America - A Nation of Immigrants - The Real Story

.

Part 1. - Who are we?

I feel comfortable writing about America a nation of immigrants because I have spent over 50 years trying to help the indigenous Native Americans like the Hopi nation, who are the only people in our country who are not immigrants.

With the presidential election preparing to go into high gear and with both sides demonstrating a propensity toward distorting the record rather than telling the truth, I figured I could be a sort of voice in the wilderness explaining what most Americans think about immigrants.

I wrote this article for the benefit of those outside of America forced to turn to the news media for truth about the election and the consequences.  Briefly, it really does not matter whether Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, or some other mysterious white knight wins the presidency.

Back when our Forefathers fought a war of independence against the most powerful empire in the world, the British, we were already debating the shape of things to come, in order to assure our freedom, and protect us from the threat of becoming an empire and exercising such control over a free people.

There are a few things I believe were of significant influence on the Founding Fathers, more than we like to acknowledge.  First, I accept that Divine Providence guided them in their deliberations and debate.  Second, the colonists of that time were far more educated than most people believe.  Third, they employed either oracles or psychics to see far into the future.

I believe the record since our Declaration of Independence 240 years ago is testament to the truth in what I say.  It would have taken the Hand of God to guide a bunch of farmers, aristocrats, religious fanatics, and outcasts from throughout the world with minimal money and certainly no army, to victory over the greatest empire in world history.

As for education, many Americans were self-taught while those with resources made extensive use of tutors.  Innovation, initiative, and creativity were necessary characteristics of those attempting to tame a wild land and create a civilization in a foreign world.

Now oracles, mediums, and psychics must have been available to help draft the framework of a Constitution that protected and preserved the United States through all the radical changes in world culture, religion, economy, war, and technology that would come in the not too distant future generations.

Beyond the foresight, the founding documents also had to correct the flaws in the system that existed at the time, such as slavery, in order to guarantee freedom and equality to everyone.  The goal of the Constitution was to provide a pathway to achieve the lofty promises contained in the document whether they existed at the time or not.

Three key items immediately come to mind in terms of lofty promises.  Of course, there was slavery, women's rights, and there was religious freedom.  At the time, slavery was legal, women had no rights, and religious freedom was non-existent though there were attempts to institute it in places like Maryland with little success.

The Constitution also had to make it clear that America would always be a nation of immigrants like no other nation in the world.  Just think of the incredible growth that took place in America.  In 1776, there were about 10 million people.  Only forty years later, in 1816, there were 41 million people, four times as many.  During the next millennial, by 1916, we grew to 102 million and one millennial later we have reached 325 million people, from 10 million to 325 million in just 240 years.

Today we have three million indigenous peoples, plus two million more indigenous of mixed race, so five million indigenous residents.  That means 98.5% of the population in America are immigrants or ancestors of immigrants.

The roots of Americans are vast.  Here is the diversity of Americans as of 2010 represented by the ancestral ethnic mix as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau.

American Ethnic Mix 2010

1.      49,206,934 Germans 

2.      41,284,752 Black or African Americans

3.      35,523,082 Irish

4.      31,789,483 Mexican 

5.      26,923,091 English 

6.      19,911,467 Americans

7.      17,558,598 Italian

8.      9,739,653 Polish

9.      9,136,092 French (except Basque)

10.  5,706,263 Scottish

11.  5,102,858 Scotch-Irish

12.  4,920,336 American Indian or Alaska Native

13.  4,810,511 Dutch

14.  4,607,774 Puerto Rican

15.  4,557,539 Norwegian

16.  4,211,644 Swedish

17.  3,245,080 Chinese (except Taiwanese) 

18.  3,060,143 Russian

19.  2,781,904 Asian Indian

20.  2,625,306 West Indian (except Hispanic groups)

21.  2,549,545 Filipino

22.  2,087,970 French Canadian

23.  1,888,383 Welsh

24.  1,764,374 Cuban

25.  1,733,778 Salvadoran

26.  1,620,637 Arab

27.  1,576,032 Vietnamese

28.  1,573,608 Czech

29.  1,511,926 Hungarian

30.  1,423,139 Portuguese

31.  1,422,567 Korean

32.  1,420,962 Danish

33.  1,414,551 Dominican (Dominican Republic)

34.  1,319,188 Greek

This is the percentage distribution of the top fifteen.

