Latin America

Weekly Immigration Update: New Reports Reveal Immigration Does Not Increase Unemployment

This week, two new reports prepared for the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) by the consulting firm Rob Paral & Associates debunk the all-too familiar and simplistic myth propagated by anti-immigration activists that immigrants fill U.S. jobs only at the expense of unemployed native-born workers.  We have made the case why this is not so, and we have argued that reforming our broken immigration system will help eliminate the existing market for false documentation for immigrant workers and the demand for human smugglers.  We must overhaul the current system and focus on providing sufficient legal pathways for current and prospective immigrants, rather focusing on border enforcement that has not worked, and will not work.  Even at the high levels of migration seen around 2005, those levels of migration (legal and illegal) were still only a minor fraction of the population and a small, but important, proportion of the workfoce. 

Rep. Loretta Sanchez touches on the security argument in an op-ed published in The Hill:

Addressing the current drug cartel violence must go beyond training Mexican policemen, adding Customs and Border Protection agents, and increasing the frequency of outbound gun checks. Although these tactics are essential to the fight, security measures alone cannot end the illegal flow of drugs, humans, and arms into the United States and Mexico....We must adopt a three-pronged strategy that will strengthen legitimate trade and commerce between the U.S. and Mexico; invest in economic development in Mexico; and implement appropriate security measures in the U.S and Mexico.

Immigration reform should serve as an important component of the plan to strengthen the commercial ties and security of which Rep. Sanchez speaks.  And for those who refuse to accept that immigrants have always and will always help bring prosperity to the U.S., the full article on the reports: 

AlterNet
New Reports Reveal Immigration Does Not Increase Unemployment

By Walter Ewing, Immigration Impact
Posted on May 20, 2009, Printed on May 22, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://immigrationimpact.com//140147/

Two new reports prepared for the IPC by the consulting firm Rob Paral & Associates debunk the simplistic myth propagated by anti-immigration activists that immigrants fill U.S. jobs only at the expense of unemployed native-born workers. The reports use data from the Census Bureau to demonstrate that there is no discernible relationship whatsoever between the number of recent immigrants in a particular locale and the unemployment rate among native-born whites, blacks, Latinos, or Asians. This holds true even now, at a time of economic recession and high unemployment.

These reports are the first two installments of a three-part series, Untying the Knot, which seeks to unravel the complex and frequently misrepresented relationship between immigration and unemployment. The first report, “The Unemployment and Immigration Disconnect,” analyzes the relationship (or lack thereof) between recent immigration and the general unemployment rate in different regions, states, and counties. The report finds that areas with high unemployment rates do not necessarily have large numbers of recent immigrants. For instance, recent immigrants are 7.3% of the population in New Jersey and only 0.8% of the population in Maine, yet unemployment rates are nearly identical in both states. On average, counties with lower unemployment rates have larger populations of recent immigrants.

The second report, “Immigration and Native-Born Unemployment Across Racial/Ethnic Groups,” analyzes the relationship between recent immigration and unemployment among native-born whites, blacks, Latinos, and Asians in different states and metropolitan areas. According to the report, the unemployment rate among African Americans is, on average, lower in states and metropolitan areas with the most recent immigrants in the labor force. For example, recent immigrants are 17% of the labor force in Miami and only 3% of the labor force in Cleveland, yet the unemployment rate of native-born blacks in Cleveland is double that of Miami. Rob Paral, Principal of Rob Paral & Associates, points out:

“On the question of race we find that there’s just no connection between immigration and unemployment. The culprit when it comes to unemployment is not immigration.”

Among serious immigration researchers, these findings should come as little surprise. Immigrants go where the jobs are, and the causes of unemployment among the native-born are far too complicated to be reduced to some simple-minded “immigrant vs. native” arithmetic. In addition, employment is not a zero-sum game in which workers compete for some fixed number of jobs. In the real world, workers don’t just fill jobs, but also buy homes and consumer goods, save and invest money, start businesses, and pay taxes-all of which increase the demand for labor. During a press call hosted by IPC today, Dan Siciliano, Executive Director of the Program in Law, Economics, and Business at Stanford Law School, explains:

“The level of unemployment in the U.S. is painful, scary and difficult-so we shouldn’t belittle it. However, the very notion that immigration has anything to do with unemployment does just that. It belittles the challenge of unemployment.”

Although it might be politically expedient in some circles to blame immigrants for unemployment, it is-quite simply-wrong.

 

Meeting the Challenges of the 21st Century – Crafting a Better CAFTA

The United States Congress has begun consideration of the Dominican Republic – Central America – United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR).  While many progressives have reasonably rejected the Bush Administration’s proposal as inadequate to the task and an abandonment of the formula that worked so well in the 1990s, we believe that an agreement with Central America is so important to how Americans approach the 21st century that we must commit ourselves to help negotiate and pass a better CAFTA.

