CHAPTER 7
THE IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION ON TWENTY-FIRST
CENTURY AMERICA

The same things are said today of Puerto Ricans and Mexicans that were once said of the Irish, Italians, Germans and Jews: "They'll never adjust; they can't learn the language; they won't be absorbed."

—John F. Kennedy, A Nation of Immigrants

CHANGING AMERICA

In a series of articles published in late 2003, S. Lynne Walker chronicled the reopening of a large meat-packing company in Beardstown, Illinois, a town of 7,000 people ("Beardstown: Reflection of a Changing America," State Journal-Register, November 9–November 12, 2003). The revived industry brought not only jobs for local residents but an influx of immigrants, mostly from Mexico. Suddenly the local school was faced with students who did not speak English and a Catholic church had requests for a Spanish-speaking priest. Local people resented the newcomers who were "different" and some locals moved away. Mexican families missed familiar goods and services. Over time the makeup of the mostly white Midwestern community became 30% Hispanic. Eventually the disparate populations learned to coexist, and in some cases even appreciate their diversity. For better or worse, the town was forever changed.

IMMIGRATION'S IMPACT—A STUDY OF
NEW YORK CITY

New York was already a bustling seaport of 33,000 people by 1789 when George Washington was sworn in as president of the new republic on the balcony of the city's Federal Hall. Although the Dutch first settled the site in 1624, they were soon joined by the British and an influx of people from many other nations. New York quickly became a favored port of arrival. The Statue of Liberty was installed in New York Harbor in 1886, with those famous words of Emma Lazarus carved on her base: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

Newcomers struggled to survive in the city on hard work and low wages but settled in neighborhoods populated by friends and relatives from back home, or at least people who spoke the same language. The city became a conglomeration of races, tongues, and customs—and somehow managed to tolerate, even appreciate, them all. In the late 1930s European intellectuals, musicians, and artists sought refuge there and the city emerged from World War II as a world cultural center. The burgeoning population spread over five boroughs—Brooklyn, the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island—and each grew into the equivalent of a major city.

The City Studied Its Modern Immigrants

In 1992 the New York City Department of City Planning prepared a detailed analysis of the city's immigration patterns during the 1980s. The information was designed to help policymakers and service providers gain perspective on the city they served. The information proved so valuable that the Planning Department continued to study the city's immigration patterns and publish periodic reports. Based on the 2000 census, the fourth such study, The Newest New Yorkers, 2000: Immigrant New York in the New Millennium, was released in October 2004.

The report noted that after 1950 most U.S. cities in the Northeast and Midwest experienced population declines. The thriving postwar economy made houses affordable; subsequently, many families moved to new homes in the suburbs. New shopping and business centers followed, resulting in economic changes and job losses for established urban areas. While New York experienced similar suburban flight, a steady influx of immigrants replenished the city's population. In 2000, New York City's total population reached a peak of more than eight million. Among those were 2.9 million foreign-born residents, the greatest number of immigrants in the city's history. Figure 7.1 illustrates the decline of the city's native-born population and the growth of the foreign-born population from 1990 to 2000.

Immigration Gave the City Stability

The introduction to The Newest New Yorkers summed up the impact of immigrants and illegal aliens on the city:

New York City's demography is not static, but a dynamic process defined by the ebb and flow of people. As some people leave the city for points in the region and beyond, the city's population continues to be replenished by the flow of new immigrants. These demographic processes result in a unique level of diversity: 43% of the city's 2.9 million foreign-born residents arrived in the U.S. in the previous ten years; 46% of the population speaks a language other than English at home; in just thirty years, what was primarily a European population has now become a place with no dominant race/ethnic or nationality group. Indeed, New York epitomizes the world city. The importance of immigration in stabilizing New York City's population is only exceeded by the huge impact it has had on the city's racial and ethnic composition. With the passage of the 1965 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act, the countries from which immigrants originated shifted from southern and eastern Europe to Latin America, Asia, and the Caribbean. As a result, New York City experienced a dramatic shift in its racial composition, from a population that was mostly European to one where no group comprises a majority.

New York City and the United States Compared

Immigrants accounted for 11% of the total U.S. population in 2000. By contrast, foreign-born residents comprised 36% of New York City's 2000 population. (See Figure 7.2.) The share of foreign-born residents in New York City rose by 8% over 1990 census figures, while the country as a whole experienced a 3% rise. New York City's foreign-born residents reached a peak of 41% of the city's population in 1910.

In addition, the regions of origin of New York City's foreign-born population differed from those of immigrants to the country as a whole. While almost half (46.6%) of U.S. immigrants came from Latin America, only one-third of New York's foreign-born residents were from that region. By contrast about one-fifth (20.6%) of the immigrants in New York City came from non-Hispanic Caribbean countries compared to just 5.2% of all U.S. immigrants. New York City was home to less than 1% of immigrants from "all other" countries compared to 3.2% of the overall U.S. foreign-born population. (See Figure 7.3.) (Note: "non-Hispanic Caribbean" countries includes Anguilla, Antigua-Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominica, French Guiana, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Martinique, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Surinam, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands. "All other" countries includes Australia, Bermuda, Canada, Fiji, French Polynesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Northern Mariana Islands, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Vanuatu, and Western Samoa.)