German	49,206,934	17.1%
African American	45,284,752	14.6%
Irish	35,523,082	11.6%
Mexican	31,789,483	10.9%
English	26,923,091	9.0%
American	19,911,467	6.7%
Italian	17,558,598	5.9%
Polish	9,739,653	3.0%
French	9,136,092	2.9%
Scottish	5,706,263	1.9%
Scotch-Irish	5,102,858	1.7%
American Indian and Alaskan Native	4,920,336	1.6%
Dutch	4,810,511	1.6%
Puerto Rican	4,607,774	1.5%
Norwegian	4,557,539	1.5%

  

Here is the diversity of Americans represented by their religious denomination beliefs.

Denomination name	Members (thousands)
The Roman Catholic Church	68,202
Southern Baptist Convention	16,136
United Methodist Church, The	7,679
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The	6,157
Church of God in Christ, The	5,499
National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc	5,197
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America	4,274
National Baptist Convention of America, Inc	3,500
Assemblies of God	3,030
Presbyterian Church (USA)	2,675
African Methodist Episcopal Church	2,500
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America	2,500
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS),	2,278
Episcopal Church	1,951
Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc Churches of Christ	1,800
Churches of Christ	1,639
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America	1,500
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church	1,400
American Baptist Churches in the USA	1,308
Jehovah's Witnesses Baptist Bible Fellowship International	1,184
Church of God	1,074
Christian Churches and Churches of Christ	1,071
Seventh-day Adventist Church	1,060
United Church of Christ	1,058
The Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc	1,010

NOTE: Includes the self-reported membership of religious bodies with 650,000 or more as reported to the Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches. Groups may be excluded if they do not supply information. The data are not standardized so comparisons between groups are difficult. The definition of "church member" is determined by the religious body.

Source: 2012 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches, National Council of Churches.

This is a more detailed breakdown of the same religious information.