At its core, the debate over this agreement requires progressives to face squarely our own vision of how globalization can and should work, as well as how America can best promote economic and political progress by our Latin American neighbors.  

This memo makes our case for why progressives should not let the Bush Administration’s flawed agreement doom a good idea.  We describe how progressives can improve CAFTA-DR so it can pass with broad bipartisan support, with changes that would both reinforce our commitment to a prosperous and democratic Latin America and make 21st century globalization work better for the American people. 

Observation 1.  Bringing nations into an open, global trading community has been a pillar of America’s successful foreign policy for 60 years.

In the 1940s, after years of devastating world war, America, led by Harry Truman, crafted a new progressive internationalism committed to spreading democracy, free markets, freedom, and the rule of law around the globe. This progressive vision, backed up by American resolve and global initiatives like the Marshall Plan, the U.N., the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the World Bank, and NATO, led much of the world allied with America to an unparalleled period of peace and prosperity.    

Liberalized trade has always been an essential part of this successful strategy.  In the 1950s and 1960s, America unilaterally opened its economy to foreign imports as part of a grand strategy to contain and counter the Soviet Union by creating strong economic ties with both the world’s developing countries and industrialized nations.  It worked: Not only did America boom, but the Soviet Union was never able to extend its influence much beyond the countries it occupied with military force. 

After the end of the Cold War in 1989, America led the fight to bring this formula of democracy, free markets, freedom, and the rule of law to the nations newly freed from Soviet influence.  Just as we fought to keep Western Europe free from communism after World War II, America worked with other great democracies to bring billions of people from Russia to China to India into the global family of nations.  The 1990s was a period of rapid liberalization in all parts of the world and across many sectors.  Our foreign and trade policies explicitly worked to expand the circle of modern market economies, ending a remarkable decade by helping China and India gain access to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the global trading system.   

In just the past twenty years, the share of the world’s people living in extreme poverty (less than $1 a day) has fallen by half, from 40 percent to 21 percent.  America itself went through its greatest economic expansion in history in the 1990s. While there have been bumps along the way, the world continues to grow and has been largely at peace. Most nations today are democracies or attempting to become so, members of the United Nations, and members of the WTO.  The American strategy crafted during the difficult struggles of World War II has succeeded, and while there is still much to do, it is clear that the world has benefited from this period of Pax Americana

The one part of the world that has resisted the formula of greater economic and political freedom, the Middle East, is still exporting chaos and instability while its own social conditions deteriorate.   Successfully bringing this formula to the Middle East must be one of top priorities for progressive politics in the years ahead. 

In recent years, it has also been the policy of the United States to work with foreign governments particularly in the developing world to improve their labor practices, protections for human rights, and treatment of their environment, because we know how important all of these areas are to achieving stable and just societies. 

Observation 2.  Completing an agreement will make an important statement about America’s commitment to encouraging the democratic and free market aspirations of Latin America.

The agreement comes at a critical time in our relations with Latin America.  Completing an improved agreement will send a very clear signal across this region – including many still struggling to emerge from extended periods of autocratic regimes – that America supports their inclusion in the modern family of free nations.  Completing this agreement can also help reverse a growing anti-Americanism in parts of Latin America arising from the Administration’s clumsy handling of our relations with our neighbors.   

Completing an improved agreement will also send a powerful signal that the United States understands that, more than any time in our history, our destiny and Latin America’s are bound together.  One of eleven U.S. voters today are Hispanic, and if current trends continue, Hispanics will number a quarter of the American population by 2040.  More than ever, the United States is the capital of all the Americas.  

A sustained American commitment to extending the formula of political and economic freedom to Latin American nations will not only foster their long-term development and growth, it is also an essential part of any successful strategy to stem the tide of illegal immigration into the United States.   

For all these reasons, CAFTA-DR is not an ordinary trade agreement.   Failure to pass an improved version would be a true setback at a critical time for an increasingly important part of the world.   For more on the importance of the economic and political integration with Latin America to the growing U.S. Hispanic population, see our previous memo.

Observation 3.  As globalization has evolved in recent years, so must our policies.  With more nations and people in the global trading system today, competition has become more relentless.   We do not face the same challenges we did in the 1990s.   

While on the whole, the rapid liberalization of the 1990s has been a success, it has also made it easier to move American work to lower wage countries.  While good for profits and often for American consumers, these pressures are also hard on many U.S. workers.  In recent years, even many jobs previously touted as ‘jobs of the future’ have been moved to other countries, creating even greater anxiety among many American workers who wonder where their future employment will come from.

