Tuesday, April 13, 2010

America's Immigration Success Story Mary C. Water 05.29.07, 12:00 PM ET

America's Immigration Success Story
Mary C. Water 05.29.07, 12:00 PM ET

Debates about American immigration policy focus on how we should control our borders and what we should do about the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants living and working throughout the country. But the debate really reflects Americans' deep fears about the long-term integration of the more than 30 million immigrants who have arrived on our shores since we liberalized our immigration laws in 1965.

Some worry about whether English is endangered as our national language. Others claim that poor immigrants tax our welfare and health care systems. Some question whether immigrants will become loyal and patriotic Americans. All focus on what will happen in the future--about what will happen to the children and grandchildren of today's newcomers.

On that subject, comparing these newcomers with Europe's second-generation immigrants shows that America is doing a lot that is right. The riots in French cities, the home-grown second-generation terrorists in Britain and the dismal employment and education statistics for the second generation in Germany all contrast sharply with the latest research on the successful integration of the second generation in the U.S.
In Pictures: America's Immigrants Through History

In the New York Second Generation Study we surveyed a large group of second-generation young adults in New York City whose parents had come from Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean and Russia. We found impressive educational and occupational mobility. While most of the immigrant parents had low-level "immigrant jobs," their adult children all resembled other New Yorkers their age much more than they resembled their parents. And they all had high school and college graduation rates higher than native New Yorkers of the same racial backgrounds.

Dominicans had higher educational outcomes than Puerto Ricans, West Indians did better than native blacks and the Chinese surpassed every other group in the city, including native whites. In national studies these patterns of social mobility hold for a wide variety of groups. And despite the urgent fears of many Americans about the place of English as our national language, all the research shows rapid language assimilation--the second generation is overwhelmingly fluent in English and the third generation speaks only English.

An emerging consensus in the research on the second generation reaches an optimistic conclusion on both social and economic integration. This is good news for all of us, since one out of every five children under the age of 18 today is a child of an immigrant

Why is the second generation doing so much better in the U.S. than in Europe? It is not because we have better official integration policies. In fact the U.S. does not have a government program of integration and multiculturalism, as many other nations do. Our success is because of several distinct American advantages.

First, our birthright citizenship laws mean that the children of immigrants who are born in America are automatically citizens, fully accepted with all the same rights and responsibilities as the native born. In many European countries there are people whose parents or even grandparents were the original immigrants, who may never have visited the country their ancestors came from, but who are still considered "foreigners."

Second, unlike many European countries our educational system is more flexible, less rigidly tracked, and allows more "second chances" for the children of immigrants to succeed academically even if they start school with English language deficits or other disadvantages owing to their parents immigrant status.

Third, our work laws and economy encourage legal immigrants to enter the labor market and begin economic integration immediately. Many European countries have barriers to employment for immigrants, which make them dependent on the welfare state and engender much native-born resentment against immigrants and their children.

Finally, our civil rights laws and practices, such as affirmative action and antidiscrimination legislation, while designed to redress injustices suffered by African-Americans, are benefiting many children of immigrants who are black or Hispanic and thus qualify for inclusion in diversity initiatives in universities and corporate workplaces.

On the whole, America is reaping the benefits of our immigrant-friendly economic and civic structure. But while Western Europe has a lot to learn from the U.S. on the subject of immigration there is one area in which the U.S. would do well to learn a lesson from across the Atlantic.

Many of the inclusive practices and policies outlined above do not apply to undocumented immigrants and their children who live among us, work in our fields and factories and struggle to raise their families in the shadows of illegality. The estrangement evident among the European second generation who do not feel fully included in their own societies could characterize the children of undocumented immigrants, especially those who were born abroad and face severely blocked chances for higher education and employment.

To make matters worse, misguided congressmen have routinely introduced legislation that would deny citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants born on our soil--a change that has heretofore correctly been rejected by lawmakers. One only has to look to Germany or Switzerland to see that denying birthright citizenship does not cause immigrants or their children to return to their country of origin, but it does cause anger, disengagement and long-term resentment.

America needs to recognize that undocumented immigrants and their children are not leaving anytime soon. Including these immigrants and their children as equals in our economy and our society will have long-run positive benefits for them and ultimately for all of us.
In Pictures: America's Immigrants Through History

Mary C. Waters is M.E. Zukerman Professor of Sociology at Harvard University and the co-editor of The New Americans: A Guide to Immigration Since 1965, Harvard University Press, 2007.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

I am my own man: Kenneth Jeyaretnam

I am my own man: Kenneth Jeyaretnam Channel NewsAsia - Thursday, April 8Send IM Story Print

I am my own man: Kenneth Jeyaretnam
SINGAPORE: It has been almost a year since Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam was persuaded to take over the leadership of the Reform Party, following the death of its founder — his father JB Jeyaretnam (JBJ). The 50—year—old former hedge fund manager, who gave up his job to focus on politics full—time, says that at the time the Opposition party was a "drifting, rudderless empty vessel".

While Mr Jeyaretnam sees his work as a continuation of his father’s lifelong mission, he also wants to be seen as "his own man" with his own brand of "economically—competent" politics. And perhaps having witnessed firsthand his father’s costly legal battles, he recently told Loh Chee Kong that he wants the Reform Party to steer clear of legal minefields.