Religions

Explore religious groups in the U.S. by tradition, family and denomination

• Christian 70.6%
• Evangelical Protestant 25.4%

• Baptist Family (Evangelical Trad.) 9.2%
• Southern Baptist Convention 5.3%
• Independent Baptist (Evangelical Trad.) 2.5%
• Missionary Baptist (Evangelical Trad.) < 0.3%
• Conservative Baptist Association of America < 0.3%
• Free Will Baptist < 0.3%
• General Association of Regular Baptist Churches < 0.3%
• Other Baptist (Evangelical Trad.) 1.0%
• Methodist Family (Evangelical Trad.) < 0.3%
• Nondenominational Family (Evangelical Trad.) 4.9%
• Nondenominational evangelical 2.0%
• Nondenominational fundamentalist 0.3%
• -Nondenominational charismatic 0.6%
• Nondenominational Christian (Evangelical Trad.) < 0.3%
• Interdenominational (Evangelical Trad.) 0.6%
• Community Church (Evangelical Trad.) < 0.3%
• Other Nondenominational (Evangelical Trad.) 1.2%
• Lutheran Family (Evangelical Trad.) 1.5%
• Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod 1.1%
• Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod < 0.3%
• Other Lutheran (Evangelical Trad.) 0.3%
• Presbyterian Family (Evangelical Trad.) 0.8%
• Presbyterian Church in America 0.4%
• Other Presbyterian (Evangelical Trad.) 0.4%
• Pentecostal Family (Evangelical Trad.) 3.6%
• Assemblies of God 1.4%
• Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) 0.4%
• Foursquare Church < 0.3%
• Pentecostal Church of God < 0.3%
• Pentecostal Holiness Church < 0.3%
• Calvary Chapel < 0.3%
• Apostolic Pentecostal (Evangelical Trad.) < 0.3%
• Nondenominational Pentecostal (Evangelical Trad.) < 0.3%
• Church of God of the Apostolic Faith < 0.3%
• Other Pentecostal (Evangelical Trad.) 1.1%
• Episcopalian/Anglican Family (Evangelical Trad.) < 0.3%
• Restorationist Family (Evangelical Trad.) 1.6%
• Churches of Christ 1.5%
• Christian Churches and Churches of Christ < 0.3%
• Other Restorationist (Evangelical Trad.) < 0.3%
• Congregationalist Family (Evangelical Trad.) < 0.3%
• Conservative Congregational Christian Conference < 0.3%
• Other Congregationalist (Evangelical Trad.) < 0.3%
• Holiness Family (Evangelical Trad.) 0.7%
• Church of the Nazarene 0.3%
• Wesleyan Church < 0.3%
• Free Methodist Church < 0.3%
• Christian and Missionary Alliance < 0.3%
• Church of God (Anderson, Indiana) < 0.3%
• Other Holiness (Evangelical Trad.) < 0.3%
• Reformed Family (Evangelical Trad.) < 0.3%
• Christian Reformed Church < 0.3%
• Other Reformed (Evangelical Trad.) < 0.3%
• Adventist Family (Evangelical Trad.) 0.6%
• Seventh-day Adventist 0.5%
• Other Adventist (Evangelical Trad.) < 0.3%
• Anabaptist Family (Evangelical Trad.) 0.3%
• Pietist Family (Evangelical Trad.) < 0.3%
• Other evangelical/fundamentalist family (Evangelical Trad.) 0.3%
• Nonspecific Protestant Family (Evangelical Trad.) 1.5%
• Mainline Protestant 14.7%
• Baptist Family (Mainline Trad.) 2.1%
• American Baptist Churches USA 1.5%
• Other Baptist (Mainline Trad.) 0.6%
• Methodist Family (Mainline Trad.) 3.9%
• United Methodist Church 3.6%
• Other Methodist (Mainline Trad.) 0.3%
• Nondenominational Family (Mainline Trad.) 1.0%
• Interdenominational (Mainline Trad.) 0.3%
• Other Nondenominational (Mainline Trad.) 0.7%
• Lutheran Family (Mainline Trad.) 2.1%
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) 1.4%
• Other Lutheran (Mainline Trad.) 0.7%
• Presbyterian Family (Mainline Trad.) 1.4%
• Presbyterian Church (USA) 0.9%
• Other Presbyterian (Mainline Trad.) 0.5%
• Episcopalian/Anglican Family (Mainline Trad.) 1.2%
• Episcopal Church 0.9%
• Anglican Church < 0.3%
• Other Episcopalian/Anglican (Mainline Trad.) < 0.3%
• Restorationist Family (Mainline Trad.) 0.3%
• Disciples of Christ < 0.3%
• Other Restorationist (Mainline Trad.) < 0.3%
• Congregationalist Family (Mainline Trad.) 0.5%
• United Church of Christ 0.4%
• Other Congregationalist (Mainline Trad.) < 0.3%
• Reformed Family (Mainline Trad.) < 0.3%
• Reformed Church in America < 0.3%
• Other Reformed (Mainline Trad.) < 0.3%
• Anabaptist Family (Mainline Trad.) < 0.3%
• Friends Family (Mainline Trad.) < 0.3%
• Nonspecific Protestant Family (Mainline Trad.) 1.9%
• Historically Black Protestant 6.5%
• Baptist Family (Historically Black Protestant Trad.) 4.0%
• National Baptist Convention 1.4%
• Progressive Baptist Convention 0.3%
• Independent Baptist (Historically Black Protestant Trad.) < 0.3%
• Missionary Baptist (Historically Black Protestant Trad.) 0.3%
• Other Baptist (Historically Black Protestant Trad.) 1.8%
• Methodist Family (Historically Black Protestant Trad.) 0.5%
• African Methodist Episcopal Church 0.3%
• African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church < 0.3%
• Christian Methodist Episcopal Church < 0.3%
• Other Methodist (Historically Black Protestant Trad.) < 0.3%
• Pentecostal Family (Historically Black Protestant Trad.) 1.0%
• Church of God in Christ 0.6%
• Apostolic Pentecostal (Historically Black Protestant Trad.) < 0.3%
• United Pentecostal Church International < 0.3%
• Other Pentecostal (Historically Black Protestant Trad.) 0.3%
• Holiness Family (Historically Black Protestant Trad.) < 0.3%
• Nondenominational Family (Historically Black Protestant Trad.) 0.3%
• Nonspecific Protestant Family (Historically Black Protestant Trad.) 0.4%
• Catholic 20.8%
• Mormon 1.6%
• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1.6%
• Other Mormon < 0.3%
• Orthodox Christian 0.5%
• Greek Orthodox < 0.3%
• Russian Orthodox < 0.3%
• Orthodox Church in America < 0.3%
• Other Orthodox Christian < 0.3%
• Jehovah's Witness 0.8%
• Other Christian 0.4%
• Metaphysical Family < 0.3%
• Spiritualist < 0.3%
• Unity Church < 0.3%
• Other Metaphysical Christian ("Other Christian" Trad.) < 0.3%
• Others in the "Other Christian" Tradition < 0.3%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Non-Christian Faiths 5.9%
• Jewish 1.9%
• Muslim 0.9%
• Buddhist 0.7%
• Hindu 0.7%
• Other World Religions 0.3%
• Other Faiths 1.5%