Moreover, this rapid liberalization has generally intensified competitive forces across the global economy, making it harder for U.S. companies to raise their prices when their energy, pension and health-care costs rise.  Those pressures now cost Americans’ jobs and put a lid on their wages and benefits. 

The result: Despite the healthy GDP and productivity growth of recent years, average American wages and median incomes have dropped.  This means that while overall economic measures may show recovery and growth, American workers are not benefiting as they usually do when growth is strong.   Capital and corporations are prospering; many American workers are not. 

In his new book, The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century, Tom Friedman argues persuasively that these and other changes in recent years makes this new wave of globalization not just different in degree from what we faced in the 1990s, but different in kind.  We face much tougher challenges that cannot be fully met with merely the approaches of the 1990s.  

Observation 4.  The failure of the Bush Administration’s fiscal and economic policies has made the challenges of 21st century globalization more difficult. 

In a previous memo, NDN detailed how President Bush’s reckless fiscal policies are weakening the United States and America’s middle class. On top of that, the lack of a 21st century strategy to help workers compete in this much more competitive global economy also is taking its toll on working people in the United States. 

Let’s look at the record since President Bush took office.  For the first time since the Hoover Administration, America saw a net loss of private sector jobs over an entire presidential term. Poverty, unemployment, health-care costs, the number of Americans without health insurance, personal and business bankruptcies, family energy costs, budget deficits and the national debt are all way up – and median family incomes, the stock market, and the dollar are all down, reducing middle class purchasing power. 

America has dropped to 16th in the world in broadband access and still maintains a mobile phone architecture inferior to most other developed nations.  Mr. Bush has even under-funded his own signature education initiative by $30 billion, relegating to a hollow slogan what could have been a critical 21st century tool to equip our future workers with more skills.  And as was reported recently in news media, even wages for highly-skilled American workers declined this past year, for the first time in over 10 years. 

Observation 5.  The Bush version of CAFTA-DR turned its back on a hard-fought bi-partisan consensus on labor standards and ignores the realities and challenges of 21st century globalization.  Progressives are right to demand changes.   

In the 1990s, President Clinton pursued a highly successful economic and fiscal strategy that created the longest economic boom in American history, turned Republican deficits in Democratic surpluses and rapidly liberalized trade.   This strategy of fiscal responsibility, opening foreign markets, investing in people and raising environmental and labor standards around the world helped usher in our prosperity and forged a bipartisan strategy for responding to globalization. 

Since taking office in 2001, the Bush Administration has abandoned the formula that worked so well in the 1990s.   Profligacy and deficits have replaced responsibility and surpluses; the approach to labor and environmental standards best captured in the Jordan Free Trade Agreement has been reversed; and even existing programs to help the middle class have been under funded or in some cases cut.    In short, it is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who have abandoned America’s commitment to an effective and modern globalization policy. 

It is time for a better way. 

An improved CAFTA-DR which progressives should support would have two essential new parts: tougher labor provisions in Central America, and a commitment to do more for the American people.

Recommendation 1.  A new CAFTA-DR should include tougher labor provisions. 

We should insist that CAFTA-DR does more to ensure that labor conditions in Latin America meet internationally recognized standards.  We should encourage both parties to explore ways to improve labor conditions, considering a variety of possibilities such as higher standards, tougher enforcement, more public accountability, and greater involvement of the International Labor Organization.  Including tougher labor provisions can help restore a broad bipartisan consensus for CAFTA-DR and responsible liberalized trade.

Recommendation 2.   A 21st Century Compact for 21st century American workers.

American workers need a 21st Century Compact, a new bargain to help them compete and prosper in the tough global economy of the 21st century.  In the great balancing between capital and corporations and people, the benefits have tilted too far away from working Americans.  

Because globalization makes it harder for many American workers to succeed, our leaders must offer new solutions equal to the challenge of 21st century capitalism.  NDN proposes that we undertake to seriously invest in and equip the workers of today and tomorrow (our children) with the tools they need.   

Among the policies we should consider:

·        Fully fund education reform, especially our poorest schools which have been received $30 billion less than President Bush promised in the No Child Left Behind Act

·        Ensure that all Americans have health insurance, and find ways to slow the increase in health care costs

·        Raise the minimum wage

·        Make quality child care and universal preschool accessible to all families

·        Adopt a national strategy to ensure universal broadband access, upgrade our wireless networks, and develop the next generation Internet

·        Strengthen community colleges and other workforce development programs

·        Expand trade adjustment assistance to cover service workers, to help them retrain for new jobs

·        Create a clear path to legal status – and better worker protections – for immigrants already working in the U.S.

