that the place of Asians and Latinos in the U.S. racial paradigm is not new and, unlike the rigid nature of the black/white paradigm, the reality of race for Latinos and Asian Americans in the United States throughout the 19^th and 20^th centuries has been marked by a fluidity of racial categorization reflective of the political climate and the cultural beliefs of the times. Because the place of Asians and Latinos on the color line was undetermined, Sanchez argued that both these groups have had to fight for inclusion in American society along the encompassing black/white paradigm and to prove that they possessed a blood, history or culture that should allow them into a category of whiteness.(3) From battling segregated schools to pushing citizenship rights, 20^th century legal and political arguments have often centered on, "whether yellow or brown is black or white."

Sanchez argued that just as being "outside the zone on the negative side" has shaped the histories of Asians and Latinos in many complicated ways, recent work in Asian American studies has indicated that contemporary notions of foreignness have often acted to racially separate Asian and Latino Americans from other American citizens. Asian and Latino citizens have been consistently viewed as foreign by other Americans even when these groups have been in the United States for generations. In this way foreignness has been a part of racial distinctiveness. Pointing to the current debate over campaign fundraising in Washington as one example, Sanchez noted that the racial status of Asian Americans often exposes them to suspicions regarding their loyalty to the United States and their willingness to serve as agents for foreign governments. On the other hand, Latinos and more specifically Mexican Americans have experienced a distinctive form of racialization based on their presumed foreignness. Sanchez argued that in order to assume the position of the native in the American Southwest, Western Anglo-Americans have had to ascribe alien status to Mexican immigrants and to Mexican Americans.

Yvonne Haddad continued the discussion with her presentation entitled "Arab and Muslim Americans: Beyond the Race Line." Haddad pointed out that although Arabs and Muslims have been placed in a single racial category, not all Arabs are Muslim nor are all Muslims Arab. The stereotype of Arabs and Muslims has evolved over time from the oil sheik stereotype of the 1970’s to the terrorist stereotype of the 1980’s. Most recently, Arabs and Muslims have been typecast as the "enemy". These stereotypes have been institutionalized in some U.S. laws including the 1996 Anti-terrorism Act, airport security guidelines, and have also instigated hate crimes.

Shifting the focus to the economic impact of immigration on African Americans, Gerald Jaynes agreed with Massey’s overall observation that until the mid 1990’s, most studies concluded that the effect of immigration on American workers is either trivial or slightly positive. He argued, however, that these studies have underestimated the effect on African Americans in the low wage, low skilled labor market. This underestimate is due to the fact that immigration’s impact is broader than the economic profession can measure. Economic techniques attempting to measure this impact are overwhelmed by the simultaneous occurrence of such larger social changes as low success rates in schools, poverty, crime, and other social ills.

Structural economic changes have also made determining the effects of immigration on African Americans difficult. While immigration does indeed effect most directly the low skill labor sector, Jaynes argued that it would be erroneous to attribute the declining wages of African-Americans within this sector primarily to immigration or to race. Since the 1970’s wages have been falling across the board in both low and high skilled jobs in many post-industrial western economies. Jaynes further argued that these decreases in opportunity levels should not be categorized as a race or immigration problem for the results are the same for any socio-cultural group confronting the same reality. Jaynes finally emphasized that beyond any outcomes easily measured by economics; immigration’s most dramatic impact may be on public perceptions. Immigration profoundly challenges the way Americans think about race, class, poverty, and the nature of poverty in the U.S. Thus, the overall impact of immigration will be large, but not in statistically measurable ways.

Milton Morris continued the examination of immigration’s impact on African Americans from a political perspective. Examining the effect of the growing Hispanic population on the political power of African Americans, Morris noted that analysts have looked at the issue through the prisms of either competition or collaboration. Morris argued that such studies, while valuable, oversimplify the issue. To understand properly the evolution of black political clout one must consider a number of additional variables. Among them is that one third of the African American population now is of middle class status. Another significant change is the fact that a growing number of immigrant newcomers are also black. Because of this, it is not always adequate to view African-Americans and immigrants in a competitive framework. Finally, changes in society at large, such as the political changes during the civil rights era and debates over affirmative action, shape relationships among minority groups much more than the mere presence of significant numbers of immigrants. Given such changes, relationships forged among minority groups are not necessarily bound solely by racial identification.

In considering the effects of immigration on the African American political community, Morris suggested that one needs to focus on the impact of immigration on African American voting strength, on political control of cities (especially where blacks are dominant), on the evolution of the partisan /ideological orientation of African Americans, and on their attitudes toward policy issues where common stakes exist. Morris suggested that strategies for African Americans to augment their political strength should include increasing voting levels and a greater collaboration among minorities on common issues as demonstrated in Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition.

