Immigration Backlash
Your report on the immigration
backlash [Nov/Dec 1995] was
intriguing, especially the argument
made by Ratl Hinojosa and Peter
Schey that low-cost Mexican labor
is the key to economic renaissance
for the United States as well as
Mexico. I was surprised, however, by how the editors, in their intro-
duction to the Report, reduced the
entire immigration debate to “back-
lash” and “folk myth,” as if there
were no intellectual room on the
left to question the supposed bene-
fits of rising immigration flows.
This preemptive attitude seems to
come out of several assumptions
running through the issue. One is
that supporting border control is by
definition racist (if you’re Anglo) or
buckling under to racism (if you
happen to be African American or
Latino). Perhaps this is a result of
approaching such a complicated
bundle of problems via a single
debate, over Proposition 187 in
California. I’ve hardly been alone in
opposing Prop 187, for some of the
same reasons laid out by your con-
tributors. Yet I feel that the only way
to protect U.S. wage levels is to
control the flow of non-native labor.
Unless Hinojosa and Schey can
convince me otherwise, I doubt that
any common good is served by pro-
viding suburbanites and labor con-
tractors with fresh supplies of ultra-
exploitable labor. Obviously, with-
out the resulting downward pull on
low-end wages, the U.S. economy
would look different. For example,
labor scarcity would force wages to
rise. Unions might find it easier to
organize workers. Right-wing dem-
agogues might find it harder to play
the race card. Isn’t this what the left
used to want?
If border control is, by definition, racist, then it would seem that the
only moral position in immigration
debates is acceptance of an open
border. Judging from the worried
references to African Americans,
Puerto Ricans and other Latinos
who fail to perceive that they bene-
fit from rising immigration levels,
your authors are aware that they are
not a very popular vanguard. This
raises another assumption running
through several articles: that people
of color should swallow their
doubts and instead look forward to
the benefits of building up large
racial voting blocs. This is identity
politics, of course. Hopefully, Mike
Davis will update us on how well it
is working in southern California.
Latinos are not the threat to
American culture that white racists
think they are, despite the high-
sounding rhetoric of some Chicano
activists.
Contrary to the implications of
the issue’s cover-a border crosser
who is being frisked with his arms
up like a crucified Christ-the
undocumented are not the only vic-
tims of the great immigration game.
What we have instead is a complex
chain of victims and victimizers
that stretches all the way back to
sending communities and forward
to future generations. Victims in
one context can become victimizers
in another, and vice versa.
For all of these reasons, NACLA
should not use the campaign to nul-
lify Prop 187 to discourage debate
over the larger issues posed by
immigration. To the contrary, more
debate is badly needed, especially
on the left. In conclusion, may I
suggest that the many costs of
immigration are why, as the Report
introduction states, “the progres-
sive response to the backlash has so
far been muted.” The reason is that
NACLA is defining “progressive”
contrary to how the majority of
working people perceive their
interests, regardless of color.
David Stoll
New York, New York
Puerto Rican Attitudes
WX hile Howard Jordan’s article
“V “Immigrant Rights: A Puerto
Rican Issue?” was objective and
informative, it was incomplete. It
did not address the immigration
debate in Puerto Rico, and how that
shapes so-called “Puerto Rican
ambivalence” towards immigration
among Puerto Ricans living in the
United States.
Under the current colonial
arrangement between Puerto Rico
and the United States, Puerto Rico
has no jurisdiction over immigra-
tion. As a consequence, any U.S.
citizen can live, work and set up a
business on the island, often to the
irritation of many Puerto Ricans.
Over 500,000 people-15% of the
island’s population-is “foreign
born,” including 150,000 North
Americans.
More than 200,000 Dominicans
-thousands of whom are undocu-
mented-currently live in Puerto
Rico. Many came in rickety boats
in search of their “visa para un
sueiio” (visa for a dream) as Juan
Luis Guerra puts it in one of his
songs. While many Dominicans
use the island as a stepping stone to
the United States, a good number
decide to remain on the island.
The reaction of Puerto Ricans on
the island against these Dom-
inicans is not unlike the reaction of
U.S. residents against immigrants
in the United States. Dominican
immigrants in Puerto Rico tend to
have low-wage positions as house-
keepers, janitors and construction
workers-jobs which most Puerto
Ricans on the island don’t want.
Nonetheless, Dominicans are
blamed for taking away jobs from
Puerto Ricans, as well as for the
high crime rate on the island. The
tensions between Puerto Ricans
and Dominicans in Puerto Rico
also have racial connotations.
Some Puerto Ricans, especially
lighter-skinned ones, look down on
Dominicans, who tend to be of
darker complexion.
To grasp the complexity of the
immigration issue and the effect it
has on Puerto Ricans both on the
island and on the U.S. mainland,
we must take into account the role
that Puerto Rico plays in the inter-
national division of labor. The
island operates as both a labor
magnet and a labor exporter. Al-
though I approach the topic from a
somewhat different perspective, I
would, in the end, agree with
Howard Jordan: immigration defi-
nitely is a Puerto Rican issue.
David Fontdnez
New York, New York
Menu