·        Support initiatives which encourage U.S. students to pursue math, science, and engineering and improve math and science teaching

To ensure that these investments do not increase U.S. debt and weaken our economy, we should pay for them by letting President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy expire, including restoring the tax rates for the wealthiest Americans to their level in the 1990s, the period of the longest economic expansion in American history.

Conclusion

The times demand a new and better approach to globalization, one that works much smarter and harder to give current and future workers the very best chance possible to prosper in a world of increased competition and rapid change.

The foreign policy benefits of a trade agreement with Central America are clear.  Many Latin American nations have moved only in recent years from dictatorships and oppression to democracy and freedom.   A trade agreement with the United States has become an important symbol in much of Latin America of their inclusion in the family of democratic nations.  Rather that continue to press for an agreement that will not pass, the Bush Administration should negotiate a deal that can.

With the case for greater economic and political integration with Latin America so compelling, it is critical that progressives do everything they can to encourage the creation of an agreement that can pass, while staying true to our principled advocacy for the middle class of this country.

21st century progressives must vigorously defend the global strategy that has led America and the world to 60 years of progress.   We must also recognize when new times demand new solutions.  The rigors of 21st century globalization and the failed policies of President Bush must be met with new ideas and strategies to ensure that as the world comes together, the vast American middle class thrives.  Let us be the heirs of FDR in our compassion for those struggling today and for our children who deserve better than Mr. Bush’s narrow vision.  

Let us work with the majority to craft a better CAFTA-DR agreement, so it can pass with broad, bi-partisan support, reinforce our commitment to a prosperous and democratic Latin America, and make 21st century globalization work better for workers and families here in the United States and around the world.

 

Nelson Cunningham on the State of U.S. - Latin America Relations

See video

Nelson Cunningham, Chair of NDN's Latin America Policy Initiative, discusses the current state of U.S. - Latin American affairs.

Hearing 'Friend' in Trinidad

4/22/09
Chicago Tribune

How does Hugo Chavez say "amigo," at least when he's talking to Barack Obama?

He says "friend." As in "I want to be your friend." In English. True, as he "friended" President Barack Obama at the 34-nation Summit of the Americas last weekend in Trinidad, he handed him a book about 500 years of neo-colonialist exploitation of Latin America by Europe and the United States. But the gesture was clear, as was the broad grin on Chavez's face as he shook Obama's hand on the summit's first day. So was Chavez's announcement that he would send a new ambassador to Washington, seven months after pulling out his last envoy in the waning days of the Bush administration.

And Chavez was hardly the only "anti-American" leader to soften his stance against the U.S. Evo Morales of Bolivia, who had announced he would boycott the summit, came after all. He also was caught on camera shaking Obama's hand. And, of course, Cuba's Raul Castro announced he was prepared "to discuss everything" with the new administration—"human rights, freedom of the press, political prisoners—everything."

In a trip that began in Mexico City and concluded in Trinidad, Obama showed that he has indeed found the "reset button" for the Americas.

To be sure, there was plenty of criticism at the summit of U.S. policies. But after years of often unnecessary contentiousness, the ability to establish a dialogue across-the-board in Latin America is a huge step forward, as is America's willingness to acknowledge a shared responsibility for common ills.

Candidate Obama promised a year ago in Miami that as president he would bring about a new relationship with Latin America. That promise—conveniently delivered in a majority-Latino city in a battleground state—was met with skepticism. After all, the last president had promised the same thing while campaigning in the same city, and many in the region had found themselves sorely disappointed. Moreover, with the host of domestic and international problems facing the new administration, how much attention could the White House really be expected to pay to Latin America?

But in the past month, the administration has showed it can walk and chew gum simultaneously. In early April, even as much of the administration focused on the financial crisis and the G-20, European and NATO summits, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to Mexico and acknowledged that on two frontline issues for Mexico, guns and drugs, the U.S. shared complicity and responsibility. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also traveled to Mexico to reinforce that message. And Vice President Joseph Biden was dispatched to Chile to attend a leaders' summit and to Costa Rica to meet with Central American presidents.

For his own part, Obama invited Mexican President Felipe Calderon and President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil to Washington to his first bilateral meetings. Finally, before embarking for Mexico and Trinidad, Obama announced a modest but symbolically powerful softening of travel and financial restrictions with Cuba.

Viewed together, these steps illuminate a carefully thought-out and sustained plan of U.S. engagement with Latin America and the Caribbean. Obviously, Obama and his advisers did not view the Summit of the Americas as a check-the-box mandatory appearance. Rather, they used it to anchor a monthlong orchestrated diplomatic campaign to set new benchmarks for the region that are based on mutual respect, a shared responsibility for illegal narcotics and violence and a desire to get beyond old debates of the left versus the right.