Focusing on the impact of immigration on those already residing within the United States as well as immigration’s impact on immigrants themselves, Mary Waters brought to the forefront yet another perspective on the complex subject of immigration and race in America. In her presentation entitled, "Immigration and the Color Line: Assimilation into a Changing America," Waters pointed out that immigration heightens competition for jobs and societal goods, complicates American concepts of racial boundaries and hierarchies, and impacts affirmative action in such a way that race can no longer be an automatic marker for redressing historical discrimination. Immigrants, however, not only affect American concepts of race; they themselves are affected by these concepts. Prejudice and discrimination directed at non-white immigrants forces new immigrants into categories with which they have not previously identified. Immigrants, some of whom have lived in virtually homogeneous societies, arrive in the United States with different ways of understanding and defining race and diversity. They learn racial stereotypes, prejudice, but also tolerance, after their arrival here.

Waters offered both an optimistic and a pessimistic scenario with respect to immigration’s effect on the color line. On the optimistic side, she noted that assimilation is taking place despite the fact that this process is less visible than it was following the immigration moratoriums of the 1920s and the 1930s. Moreover, Waters argued that because immigrants are self-selected they tend to revitalize cities and to set a standard of minority accomplishments that native minorities might emulate. Immigration also makes it more difficult to enforce racial definitions and serves to blur racial boundaries. On the pessimistic side of the coin, Waters observed that in the past some immigrant groups, such as Italians and the Irish, have been in fact able to cross the color line. By crossing the color line, these immigrant groups accepted and legitimized its existence. Water’s noted that this may prove true for immigrant groups today as well. In this scenario, the polarization of immigrant groups into black and non-black categories may lead to the further separation of society along racial lines. Finally, Waters also expressed concern about the second generation of immigrants experiencing an economic decline as the U.S. labor market increasingly takes on an hourglass structure— one with a swell of high income jobs at the top, very few industrial jobs in the middle, and a pool of low skill service sector jobs at the bottom. If, like many low skilled Americans, the children of immigrants begin to reject low wage jobs, this attitude would put them in a position of attempting to climb a ladder of advancement that is missing its middle rungs.

Panel II

Building Communities: Strategies and "Best Practices"

The second panel focused on pragmatic responses to the issues of immigration and race. Drawing from his experience as Executive Director of both the Los Angeles Human Relations Commission and the Los Angeles Multicultural Collaborative, Joe Hicks emphasized the utility and importance of interweaving multiculturalism and communitarianism by encouraging people to work together on common problems and solutions. He emphasized that making diversity work requires going beyond city hall to organize activities within neighborhood communities. Bringing people together, Hicks argued is of greater utility than simply celebrating differences and is a crucial step towards redefining human relations.

Sid Mohn also emphasized the importance of bringing diverse groups together to promote intergroup understanding and cooperation. Analyzing Chicago’s urban challenges, Mohn conceded that while there is presently no majority population, Chicago remains one of the most segregated cities in the U.S. However, Mohn asserted that Chicago is beginning to move the diversity paradigm beyond that of race relations to one of intergroup exchange. He pointed to several model programs, which have demonstrated the value of collaborative efforts.

In the governmental sector, Chicago’s Commission on Human Relations is one institution that Mohn argued warrants attention. The Commission is charged with eliminating hate crimes and bias, monitoring the city’s human rights ordinance, and facilitating positive inter-group relations. Its Advisory Councils are comprised of Veteran, African American, Latino, Gay & Lesbian, Asian, Women, Immigrant and Refugee, and Arab American interest groups. The Chair of each council is automatically a member of the Commission.

To further advance diversity, the Advisory Councils are currently involved in membership drives to ensure that each will have gender equity as well as representation from the disabled and the gay/lesbian communities. The overall goal is to have inter-group relations practiced within the advisory councils as well as within the larger body of the Commission itself. In one of its more ambitious initiatives, and in the context of the 50^th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Commission is considering connecting international understandings of human rights, such as refugee protection, with local issues of human rights, such as hunger, homelessness, entrenched poverty, and bias crime. The overall goal is to foster a spirit of shared human rights concerns.

In the private sector, Mohn pointed to the Chicago Community Trust as another model. In recognition of the growing importance of Chicago’s Latino community, the Trust started the Chicago/ Mexico Leadership Initiative, formed to promulgate greater understanding of Mexican communities. Through the initiative, three hundred leaders in government, law, business, education, health, religion, and media were invited to participate in an eight-month lecture and discussion series on the social, economic, and political realities of Mexico. Under the second phase of this funding initiative, one hundred civic leaders chosen from among key African-American groups, new and established immigrant groups, mainstream organizations, business and community based coalitions, participated in study tours to Mexico. Mohn explained that the program had the following benefits:

• Mexican, African American, white, and immigrant youth organizations have been meeting to develop collective strategies on youth development;

• Latino, African American, and homeless community organizers have been meeting to discuss organizing theory and practice

• Businesses are considering expanding their philanthropic efforts to new ethnic groups both locally and globally

• A major newspaper has increased its coverage of Mexico and Mexican community issues.