The mix of foreign-born residents in New York City was quite different from that of the overall United States. Almost one-third (29.5%) of all U.S. foreign-born residents recorded by the 2000 census were from Mexico. Yet, in New York City, Mexicans accounted for just 4.3% of foreign-born residents. Vietnam, Cuba, Canada, El Salvador, and Germany were among the top ten countries of origin for immigrants to the United States, but those countries were not even in the top twenty sources of immigrants for New York City. More than half of all immigrants from the Dominican Republic lived in New York City in 2000 and they made up 12.8% of the city's foreign-born population. Yet, the Dominican Republic was not among the top ten countries of origin for the overall U.S. immigrant population. Table 7.1 and Figure 7.4 offer a comparison of the top countries of birth for all U.S. immigrants and for those living in New York City.

In 1970 white non-Hispanics represented almost two-thirds of the city's population; by 2000, no single group comprised a majority according to the Planning Department study. White non-Hispanics dropped to 24% of the population while Hispanics became the largest group at 34%. The graph in Figure 7.5 illustrates the balancing of racial and ethnic groups over three decades of population change.

Changes in Immigration Laws Altered Sources
of Immigrants

According to The Newest New Yorkers, the 1990 Immigration Act changed the countries of origin for immigrants arriving in New York City. The number of naturalized citizens grew from 855,000 in 1990 to 1.3 million in 2000. These new citizens made increasing use of the "immediate relatives" visas to bring in spouses, minor children, and parents. The most dramatic change came in the increased share of refugees, rising from 5.1% in the 1980s to 13.5% in the 1990s. (See Figure 7.6.) The majority of refugee arrivals came from former Soviet republics. The increased use of "diversity" visas brought more immigrants from Poland, Ireland, Bangladesh, Ghana, Nigeria, and Albania. (See Table 7.2.)

Demographic profiles of New York City's foreign-born residents provide a variety of cultural and family information. The New York City sex ratio (the number of males per one hundred females) was 90 in the year 2000. However, for immigrants from Pakistan the sex ratio was 161. Men from that culture often immigrated alone, established themselves in the United States, and then sent for wives and children. In non-Hispanic Caribbean cultures, women tended to immigrate first and the men followed. Thus the sex ratio for Trinidad and Tobago was just 70. Households with immigrants from Bangladesh, China, Pakistan, and Greece typically were comprised of married couples. The highest rate of married couple households was 78.8% among immigrants from Bangladesh. Female-headed households were more likely among immigrants from the Dominican Republic (38.8%), Jamaica (33.1%), and Honduras (32.3%). (See Table 7.3.)

Impact of Education, Language, and Job Skills on
Immigrant Assimilation

The New York City study demonstrates the challenges of simply surviving in America. New immigrants depended on the education and skills they brought with them and the support system of already established immigrants who spoke their language. Many immigrant families shared housing with extended family and needed multiple workers to support the household. Even with pooled resources, many families struggled in the city. Foreign-born males had a higher rate of participation in the labor force (66.9%) than native-born males (62.6%). However, the mean annual earnings of all foreign-born male workers ($39,060) were less than 65% of those of native-born male workers ($60,754). (See Table 7.4.)

Immigrants from the Philippines arrived in New York City with high educational levels (93.4% were high school graduates). Although one-fourth of these immigrants were not proficient in English, as a group they attained the highest median household income of any immigrant group ($70,500), suggesting that many had college educations. They also had an average of 1.6 workers per household and high labor force participation rates for both men (73.7%) and women (67.4%). Only 5.3% of immigrants from the Philippines lived in poverty. (See Table 7.4.)

In comparison, just one-third of Mexican immigrants had completed high school and 76.2% were not proficient in English. They had the highest average number of workers per household at 1.8 and the highest poverty rate at 32%. (See Table 7.4.)

ENGLISH PROFICIENCY IS DOWN.

In "Proficiency in English Decreases Over a Decade" (New York Times, January 19, 2005), Nina Bernstein reported that growing numbers of adults in New York City had difficulty speaking English. She cited city statistics that between 1990 and 2000 the population of those with deficient English language skills had increased 30% to 1.5 million people. Almost half lived in households where no one spoke English with proficiency. In one-fourth of these households the only member proficient in English was a child.

The problem of providing English language classes to meet the needs of new residents was compounded,

according to Ms. Bernstein, by the fact that the city's foreign-born population spoke 175 to 200 different languages. An added difficulty in teaching new residents to read and write English was the low educational level of many immigrants, who often were not able to read and write their own language. Adding to the long-term problem, the foreign-born groups with the highest rates of difficulty with English also had the highest birth rate.