Now comes the hard part. How to turn rhetoric into action along the troubled border with Mexico. How to restore strained relations with Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador—without backing down on key U.S. priorities such as respect for rule of law, investment security, and in the case of Venezuela, democratic principles. How to move forward on liberalized trade. And how to proceed with some kind of dialogue with Cuba that does not dissolve into backlash, as Gerald Ford's and Bill Clinton's prior efforts did.

Despite the challenges ahead, it certainly was refreshing to end a Summit of the Americas without rallies and bonfires ranged against the American president and with the word "friend" ringing in our ears.

Nelson W. Cunningham advised Barack Obama's presidential campaign on Latin America and served on his transition team. Cunningham also was special adviser to President Bill Clinton for Western Hemisphere affairs and is chair of the Latin America Policy Initiative at NDN, a Washington-based think tank formerly known as the New Democrat Network.

Despite the challenges ahead, it certainly was refreshing to end a Summit of the Americas without rallies and bonfires ranged against the American president and with the word "friend" ringing in our ears.

Crafting a Better CAFTA

Publish Date: 
6/9/05

The United States Congress has begun consideration of the Dominican Republic – Central America – United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR). While many progressives have reasonably rejected the Bush Administration’s proposal as inadequate to the task and an abandonment of the formula that worked so well in the 1990s, we believe that an agreement with Central America is so important to how Americans approach the 21st century that we must commit ourselves to help negotiate and pass a better CAFTA.

At its core, the debate over this agreement requires progressives to face squarely our own vision of how globalization can and should work, as well as how America can best promote economic and political progress by our Latin American neighbors.

This memo makes our case for why progressives should not let the Bush Administration’s flawed agreement doom a good idea. We describe how progressives can improve CAFTA-DR so it can pass with broad bipartisan support, with changes that would both reinforce our commitment to a prosperous and democratic Latin America and make 21st century globalization work better for the American people.

Cinco de Mayo! And Moving Past the Pandemic

I thought I would share this piece in honor of today.  A nice window into what is happening as we speak in the city of Puebla, heart of 5 de Mayo celebrations.

Little swine flu concern in Cinco de Mayo city
By Kerry Sanders, NBC News correspondent
 
PUEBLA, MEXICO –  It’s difficult to spot any evidence folks here are concerned about the swine flu.

In this city, about 60 miles southeast of Mexico City, few residents are wearing masks.  Stores and restaurants are open.  The town center, called el zocalo, is awash with families, children holding balloons. Lovers are in clutches on city benches, smooching.

In Mexico City, streets are empty, restaurants are closed and it’s so quiet you can hear the birds chirping. But Puebla is alive.

Double decker buses giving city tours are filled – mind you, there are few tourists. Most of those taking the tour, learning the history that dates back to the 16th century, are locals, or families who fled the boredom of the rules in Mexico City.

Puebla is famous for the Battle of Puebla in 1862, when the Mexican Army was victorious over the French occupying forces. It was considered an unlikely victory. While most Americans may know little about that war, it’s become a popular celebration of sorts North of the border. The victory was on May 5, or as it’s better known: Cinco de Mayo.

Hearing 'Friend' in Trinidad

This was originally published as an op-ed in the April 22nd Chicago Tribune.

How does Hugo Chavez say "amigo," at least when he's talking to Barack Obama?

He says "friend." As in "I want to be your friend." In English. True, as he "friended" President Barack Obama at the 34-nation Summit of the Americas last weekend in Trinidad, he handed him a book about 500 years of neo-colonialist exploitation of Latin America by Europe and the United States. But the gesture was clear, as was the broad grin on Chavez's face as he shook Obama's hand on the summit's first day. So was Chavez's announcement that he would send a new ambassador to Washington, seven months after pulling out his last envoy in the waning days of the Bush administration.

And Chavez was hardly the only "anti-American" leader to soften his stance against the U.S. Evo Morales of Bolivia, who had announced he would boycott the summit, came after all. He also was caught on camera shaking Obama's hand. And, of course, Cuba's Raul Castro announced he was prepared "to discuss everything" with the new administration—"human rights, freedom of the press, political prisoners—everything."

In a trip that began in Mexico City and concluded in Trinidad, Obama showed that he has indeed found the "reset button" for the Americas.

To be sure, there was plenty of criticism at the summit of U.S. policies. But after years of often unnecessary contentiousness, the ability to establish a dialogue across-the-board in Latin America is a huge step forward, as is America's willingness to acknowledge a shared responsibility for common ills.

Candidate Obama promised a year ago in Miami that as president he would bring about a new relationship with Latin America. That promise—conveniently delivered in a majority-Latino city in a battleground state—was met with skepticism. After all, the last president had promised the same thing while campaigning in the same city, and many in the region had found themselves sorely disappointed. Moreover, with the host of domestic and international problems facing the new administration, how much attention could the White House really be expected to pay to Latin America?