Mohn also referred to the Organization of the Northeast, a community-based organization in Chicago’s most ethnically diverse neighborhood, that strives to build successful multi-ethnic, multi-racial mixed-income communities. Through this organization, communities of the Northeast have come together to address issues such as jobs, housing, youth, and family development. Among the initiatives undertaken are a homes project in which affordable housing was built for low income African Americans, immigrants, and refugees, an after-school program for community youth, and an employment coordinating group that facilitates local economic development as well as neighborhood job opportunities.

The next speaker, Glenda Joe, explained that while people in Houston generally regard immigration with ambivalence, they have emphasized that they expect the city’s leadership to adopt and promote positive public rhetoric, marginalize disruptive forces, enforce media accountability, preserve a self -disciplined leadership style, keep a pro-business mindset, and promote community relations. Joe also attributes that approach’s success to cross-cultural education and to having the proper vehicles in place to diffuse potential problems. Joe added that as a young city, Houston has not developed any cultural caste systems and has not placed any consistent focus on differences. Hence, Houston has not witnessed the disenfranchisement or ghettoization of its minorities.

Two Best Practices initiated through Great Wall Enterprises are the Asian American Merchants Handbook and the HPD Command Staff/Asian Leadership Task Force. The Asian American Merchant Handbook, which provides for Asian Merchants in the areas of customer service, community relations and the problems associated with the use of deadly force, is requested and distributed nationwide to state and local governments, human relations agencies, universities, Asian media, and individuals involved in neighborhood conflict reduction initiatives. In addition, the HDP Command Staff/Asian Leadership Task Force is a development of strategies and recommendations for the recruitment of Asian officers, cross-cultural training of HDP cadets and veteran officers, communication facilitation, the creation of an Asian crime task force and effective neighborhood oriented policing.

Gaurione Diaz focused on the importance of addressing prejudice at an early age at the time that such attitudes are formed. As an example he cited Hands across the Campus, an organization begun in LA by a Jewish group which educates children on different cultures, histories and holidays. Susan Tucker focused instead on adults and emphasized the importance of multicultural training through adult ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) as a means of helping immigrants deal with bigotry and discrimination. Tucker stated that as a group, ESOL teachers tend to be multiculturalists and internationalist. Because there are few programs for adult newcomers with a declared anti-racist curriculum that fosters multicultural awareness, Tucker noted that some ESOL teachers, who consider these issues an essential aspect of their educational mission, are attempting to address the subject on their own initiative. Tucker noted, however, that these efforts are often discouraged. She pointed to the example of one ESOL teacher who was reprimanded by an outside consultant when she questioned the author’s point of view in a text that read as follows: "In 1860, not many people lived in the western part of the United States. People lived in the eastern part as far as the Mississippi River. People also lived in California, but in between the country was mostly empty. There were some Indians and wild animals, mountains and deserts…" The consultant accused the teacher of imposing personal politics on the students. Tucker argued that adult ESOL programs should be reconstructed along a variety of ways—from recruiting diverse teachers and supplying additional funding for training in multicultural issues to establishing a national policy on teaching tolerance and the United States’ history of racial struggles and progress. Tucker noted that while prejudiced misconceptions and stereotypes are often learned after an immigrant arrives in the United States, immigrants also come with their own prejudices upon arrival.  Indeed, these beliefs are often reinforced after the immigrant arrives in the United States.   Tucker pointed out that educating newcomers on multicultural issues early on might correct existing misconceptions or stop prejudiced beliefs before they start.

During the question and answer session, comments included the need to deal with ingrained attitudes, the need to promote economic equality, and the need to counter eurocentrism in the public school curriculum. The significance of the media and the role of sensationalism in augmenting racial bigotry were also addressed. (Further promising practices, as well as a list of over two hundred organizations working toward improving race relations in the U.S. can be found at www. whitehouse.gov on the Race Initiative web page.)

Roundtable Discussion

The final session was a Roundtable discussion on immigrants and race from across the spectrum. Roberto Suro, the panel moderator, began the discussion by questioning the extent to which the black/white racial divide sets a context and defines the parameters for immigration today. Charles Kamasaki argued that approaching this question requires consideration of three significant factors: the discrimination experienced by immigrants, the relegation of native born and naturalized citizens to a status of "perpetual foreigner" in the view of the general public, and the prejudices and stereotypes that immigrants bring with them.