A meeting of public and private agencies involved in teaching English to newcomers identified further challenges. They concluded that many existing literacy programs were not located in or near areas where the people with the greatest need lived. Furthermore, some funding sources for literacy programs required participants to provide a Social Security number when registering. As a result, many illegal residents feared participation could lead to deportation.

The Foreign-Born in the Workforce

Given that the foreign-born accounted for 43% of all workers, according to The Newest New Yorkers, immigrants were a vital part of the city's labor force in 2000. They represented 64% of manufacturing workers and 58% of construction workers. More than one-third of foreign-born workers in manufacturing were employed in textile and apparel-producing industries. Immigrants represented more than half (54%) of all workers in accommodation, food, and other services. While the largest number (100,400) worked in restaurants, 23,800 were employed in private households and 21,100 worked in hotels or other traveler accommodation businesses. The city's hospitals, home health-care businesses, nursing facilities, schools, colleges, and universities employed 311,300 foreign-born workers. (See Figure 7.7.)

A number of entrepreneurial foreign-born residents established their own businesses. Many imported and sold goods from their home countries to other immigrants and tourists. Ethnic restaurants have long been an attraction of the city's neighborhoods and each new wave of immigrants added different scents and flavors that attracted city dwellers and visitors alike. Maggie Leung, as profiled by Joseph Berger for the New York Times ("Spotting a Niche, and Knowing How to Fill It; She Gave Customers What They Wanted: Work Uniforms," February 26, 2005), was an example of an immigrant woman who found a need and filled it. While working in her uncle's Brooklyn store, the Hong Kong immigrant heard customers ask if he sold waiter's jackets, or waitress's blouses. Ms. Leung enlisted the help of her sisters and began making uniforms. As Berger put it, if you "want to know what jobs people hold, just gaze in the window of Maggie Leung's uniform store … She sells burgundy vests for waiters, smocks with orange piping for beauticians, pink aprons for manicurists, [and] heavy cotton coats for meat cutters."

Immigrant women comprised one of the fastest growing groups of business owners in the United States, according to Susan C. Pearce ("Today's Immigrant Entrepreneur," Immigration Policy in Focus, Vol.4, no.1, January2005). Immigrant women were more likely than nonimmigrant women to own their own business. Pearce cited the 2000 census, which revealed that 8.3% of all employed immigrant women were business owners, compared to 6.2% of employed native-born women. Since 1990 immigrant women business owners had increased nearly 190%. According to Pearce, "Immigrant entrepreneurs represent a potential source of continued new business growth that brings a broad range of international skills to the work force."

Many foreign-born residents worked hard to realize the American dream of home ownership. Not surprisingly, those who had lived in the city longer and established

themselves in jobs were more able to buy homes. Of all owner-occupied dwellings in the city, 34.2% were owned by foreign-born residents who arrived before 1990, compared to just 5.8% owned by those who arrived during or after 1990. While the foreign-born population accounted for 43% of all households, they represented just 21.5% of public housing residents and 37.9% of those receiving government-housing assistance. (See Table 7.5.)

Impact of Immigration on the City's Population

The New York City Planning Department study defined population change as the net result of births, deaths, and

migration (persons entering and leaving the city) in a given period of time. Between 2000 and 2003 the population of New York City grew by about 1%, or roughly 77,000 people. Births exceeded deaths by more than 200,000. More than half of all births were to foreign-born women. Together, women originating in the Dominican Republic and Mexico accounted for 13% of all births in the city. (See Table 7.6.) During the same period, 475,000 residents left the city to live elsewhere. This loss was substantially offset by 339,000 people who moved into the city from within the United States and from other countries. (See Figure 7.8.)

The authors of The Newest New Yorkers concluded that "the post-1965 flow of immigrants to New York mitigated catastrophic population losses in the 1970s, stabilized the city's population in the 1980s, helped the city reach a new population peak in 2000, and continues to play a crucial role in the city's population growth."

BLACK IMMIGRANTS FROM AFRICA DIFFER
FROM AMERICAN BLACK POPULATION

According to the New York Times (Sam Roberts, "More Africans Enter U.S. Than in Days of Slavery," February 21, 2005), more people of African descent arrived in the United States voluntarily from 1990 to 2000 than the total who came as slaves prior to 1807 when the country outlawed the slave trade. In 1800 about 20% of the 5 million people in the United States were black compared to 13% of the nearly 300 million people in the country as of 2000. While the American-born black population increased 18% from 1990 to 2000 (28,034,275 to 33,048,095), the African-born population more than doubled from 229,488 to 612,548. By 2000 about 50,000 black legal immigrants were arriving each year. According to the New York Times article, New York state attracted the greatest number of immigrants from African nations. Nigeria and Ghana were among the top twenty sources of immigrants to the state. In the United States, Nigeria was the leading source of African immigrants, followed by Ghana, Ethiopia, Liberia, Somalia, and Kenya.