But in the past month, the administration has showed it can walk and chew gum simultaneously. In early April, even as much of the administration focused on the financial crisis and the G-20, European and NATO summits, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to Mexico and acknowledged that on two frontline issues for Mexico, guns and drugs, the U.S. shared complicity and responsibility. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also traveled to Mexico to reinforce that message. And Vice President Joseph Biden was dispatched to Chile to attend a leaders' summit and to Costa Rica to meet with Central American presidents.

For his own part, Obama invited Mexican President Felipe Calderon and President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil to Washington to his first bilateral meetings. Finally, before embarking for Mexico and Trinidad, Obama announced a modest but symbolically powerful softening of travel and financial restrictions with Cuba.

Viewed together, these steps illuminate a carefully thought-out and sustained plan of U.S. engagement with Latin America and the Caribbean. Obviously, Obama and his advisers did not view the Summit of the Americas as a check-the-box mandatory appearance. Rather, they used it to anchor a monthlong orchestrated diplomatic campaign to set new benchmarks for the region that are based on mutual respect, a shared responsibility for illegal narcotics and violence and a desire to get beyond old debates of the left versus the right.

Now comes the hard part. How to turn rhetoric into action along the troubled border with Mexico. How to restore strained relations with Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador—without backing down on key U.S. priorities such as respect for rule of law, investment security, and in the case of Venezuela, democratic principles. How to move forward on liberalized trade. And how to proceed with some kind of dialogue with Cuba that does not dissolve into backlash, as Gerald Ford's and Bill Clinton's prior efforts did.

Despite the challenges ahead, it certainly was refreshing to end a Summit of the Americas without rallies and bonfires ranged against the American president and with the word "friend" ringing in our ears.

Nelson Cunningham is the Chair of NDN's Latin America Policy Initiative. He advised Barack Obama's presidential campaign on Latin America and served on his transition team. Cunningham also was special adviser to President Bill Clinton for Western Hemisphere affairs

Weekly Update on Immigration: The GOP Still Doesn't Get It

Let me begin by saying that I have a great deal of respect for Joe Scarborough as one of the few more sensible, moderate Republican voices out there nowadays.  However, Scarborough and Ed Gillespie's appearance on Meet the Press yesterday demonstrated that the Republican party is either unable or unwilling to step back and take an honest look at the main reason behind its current unpopularity.  Republicans are unwilling to accept that it is precisely their conservatism - their social conservatism - that has caused their demise.  There is no "big tent" any longer when it comes to the GOP.

MR. GREGORY:  But, Joe, it seems like the fundamental question is, what does the party want to be, right?......Ron Brown, seen in his column this week in the National Journal, talks about the party being more monochromatic, more conservative regionally and in terms of the voters.  And he talked to Tom Davis of Virginia who said this, "…Tom Davis of Virginia, who chaired the Republican--the National Republican Congressional Committee, calls Specter's defection a `devastating blow' that will send a `bad signal' of ideological intolerance to the moderate white-collar suburbanites the party must recapture if it is to threaten the Democrats' congressional and Electoral College majorities.  `The dilemma for Republicans is, are we--what are we going to become, a coalition or are we going to be a private club?'"
MR. JOE SCARBOROUGH:  ….So there's always a back and forth.  But the bigger question is, what does the Republican Party need to be? We keep hearing that it's too conservative.  You know, it depends on how you define conservative.
MR. GREGORY:  Right.
MR. SCARBOROUGH:  Over the past decade we've spent too much money, we've spread our armies across the globe, we've, we've changed rules on Wall Street that allows, you know, that allowed bankers to leverage 40-to-1.  That's not conservative, that's radical.  And we have to understand that and be truly conservative.

...............

MR. GREGORY:  [On the Economy] You say independents are with Republicans on this.  Obama advisers say just the opposite, that he's in the high 60s in terms of approval among independents, much more trust for Obama than for Republicans on the economy.  And, and this from the ABC/Washington Post poll:  Who do you trust to do a better job handling the economy?  It's Obama 61 percent, Republicans in Congress 24 percent.
................
MR. GREGORY:  "The Last Best Hope:  Restoring Conservatism and America's Promise." And then look at the headline from The New York Times this week: "GOP Debate:  A Broader Party or a Purer One?" Both of you address this question.  Should it be broader?  Should it be purer?
MR. SCARBOROUGH:  That's a false choice, though.  Ronald Reagan was about as conservative as you can be.  Ronald Reagan said, you know, the government that governs the least governs best.  Thirty years ago you had Margaret Thatcher, 30 years ago this month, coming into power.  Again, Thatcher, a hard-core conservative on economic issues, especially.  We need to be conservative, but like Reagan.