Nathan Glazer argued that while there is a definite point of intersection between immigration and race, the only race problem in the U.S. is that of African Americans. While immigrants do face problems, these dilemmas are not racial issues. Glazer argued that while there is mounting evidence that the black/white paradigm is insufficient, it has not in fact ceased to be significant. Wade Henderson argued that the economic effects of immigration on the native born, in particular on African Americans, is of overarching importance. Therefore, it would be wrong to focus on civil rights as the only relevant issue for African Americans. In fact, according to Henderson, immigration has also had an effect on the labor market opportunities of African Americans at the time of the post Reconstruction Jim Crow laws while the third wave of immigration was occurring. Glazer added that since the U.S. government began crafting immigration policy in the 1880’s, the impact of immigration on low-skilled African Americans has been an issue. Considering that low skilled native born workers will most likely be impacted by massive immigration, Glazer agreed that it is indeed necessary to discuss the impact of immigration on low wage labor markets.

Richard Estrada also focused on immigration policy. He argued that when considering the policy questions of who shall come and how many, the United States’ best interest must be taken into account. According to Estrada, problems posed by unskilled immigration should be acknowledged and the different components of immigration policy should be examined to determine how each element affects different groups in different parts of the country. Karen Narasaki countered that placing immigration in a labor market framework makes it a scapegoat for society’s failures. The real problem, she argued, is not immigration but education and job training. Kamasaki agreed that the main focus should not be on immigration but on race relations and on helping minorities achieve high socioeconomic status. He argued that focusing on immigration as a source of the country’s societal and economic woes only serves to make these problems more difficult to solve.

Moderator Suro then broached the issue of comparing contemporary discrimination to historical grievances. Robert Bach explained that U.S. racial ideology has always played a significant role in U.S. immigrant relations and continues to do so today. Bringing up U.S. policy toward Haiti, Bach noted that it is hard to dismiss the idea that such policy was race-related. Thus, he argued, while such policies are not always articulated in racial terms, there is an inextricable link between the two. Karen Narasaki pointed to the great disconnect when discussing immigration and hate crimes. Crimes committed against immigrants have been deemed anti-immigrant rather than racially motivated. The race problem, Narasaki concluded, is not just a black/white issue. The black/white paradigm that has played such a dominant role in US race relations, is essentially about power, how one is perceived, and where one stands politically, socially, and economically. Those on the white side of the color line have metaphorically been granted a privileged status and full citizenship rights while those on the black side of the color line have encountered limits and have been marked with the status of an outsider. Charles Kamasaki followed by asking the following question, "If you were coming to the U.S., whom would you want to identify with?" Of course, most would choose to identify with those who have the power, he concluded. Roberto Suro pointed out that being neither white nor black, many immigrants have no specified place on the strict black/white color line. The question of whether Latinos and Asians will be treated as black or white in the future has added a new dimension to the issue of race relations in the United States. Consequently, it is necessary to examine not only the color line’s effect on immigrants, but also immigrants’ effect on the color line. The most recent wave of immigration has blurred the black/white paradigm to such an extent that there is no current vocabulary that adequately embraces the United States’ past, present and future. In a subsequent Washington Post "Outlook" article, Roberto Suro stated, " The black experience in American history has a unique and permanent importance that must always inform civil rights policies but guaranteeing equality requires a recognition of the dynamism in American society, including the dynamism of prejudice." The conference on Race and Immigration was indeed a first step towards expanding our vocabulary to embrace America’s diverse reality.

Notes

1. Recent analyses from the 1990s have found that immigration is becoming less of a regionalized phenomenon and more of a national one. Between 1990 and 1996, recent Mexican immigrants have been moving away from California and their numbers have decreased by twenty percentage points. A substantial increase of immigration from Mexico and elsewhere has begun in new destinations such as Iowa, Georgia, North Carolina, and Michigan. Thus, Massey argued that immigration during the 1990s has become less rather than more balkanized.

2. Sanchez was referring to the Ozawa U.S. Supreme Court Case in which a Japanese national filed for naturalization on the basis of his 28-year residence in the U.S., his level of Americanization and the fact that Asians could be considered free white persons since they had not been specifically excluded in U.S. naturalization laws. In 1922, the court rejected Ozawa’s application. Associate justice George Sutherland maintained that the while the founding fathers had not considered Asians in the meaning of either black or white, Asians were certainly not of the Caucasian race and thus not in the category of free white persons. Suthherland ruled that the applicant belonged "entirely outside the zone on the negative side."

3. As an example of the Asian struggle to gain the more positive "white" status on the color line, Sanchez noted the 1854 California Supreme Court case People v. Hall. The court forbade the testimony of Chinese witnesses even though Asians had not been mentioned in either the state constitution that prohibited the voting of Blacks and Indians or the state’s criminal statutes that excluded the testimony of blacks and Indians in any case involving a white person.


Click here for panelist's biographies.