By 2000, one-in-three black persons living in New York City had been born in foreign countries. They began to come as refugees and students; more recently, they have come through family reunification and diversity visas. The Newest New Yorkers found that recent immigrants often segregated from other blacks. Large community clusters of Nigerians, Canarsie, and Ghanaians were identified within the city. "As with European ethnics at the turn of the century, ethnicity has been a powerful force in shaping black residential settlement in New York," explained Joseph J. Salvo, director of the Population Division of the Department of City Planning, as quoted in the New York Times article.

The New York Times reported that immigrants from Africa have been "redefining what it means to be African-American." Immigrants from Africa lack the perspective of American history that drove affirmative action and diversity programs aimed at "redress[ing] the legacy of history." Many speak English, have been raised in large cities with capitalist economies, live in families headed by married couples, and are generally more highly educated than American-born blacks. They also tend to have higher paying jobs.

Although New York City had a significant African immigrant population, as of 2000 Washington, D.C., had the largest black African-born population. In Minneapolis/St. Paul, the black African-born population grew 628% between 1990 and 2000, moving the twin cities into the top five list of metropolitan areas with the largest black populations: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Atlanta; Minneapolis/St. Paul; and Los Angeles.

FOREIGN STUDENTS AT U.S. COLLEGES
AND UNIVERSITIES

In a statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at an October 6, 2004, hearing entitled "Addressing the New Reality of Current Visa Policy on International Students and Researchers," Allan E. Goodman, President and CEO of the Institute of International Education, spelled out the cultural and economic benefits to the United States of welcoming foreign students to college campuses:

The United States is the destination of choice for most foreign students seeking to study abroad. The education available at our 4,000 accredited colleges and universities is recognized and envied around the world.… There are more seats in higher education in California, for example, than in all of China. Only nine countries in the entire world have more institutions of higher education than the states of California and New York.… Educational exchange programs … are the best investment that America can make in reducing misunderstanding of our culture, our people and our policies. An educational experience in America pays dividends to our nation's public diplomacy over many years …

There are other benefits to having foreign students on our campuses.… They come into the classroom with a very different worldview from American students. Raised in a different culture with a different history, they enrich the classroom discussion and share their global perspectives with American classmates, many of whom may never have the opportunity to study or travel abroad.… Less than 200,000 American students study abroad for credit each year, a tiny fraction of approximately 15 million enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities. For the vast majority who will never study abroad, academic dialog with foreign students on U.S. campuses may well be their only training opportunity before entering careers which will almost certainly be global, whether in business, government, academia, or the not-for-profit sector.

According to the Open Doors 2004 survey conducted by the Institute of International Education (IIE), 572,509 international students were enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities during the 2003–04 academic year compared to 586,323 the previous year. (See Table 7.7.) The IIE determined that this 2.4% decrease represented the first absolute decline in foreign enrollments since the 1971–72 academic year.

India accounted for 13.9% of all foreign students enrolled in American colleges and universities in the 2003–04 academic year. Despite the overall decline in international students, the number of students from India increased 6.9% from 74,603 in 2002–03 to 79,736 in 2003–04, the greatest percentage gain of any country. Indonesia and Thailand recorded the greatest decreases in share of international students at 14.9% and 10.5%, respectively. (See Table 7.8.)

Not Enough American Students Apply for Teaching
and Research Assistantships

Goodman noted in his statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that foreign students had become an important source of graduate-level teaching and research assistants in U.S. universities, particularly in science and engineering fields, because not enough American students applied to fill the available positions.

Business and management programs were the top field of study for 19% of undergraduate- and graduate-level international students in the 2003–04 academic year. Another 16.6% were enrolled in engineering and 11.8% in math and computer science programs. These three leading fields of study all showed decreased enrollments in 2003–04 compared to 2002–03. By contrast, international student enrollment in social sciences grew 17.8% in the same period. (See Table 7.9.)

Foreign Students Contribute to U.S. Economy

"Educational exchange [is] one of the leading American service export industries, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce," Goodman told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He also noted, "International students make important financial contributions to their host institution and to the local communities in which they live during their stay. Each year students from abroad bring some $12 billion into the U.S. economy."

The University of Southern California had the largest international student population with 6,647 foreign students representing 21% of the school's 31,606 total enrollment in 2003–04. (See Table 7.10.) California was also the state with the greatest number of international students: 77,186 in the 2003–04 academic year. Of the states with the most international students, only Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota, and North Carolina reported growth in their foreign student populations in the 2003–04

academic year compared to the previous year, and the increase in both Ohio and Indiana was less than 1%. (See Table 7.11.)

According to Goodman, about two-thirds of foreign students were supported by personal funds. He reported

that "for many states, the tuition, fees and living expenses paid by international students exceed the revenues generated by professional football and basketball combined."

In the IIE Open Doors 2004 survey, 67.3% of international students reported that they and/or their families provided primary funding for their 2003–04 educational expenses in the United States. The U.S. colleges and universities were the other major source of funds for 23.4% of foreign students through scholarships, grants, loans, and assistantships. (See Table 7.12.)