But it was not President Reagan's fiscal policies that earned him two elections and popularity - it was his character.  Mr. Scarborough and most Republicans fail to understand the moment in history that we are living.  Republican, Democrat, Independent voters - who might disagree on fiscal policy, tax policy, etc. - all supported President Obama because he changed the tone of the debateThey supported him because of what he stands for: empathy, conciliation, unity, progress.   As stated by Simon - the key to unlocking America's 21st century electorate is to understand and embrace how the concept of race is changing in America.  Fear-mongering, highly secterian, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-Hispanic rhetoric and actions - in the name of "conservatism" - is the reason for the GOP's minority status.  Case in point (also played during Meet the Press):

 

As demonstrated by the recent polling conducted by ABC/Washington Post and the New York Times, American voters reject these "conservative" values.  Passing comprehensive immigration reform is one way for Democrats to consolidate their majority status by demonstrating to voters that they are problem solvers, and it is also a way for Republicans to begin the long road back to mainstream America.

Meet the Press ended with very fitting footage from an interview with Jack Kemp, who passed away this weekend:

 

(Videotape, February 9, 1997)
Representative JACK KEMP:  It's the single most important issue facing America at the turn of the century and the new millennium:  racial reconciliation, civility.  An America where you can have a dialogue over affirmative action, for instance, without being accused of being a, a racist on either way, or on either side of that issue.  These are important issues that have to be addressed, and I would like to see an America in which black and white actually listen to each other.  And it can't be solved with rhetoric, it has to be solved with sound, positive, progressive, inclusive policies.  And I want to see the Republican Party lead that debate, because we are the party of Lincoln.  And we must be an inclusionary party that says that by the year 2000, as I tried to say at Harlem one day during the campaign, I'd like to see an America where half of all black Americans are voting Democrat, but the other half are voting Republican.

 

Latin America Policy Initiative

Building on its years of work advocating for a modern approach to America's growing Latino community, NDN developed a robust inter-American policy program to focus on issues affecting countries in Latin America. The Latin America Policy Initiative (LAPI) has three parts: the Latin America Policy Seminar, the Latin America Policy Studies Program and the Latin America Policy Forum.

LAPI is a product of the work conducted at NDN and the New Policy Institute, and it educates and empowers leaders in policy, politics, and social and economic development to take on the challenges of Inter-American policy by providing a forum to discuss modern issues affecting Latin American countries. The program also aims to give its participants an enriching cross cultural experience, immersing them in a selected Latin American country, which will help guide their future leadership decisions.

2010 Highlights

Event Video: Colombian Ambassador Barco Addresses NDN on US-Colombian Relations

Event: Panamanian Ambassador and Congressman Engel discuss Bilateral Relations

Debrief on Obama's meeting with President Mauricio Funes by Sarah Sanchez

2009 Highlights

Flu Crisis Brought U.S., Mexico Together By Nelson Cunningham in the Houston Chronicle

Event Video: Preview of the Summit of the Americas Ambassador Carolina Barco

Event Video: Preview of the Summit of the Americas Former VP of Panama, Samuel Lewis Navarro

Video: Nelson Cunningham on the State of US-Latin American Relations

Hearing 'Friend' in Trinidad By Nelson Cunningham in the Chicago Tribune

Update on the Situation in Honduras by Zuraya Tapia-Alfaro

Zelaya's Return to Honduras by Zuraya Tapia-Alfaro

2008 Highlights

Announcing LAPI

The Latin America Policy Initiative is inter-American policy program dedicated to focusing on issues affecting countries in Latin America and improving inter-American dialogue.

Making the Case: Why Congress Should Pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform this Year

Today in the Senate, Senator Schumer is holding an important hearing: "Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2009, Can We Do it and How?" Here at NDN, we believe the answer to whether Congress can pass reform this year is "yes." Below are seven reasons why:

1) In tough economic times, we need to remove the "trap door" under the minimum wage.

One of the first acts of the new Democratic Congress back in 2007 was to raise the minimum wage, to help alleviate the downward pressure on wages we had seen throughout the decade even prior to the current Great Recession. The problem with this strategy is that the minimum wage and other worker protections required by American law do not extend to those workers here illegally. With economic times worsening here and in the home countries of the migrants, unscrupulous employers have much more leverage over, and incentive to keep, undocumented workers. With five percent of the current workforce -- amazingly, with one out of every 20 workers now undocumented, this situation creates an unacceptable race to the bottom, downward pressure on wages, at a time when we need to be doing more for those struggling to get by, not less.   

Legalizing the five percent of the work force that is undocumented would create a higher wage and benefit floor than exists today for all workers, further helping, as was intended by the increase in the minimum wage two years ago, to alleviate the downward pressure on wages for those struggling the most in this tough economy.  