’I’ve got nothing to hide’

Why did you enter politics? Was it what your father expected of you? And is the JBJ legacy a boon or a bane to your own political career?

My father had always hoped that one of us (Kenneth or his younger brother Philip Jeyaretnam) would follow him into politics ... My father’s legacy is not really an issue any more because I’m seen as my own man.

When we did our walkabout with the Singapore Democratic Alliance last Sunday, I was sitting with my members at a table (at the void deck of a block of flats) and a guy at the next table said: "Hi Kenneth, how’s it going?" People do come up and approach me now.

You had previously kept a low profile. Were you prepared for the media scrutiny?

I’m ready for any scrutiny — I’ve got nothing to hide. Obviously, it’s an uphill struggle to get your message across in the mainstream media. But because of the rise of the new media, we’ve been getting our message across ... but we have to be in control of the content.

One of the things I’m concerned about is that we don’t put out anything that is potentially libellous, inflammatory or seditious, that could lead to potential legal problems.

You have spent a large part of your life overseas. Will that count against you getting elected? Can you relate to the average Singaporean?

Let’s get it straight: Do you think that I left Singapore by choice? I couldn’t get a job here.

I had a "double first" (first—class honours in two separate subjects) from Cambridge. After I graduated in 1983 — which was two years after my father was elected into Parliament — I wanted to return to Singapore.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore rejected my application after one round of interviews. A lot of financial institutions and banks also rejected my applications.

Anyway, I’m not here to whine. I’ve succeeded in London. I’ve built a successful career in the financial sector and in hedge fund management. It has given me a perspective of seeing how an open, democratic society operates.

People find me approachable, proactive, capable — even though some people say I speak with an English accent.

’The party was in a bad state’

It’s been almost a year since you took over leadership of the Reform Party. What was the experience like?

When I was elected as secretary—general, it was actually a bit of a shock because I found the party was in quite a bad state. It was like a drifting, rudderless empty vessel. Morale had dwindled, the number of members had decreased and there hadn’t been central executive committee meetings for about four or five months ...

But since then, the responses I’ve gotten have been much more than I expected. We’ve definitely created a watershed in Singapore politics. For the first time, you’ve got an Opposition party that is perceived as economically competent, credible, and proposing alternative policies that could really make a difference or change Singapore.

With your brand of politics, are you trying to appeal to the intelligentsia?

We appeal to all sections of Singapore. I went on a house—to—house visit in West Coast GRC recently in a low—income area. We got a very enthusiastic response there ... there haven’t been elections there for 20 years.

We appeal to the professional classes because of our economic policies and perceived economic competence. We definitely appeal to most Singaporeans who think there should be more opposition in Parliament — that we need to move towards a two—party system.

Rising property prices is one area that the Reform Party is concerned about. How would the party do things differently from the Government?

There’s a conflict of interest in the Government’s role as the owner of 79 per cent of the land and the provider of housing ... they have a vested interest in seeing property prices rise. We’ve said that we would like to see more private sector competition with the HDB in the provision of low—cost housing.

I don’t think this would lead to lower quality because first, you have a regulator to ensure that standards are maintained. Second, competition usually leads to higher quality.

If you get into Parliament, do you see yourself as a full—time Member of Parliament? What would your priorities be?

I’m already a full—time politician and I’ll certainly devote the major part of my time. Being an MP is not the ultimate objective, because every political party’s objective should be to get to be the government and that’s what I’ll be working for.

The PAP may be against the two—party system but it’s inevitable, as we have seen in Korea, Taiwan and Indonesia. The problem with the one—party system is not corruption — at least not in Singapore because the Government is not corrupt — but it leads to a society closed to new ideas, with too many "yes men".

’We are fairly united’

What is your take on the state of Opposition unity here?

You can’t force Opposition unity but I think it will definitely happen. That’s the basis of our purported alliance with the SDA (Singapore Democratic Alliance) — it would not be to just fight an election but to coordinate our actions in Parliament.

We don’t all have to agree on exactly the same policies, but we all have the same objective, so it would be wrong to talk about Opposition disunity. We are fairly united.

If you team up with the SDA’s Chiam See Tong to contest a Group Representation Constituency, wouldn’t you find yourself in the shadow of a veteran Opposition figure?

Mr Chiam is much—loved and respected by his constituents. He has done a great job in Potong Pasir. But let’s be frank: In a democratic country, if a party has failed for 25 years to expand its base beyond one seat in Parliament then I think the leaders would have been voted out.

Mr Chiam and I share the same view that the purpose of a political party is to form a government. He has spoken many times about the Opposition forming, not at the next General Election but by the election after that, to be in a position to be seen as an alternative government — which is something the Reform Party has also said.

I can’t comment on our election strategy. It’s completely shocking that we haven’t seen the boundaries ... that is grossly unfair to the Opposition.

What do you hope Singaporeans see Kenneth Jeyaretnam as?

I hope that I’ll be seen as somebody who transformed Singapore politics — I hope that doesn’t sound too arrogant — and who made (participating in politics) seem like a normal and patriotic duty, rather than something to be shunned or avoided out of fear.

The writer is a freelance correspondent.