For the academic year 2002–03 the IIE reported that the 586,322 foreign students enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities contributed $12.9 billion to the U.S. economy. Financial aid provided by the academic institutions was subtracted from the total tuition and living expenses paid by the students. (See Table 7.13.) Just 12.4% of international students were married and most of these students (85%) brought their families with them to the United States. An estimated 72,617 spouses and 43,570 children accompanied these enrolled foreign students. Living expenses paid by students for these family members were estimated at $479 million annually. (See Table 7.14.)

The IIE survey estimated that California, with the greatest number of international students, realized $1.7 billion in tuition and other fees as well as living expenses paid by students and their dependents for academic year 2002–03. New York was close behind at $1.5 billion. Wyoming, with the fewest international

students among the forty-eight contiguous states and Washington, D.C., garnered $9.3 million from international students in the same period.

In his address to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Goodman acknowledged U.S. security concerns about possible student visa abuse, but made a plea for expediting student visa processing so that foreign students did not arrive late for the start of school semesters. He also stated that foreign students faced lengthy delays because they had to reapply for visa approval each time they returned home, even for short visits during holiday breaks. Goodman recommended student visa approval be awarded for the entire period of study in the United States.

CALIFORNIA'S ROLE IN IMMIGRATION

The influx of illegal aliens into the state of California in the 1980s has inspired controversy, particularly regarding California's role in the problem. Many commentators have rejected the assertion that California is the helpless victim of illegal aliens and the federal government. They argue that some policies promoted in the 1980s actively

encouraged illegal immigration. For example, in 1984 and 1985 city councils in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and many other California cities passed resolutions making their cities sanctuaries for illegal aliens from Central American countries regarded as having repressive governments supported by the United States.

Furthermore, many California homeowners and businesses hired illegal aliens to maintain their homes, care for their children, or work in stores, factories, and on farms. Illegal aliens went to California because other refugees from similar areas of the world had established vibrant communities there. Finally, refugees, like many Americans, were attracted to California's pleasant climate. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) warned that the word would spread and illegal aliens would flock to California. In Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990 to 2000 (Washington, DC: Office of Policy and Planning, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, January 2003) the INS calculated that in 2000 about 2.2 million illegal aliens, or 32% of the total number of illegal residents in the United States, lived in California.

Governor Pete Wilson's Role

Former governor Pete Wilson has also been charged with complicity in California's illegal alien problem. When the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) was being debated in the U.S. Senate, Wilson (a senator at the time) supported a special amnesty for illegal aliens who could prove that they worked as farm laborers for at least ninety days between May 1985 and May 1986. The Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) program became part of IRCA. When the INS demanded proof that the applicants for legalization under SAW had indeed fulfilled their employment requirement, Wilson opposed it.

Some experts believe that many undocumented aliens legalized under the SAW program were admitted under fraudulent circumstances. Although the program was supposed to grant amnesty to about 350,000 workers, nearly 1.3 million illegal immigrants gained permanent resident status through the program; most settled in California (Eric Schlosser, "In the Strawberry Fields," Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003). After the workers were legalized, hundreds of thousands of family members entered the United States illegally. Most were women and children—those most likely to use medical and educational services.

Welfare Dependence after Welfare Reform

In How Are Immigrants Faring after Welfare Reform? Preliminary Evidence from Los Angeles and New York City (Randy Capps, et al., Washington, DC: Urban Institute, March 2002), the authors found that by 1999–2000 low-income immigrant families had lower public assistance program participation rates than low-income native families. In Los Angeles, 13% of low-income immigrant families received food stamps, compared with 34% of low-income native families. The study suggested that the percentages might have been higher but for immigrants' fears of being branded "public charges"—that is, dependent on the state—which could lead to the denial of an immigrant's application for legal permanent resident status.

Public Education and California's Immigrant Children

In California, education has been the public service most affected by both legal and illegal immigration. According to data from the California Department of Education, enrollments in California's primary and secondary schools rose significantly from 1950 to 2002. This was primarily a result of the steady influx of school-age immigrants and the growing numbers of American-born children of immigrants. The California Department of Finance projected that Hispanic K–12 enrollment would grow from 45.4% of the total in 2002–03 to 52.4% in 2011–12 (Stephen J. Carroll, et al., California's K–12 Public Schools: How Are They Doing?, Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation, 2005). In The Well-Being of California's Children (San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California, 2003), Frank F. Furstenberg reported that in 1999, nearly half of all children in California under the age of six had a foreign-born parent. These children were mostly Hispanic, came from the poorest families in California, and had parents with low levels of educational attainment. Such children tended to have limited English proficiency and to experience greater problems in school.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY
IMPORTANT TO EDUCATIONAL SUCCESS

In a study of immigration's impact on the nation's schools, Michael E. Fix and Jeffrey S. Passel noted that as of 2000 one out of every five K–12 students was the child of immigrants and of these about 25% were themselves foreign-born (U.S. Immigration: Trends and Implications for Schools, Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, January 2003). Fix and Passel estimated that 5% of U.S. students had limited English proficiency (LEP). The authors also noted a recent dispersal trend—immigrants were moving in greater numbers into states that previously had not attracted significant numbers of immigrants. This created new challenges for schools that previously had not had to meet the needs of LEP students. In addition to the cost and availability of qualified bilingual teachers, schools faced the potential loss of certain federal funding according to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 should students—including LEP students—fail to make adequate academic progress on standardized tests.