Additionally, it needs to be understood that these undocumenteds are already here and working.  If you are undocumented, you are not eligible for welfare. If you are not working, you go home. Thus, in order to remove this "trap door," we need to either kick five percent of existing American workforce out of the country -- a moral and economic impossibility -- or legalize them. There is no third way on this one. They stay and become citizens or we chase them away. 

Finally, what you hear from some of the opponents of immigration reform is that by passing reform, all of these immigrants will come and take the jobs away of everyday Americans. But again, the undocumented immigrants are already here, working, having kids, supporting local businesses. Legalization does not create a flood of new immigrants -- in fact, as discussed earlier, it puts the immigrant worker on a more even playing field with legal American workers. It does the very inverse of what is being suggested -- it creates fairer competition for American workers -- not unfair competition. The status quo is what should be most unacceptable to those who claim they are advocating for the American worker.  

2) In a time of tight budgets, passing immigration reform will bring more money into the federal treasury.  

Putting the undocumented population on the road to citizenship will also increase tax revenue in a time of economic crisis, as the newly legal immigrants will pay fees and fines, and become fully integrated into the U.S. tax-paying system. When immigration reform legislation passed the Senate in 2006, the Congressional Budge Office estimate that accompanied the bill projected Treasury revenues would see a net increase of $44 billion over 10 years. 

3) Reforming our immigration system will increasingly be seen as a critical part of any comprehensive strategy to calm the increasingly violent border region

Tackling the growing influence of the drug cartels in Mexico is going to be hard, cost a great deal of money, and take a long time. One quick and early step toward calming the region will be to take decisive action on clearing up one piece of the problem -- the vast illegal trade in undocumented migrants. Legalization will also help give these millions of families a greater stake in the United States, which will make it less likely that they contribute to the spread of the cartels influence.  

4) Fixing the immigration system will help reinforce that it is a "new day" for U.S.-Latin American relations.     

To his credit, President Obama has made it clear that he wants to see a significant improvement in our relations with our Latin neighbors and very clearly communicated that message during his recent trips to Mexico and the Summit of the Americas. Just as offering a new policy toward Cuba is part of establishing that it is truly a "new day" in hemispheric relations, ending the shameful treatment of Latin migrants here in the United States will go a long way in signaling that America is taking its relations with its southern neighbors much more seriously than in the past.  

5) Passing immigration reform this year clears the way for a clean census next year.  

Even though the government is constitutionally required to count everyone living in the United States every 10 years, the national GOP has made it clear that it will block efforts for the Census Bureau to count undocumented immigrants. Conducting a clean and thorough census is hard in any environment. If we add a protracted legal and political battle on top -- think Norm Coleman, a politicized U.S. Attorney process, Bush v Gore -- the chance of a failed or flawed census rises dramatically. This of course would not be good for the nation.  

Passing immigration reform this year would go a long way to ensuring we have a clean and effective census count next year. 

6) The Administration and Congress will grow weary of what we call  "immigration proxy wars," and will want the issue taken off the table.  

With rising violence in Mexico, and the everyday drumbeat of clashes and conflicts over immigration in communities across America, the broken immigration system is not going to fade from public consciousness any time soon. The very vocal minority on the right -- those who put this issue on the table in the first place -- will continue to try to attach amendments to other bills ensuring that various government benefits are not conferred upon undocumenteds. We have already seen battles pop up this year on virtually every major bill Congress has taken up, including SCHIP and the stimulus. By the fall, I think leaders of both parties will grow weary of these proxy battles popping up on every issue and will want to resolve the issue once and for all. Passing immigration reform will become essential to making progress on other much needed societal goals like moving toward universal health insurance. 

7) Finally, in the age of Obama, we must be vigilant to stamp out racism wherever it appears

Passing immigration reform this year would help take the air out of the balloon of what is the most virulent form of racism in American society today -- the attacks on Hispanics and undocumented immigrants. It will be increasingly difficult for the President and his allies to somehow argue that watching Glenn Beck act out burning alive of a person on the air over immigration, "left leaning" Ed Schultz give air time to avowed racist Tom Tancredo on MSNBC or Republican ads comparing Mexican immigrants to Islamic terrorists is somehow different from the racially insensitive speech that got Rush Limbaugh kicked off Monday Night Football, or Don Imus kicked off the radio.   

So for those of us who want to see this vexing national problem addressed this year, this important hearing is a critical step forward.  But we still have a long way to, and a lot of work ahead of us if we are to get this done this year.

(Also check out our recently released report, Making the Case for Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year, which succinctly lays out our case for why Congress can -- and should -- pass comprehensive immigration reform this year).

Syndicate content