Do Immigrants Improve English Skills with
Succeeding Generations?

Some commentators have expressed concerns that today's immigrants, particularly those who speak Spanish, may not be as willing to learn and use English as have past generations. The Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research studied this issue and found that "English is almost universally accepted by the children and grandchildren of the immigrants who have come to the U.S. in great numbers since the 1960s" (Richard Alba, Language Assimilation Today: Bilingualism Persists More Than in the Past, but English Still Dominates, Albany, NY: University of Albany, December 2004).

The study found that most second-generation children spoke another language at home, but almost all were proficient in English. Among second-generation Hispanics, 85% spoke some Spanish at home compared to 61% of second-generation Asians. Except among Spanish-speaking groups, the study found that by the third generation (the grandchildren of immigrants) English was the primary language. Among third-generation Asians, 92% spoke only English compared to 72% of Hispanics. For Mexican-American children, maintaining bilingual skills was most common in communities near the U.S.–Mexico border. Away from the border, third-generation Mexican-American children were unlikely to be bilingual.

HOW WELL DO IMMIGRANT CHILDREN
COMPETE WITH NATIVE CHILDREN?

A survey conducted in 2003 by the Pew Hispanic Center and the Kaiser Family Foundation explored attitudes of Hispanic adults, or Latinos, toward schools and education. The study, National Survey of Latinos: Education (Washington, DC, January 2004), paid particular attention to differences between recent immigrants and those who had been in the United States for a generation or more. When asked to evaluate public schools on an "A, B, C, D, or Failing" scale, 33% of foreign-born Latino parents gave their community schools an "A" compared to 16% of native-born Latino parents, 13% of African-American parents, and 19% of white parents. Foreign-born Latino parents were similarly more positive about the nationwide public school system. (See Figure 7.9.) If the school failed to meet performance standards, 69% of foreign-born Latino parents would require students to remain in the school compared to 50% of native Latino parents and 35% of white parents. Foreign-born Latino parents were generally more optimistic about U.S. schools. Authors of the survey noted that these findings suggested foreign-born parents might lack an understanding of major educational reforms such as the No Child Left Behind Act, vouchers, and charter schools.

When it came to understanding their child's curriculum, just 43% of foreign-born Latino parents said they knew a lot compared to 66% of native Latino parents and a similar share of African-American and white parents. (See Figure 7.10.) While 99% of all Latino parents thought it was important for schools to teach English to the children of immigrants, 93% of foreign-born Latino parents thought schools should also help students maintain their native tongue. Native Latino parents were somewhat less interested (81%) in having schools provide such instruction.

National Standardized Test Scores

Educational achievement in core subjects like reading, math, and science was considered by educators as a predictor of children's likelihood of completing high school, attending college, and attaining high-paying careers. According to the Pew Hispanic Center fact sheet "Hispanic School Achievement: Catching Up Requires Running Faster than White Youth" (Washington, DC, January 2004), in 2000 the average score on a standardized math test for kindergartners was 45.5 for white children, 40.0 for all Hispanic children, and 38.4 for African-American children. Children whose parents were born in Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico on average scored significantly lower than their white peers. However, children whose parents were born in Cuba (46.1 score) outperformed their white peers. (See Table 7.15.) The number of generations a Hispanic child

was removed from the country of origin appeared to make no difference in educational achievement. Eighth-grade math scores and middle-school grade point averages were very similar regardless of whether the child was native-born or foreign-born.

In 2000 the dropout rate for Hispanic students age sixteen to nineteen was 21.1% ("High School Dropout Rates for Latino Youth," ERIC Clearinghouse on UrbanEducation Digest, No. 193, December 2003). While this figure reflected a decrease in the 1990 dropout rate (21.8%) of Latino youth, it was about three times the rate of 6.9% for white, non-Hispanic students in 2000.

Children of Immigrants Succeed in Math and
Science Competitions

A study by the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) found that "an astounding 60% of the top science students in the United States and 65% of the top math students are the children of immigrants. In addition, foreign-born high school students make up 50% of the 2004 U.S. Math Olympiad's top scorers, 38% of the U.S. Physics Team, and 25% of the Intel Science Talent Search finalists," which is considered the most prestigious award for young scientists and mathematicians in the United States (Stuart Anderson, The Multiplier Effect, Arlington, VA: National Foundation for American Policy, 2004). NFAP described itself as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization engaged in public policy research on trade, immigration, and other national issues.

While the study focused on prestigious competitions that attracted outstanding science and math students, children of immigrants made an impressive showing. Eighteen of the forty finalists in the 2004 Intel Science Talent Search had parents who entered the United States on professional status H-1B visas. Clearly these students had at least one highly educated parent. However, the parents of three finalists entered the country as family-sponsored immigrants, the parents of two competitors came as refugees, and one parent won a diversity lottery visa. (See Figure 7.11.) Stuart Anderson, author of the NFAP study, commented, "If those who most oppose immigration had succeeded over the past two decades, two-thirds of the most outstanding future scientists and mathematicians in the United States would not be in the country."

CALIFORNIA'S EFFORTS TO LEGISLATE
AGAINST ILLEGAL ALIENS

In November 1994 increasing concern about the effects of a large number of illegal aliens culminated in California voters approving Proposition 187 by a margin of 59% to 41%. The ballot initiative prohibited illegal aliens and their children from receiving any welfare services, education, or emergency health care. It further required local law-enforcement authorities, educators, medical professionals, and social-service workers to report suspected illegal aliens to state and federal authorities. It also considered the manufacture, distribution, and sale of fraudulent documents a state felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

The day after California voters approved Proposition 187, civil rights groups filed a lawsuit in federal district court to block implementation of the ballot initiative. One week later U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Byrne issued a temporary restraining order.

In November 1995 U.S. District Court Judge Mariana Pfaelzer ruled unconstitutional Proposition 187's provision involving elementary and secondary education for undocumented children. The judge cited the U.S. Supreme Court decision in a Texas case, Plyler v. Doe (457 U.S. 202, 1982), which held that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited states from denying education to illegal immigrants. Civil rights and education groups had argued that states had no legal rights to regulate immigration, which was a federal responsibility.

In March 1998 Judge Pfaelzer permanently barred Proposition 187's restrictions on benefits for aliens and declared much of the legislation unconstitutional. Pfaelzer allowed the criminal provision to consider as a felony the manufacture, distribution, and use of false documents.

Former governor Pete Wilson appealed Pfaelzer's decision. In April 1999 Wilson's successor, Governor Gray Davis, announced that the state of California would ask a federal appeals court to mediate the legal disputes over Proposition 187. Although Davis opposed the ballot initiative, he claimed he had no authority to disregard the voters' wishes or to rule on Proposition 187's constitutionality. Some individuals on both sides of the issue charged that the new governor had taken the easy way out. In July 1999 Governor Davis and the civil rights groups agreed to end the litigation, in effect nullifying the public votes banning public education and social services to illegal aliens. Only the criminal provision pertaining to false documents was to be implemented.

Arizona Succeeds Where California Failed

In November 2004, 56% of Arizona voters approved a ballot initiative called Proposition 200 that would require proof of citizenship when registering to vote and applying for public benefits. It also required state, county, and municipal employees to report suspected undocumented immigrants to immigration authorities. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed suit to block implementation of Proposition 200 and some opponents called the measure "racist." On December 22, 2004, U.S. District Judge David Bury lifted a temporary order barring implementation of Proposition 200 and it became law in Arizona.

Meanwhile the courts were left to determine the definition of "public benefits." The state's attorney general issued an opinion that limited the definition of "public benefits" to welfare. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and a state support group filed suit to broaden the definition to include benefits such as public housing, post-secondary education, grants, loans, and food assistance.

The apparent success of Arizona's Proposition 200 sparked interest in similar laws in other states. The Arizona Republic reported that an initiative called "Protect Arkansas NOW" had been introduced in that state's legislature (Yvonne Wingett, "Prop. 200 Spurs Efforts Nationwide," January 21, 2005). Tyche Hendricks of the San Francisco Chronicle reported on February 28, 2005, that copycats were being pushed by groups in Colorado, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Washington, and Oregon ("Issue of Illegals Roiling Arizona: New Law Denies Public Services to Such Immigrants").

PUBLIC OPINION—CHANGING VIEWS
ON IMMIGRATION

The results of the 2000 census added to the continuing debate on the effects of immigration on population growth and wages. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, fed the debate over immigration levels. According to the U.S. Census Bureau report Population Change and Distribution: 1990–2000 (Washington, DC, April 2001), the U.S. population grew by more than 13%, from 248.7 million in 1990 to 281.4 million in 2000. The additional 32.7 million people represented the largest increase in the country's history. The foreign-born population grew 57% during the decade—from 19.8 million to 31.1 million, accounting for an estimated 11.1% of the total population in 2000 (The Foreign-Born Population: 2000, Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, December 2003).

A Gallup poll entitled "Americans Have Mixed Opinions about Immigration" (Jeffrey M. Jones, Washington, DC: The Gallup Organization, June 19, 2001), found that 42% of the American public supported keeping immigration at the current level, while 41% wanted to lower the number of admissions. One month after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a joint CNN/Gallup/ USA Today poll found that the percentage of Americans in favor of decreased immigration levels rose to 58% ("Opinions on Immigration," October 21, 2001). By June 2003 attitudes toward immigration were somewhat less negative, with 47% in favor of reduced immigration and 37% in favor of maintaining the current level ("Nearly Half of Americans Say Immigration Levels Should Be Decreased," The Gallup Organization, July 10, 2003). As of January 2005, however, attitudes had again shifted. Fifty-two percent of respondents surveyed in a Gallup poll favored reduced levels of immigration in America ("Most Americans Say Immigration Should Be Decreased," January 5, 2005).

Some Americans felt threatened by immigrants who they believed were unable or unwilling to assimilate into American culture. Others felt that just as previous waves of immigrants had added richness and a distinctive quality to American life, future influxes of foreign-born people would contribute more than just their numbers to American society. In the aforementioned June 2001 poll, the Gallup Organization asked Americans about the impact of immigration on society. Nearly half of respondents thought immigration made taxes and crime worse while more than half believed that food, music, and the arts were improved by immigrants.

In Elite vs. Public Opinion: An Examination of Divergent Views on Immigration (Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies, December 2002), Roy Beck and Steven A. Camarota examined the results of a national poll conducted from May through July 2002 by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. The authors contended that the poll results showed a wide gap between the opinions of the American public toward immigration and the opinions of American policymakers. This poll found that 60% of the public considered current immigration levels to be a "critical threat to the vital interests of the United States," while only 14% of the nation's leadership believed this to be true. More than half (55%) of the public believed current immigration levels should be reduced, compared with only 18% of "opinion leaders." The public ranked illegal immigration as the biggest foreign policy problem facing the nation, while the nation's leadership ranked it 26th in importance. According to the authors, "[t]he very large difference between elite and public opinion explains the current political stalemate on immigration. For example, supporters of an amnesty for illegal immigrants have broad elite support ranging from religious to business and union leaders. Normally elite support of this kind would lead to policy changes, but on this issue public opposition is so strong that it creates a political stalemate."

The Debate over Amnesty and Guest Worker Programs

David Simcox reported in Measuring the Fallout: The Cost of the IRCA Amnesty after 10 Years (Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies, 1997) that ten years after IRCA legalization, the illegal aliens who had received amnesties had cost the government a total of $102.1 billion in terms of twenty public assistance programs. During the same period, the amnestied illegal aliens paid taxes of only $78 billion. In addition, Simcox estimated indirect costs related to the legalized population at $54.6 billion—$9.9 billion for aid to displaced native workers, $36.1 billion in aid to American-born children of legalized women, and $8.6 billion in public education costs for the undocumented children of legalized aliens.

After his election in 2000, President George W. Bush proposed a guest worker program that would provide illegal immigrants in the United States with an opportunity to register for available jobs and move gradually toward permanent resident status. According to the president, the term "amnesty" did not apply to the program he had in mind.

In August 2001, shortly before Mexico's President Vicente Fox became the first official state visitor to the Bush White House, ABCNews.com conducted a random sample survey in which 43% of adults said they would support a plan "in which illegal immigrants from Mexico would be allowed to live and work legally in the United States" ("Border Lines Poll Shows Public Opinion Split On Residency for Mexican Illegals," August 29, 2001). Almost half (49%) of respondents said they would oppose such a plan. Despite the president's arguments, many people saw his proposal as amnesty disguised by another label.

Guest workers took a backseat to greater security issues following the terrorist attacks of September 2001. However, the idea did not disappear. In another ABCNews.com poll taken between January 7 and 11, 2004 ("Most Oppose Bush Immigration Plan," January 12, 2004), 52% of Americans opposed any program "in which illegal immigrants from Mexico should be allowed to live and work legally in the United States." Yet, in his January 20, 2004, State of the Union address, President Bush proposed a new temporary worker program:

Tonight I also ask you to reform our immigration laws, so they reflect our values and benefit our economy. I propose a new temporary worker program to match willing foreign workers with willing employers, when no Americans can be found to fill the job.… I oppose amnesty, because it would encourage further illegal immigration, and unfairly reward those who break our laws. My temporary worker program will preserve the citizenship path for those who respect the law, while bringing millions of hardworking men and women out from the shadows of American life.

GUEST WORKER PROGRAM LACKED PUBLIC SUPPORT.

While immigration was high on the president's priority list, it was less important overall to the majority of Americans. In a December 2004 poll by the Gallup organization ("Terrorism, Iraq Still Top Priorities for Americans"), immigration was not among the issues Americans considered to be "extremely important." (See Figure 7.12.) Less than 3 in 10 Americans listed immigration as a priority issue for Congress and the president in 2005.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll reported in January 2005 that 56% of those surveyed disapproved of President Bush's handling of immigration issues ("Presidential Peril? Bush's Popularity Is Narrowly Based; Democrats Match Him in Public Trust," Washington Post, January 19, 2005). Many people viewed his proposal to allow undocumented workers already in the United States to become legally recognized temporary workers as an amnesty program.

In his February 2, 2005, State of the Union speech, President Bush reiterated his intention to propose a guest worker program. He said, "it is time for an immigration policy that permits temporary guest workers to fill jobs Americans will not take, that rejects amnesty, that tells us who is entering and leaving our country, and that closes the border to drug dealers and terrorists."