• Unitarians and other liberal faiths in the "Other Faiths" Tradition 1.0%
• Unitarian 0.3%
• Humanist < 0.3%
• Deist < 0.3%
• Spiritual but not religious 0.3%
• Eclectic, a bit of everything, "I have my own beliefs" < 0.3%
• Other in the "Unitarian and other liberal faiths" family < 0.3%
• New Age 0.4%
• Pagan or Wiccan 0.3%
• Other in the New Age family < 0.3%
• Native American Religions < 0.3%
• Unaffiliated (religious "nones") 22.8%
• Atheist 3.1%
• Agnostic 4.0%
• Nothing in particular 15.8%
• Nothing in particular (religion not important) 8.8%
• Nothing in particular (religion important) 6.9%
• Don't know 0.6%

Finally, here is an article discussing the Pew research polling on the political preference of the various religious denominations in the last (2012) presidential election.

February 23, 2016

U.S. religious groups and their political leanings

By Michael Lipka

Mormons are the most heavily Republican-leaning religious group in the U.S., while a pair of major historically black Protestant denominations – the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church and the National Baptist Convention – are two of the most reliably Democratic groups, according to data from Pew Research Center’s 2014 Religious Landscape Study.

Seven-in-ten U.S. Mormons identify with the Republican Party or say they lean toward the GOP, compared with 19% who identify as or lean Democratic – a difference of 51 percentage points. That’s the biggest gap in favor of the GOP out of 30 religious groups we analyzed, which include Protestant denominations, other religious groups and three categories of people who are religiously unaffiliated.

At the other end of the spectrum, an overwhelming majority of members of the AME Church (92%) identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, while just 4% say they favor the Republican Party (an 88-point gap). Similarly, 87% of members of the National Baptist Convention and 75% of members of the Church of God in Christ (another historically black denomination) identify as Democrats.

These patterns largely reflect data from exit polls during the 2012 general election. In that year, 95% of black Protestants said they voted for Democrat Barack Obama, while 78% of Mormons said they voted for Republican Mitt Romney, who also is a Mormon.

White evangelical Protestants also voted heavily Republican in 2012 (79% for Romney), which mirrors the leanings of many of the largest evangelical denominations. Members of the Church of the Nazarene are overwhelmingly likely to favor the GOP (63% Republican vs. 24% Democrat), as are the Southern Baptist Convention (64% vs. 26%) and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (59% vs. 27%), among other evangelical churches. (In our survey, members of these groups can be of any race or ethnicity, while exit polls report totals for white evangelicals in particular.)

Catholics are divided politically in our survey, just as they were in the 2012 election. While 37% say they favor the GOP, 44% identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party (and 19% say they do not lean either way). In the 2012 election, 50% of Catholics said they voted for Obama, while 48% voted for Romney.

Members of mainline Protestant churches look similar to Catholics in this regard. For example, 44% of members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) identify as or lean Republican in the survey, compared with 47% who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning. United Methodists and Anglicans are slightly more likely than other mainline groups to say they are Republicans, while members of the United Church of Christ are more likely to be Democrats.
About seven-in-ten religiously unaffiliated voters (70%) and Jews (69%) voted for Obama in 2012. A similar share of Jews in our survey (64%) say they are Democrats, while all three subsets of religious “nones” (atheists, agnostics and those who say their religion is “nothing in particular”) lean in that direction as well.

Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are taught to remain politically neutral and abstain from voting, stand out for their overwhelming identification as independents who do not lean toward either party. Three-quarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses put themselves in that category.

.

Immigration Reform - Aren't We All the Immigrants?

.

With Immigration reform promised in his first year by President Barack Obama back in 2009, and this being his fifth year in office, there is a chance Immigration reform actually might make it through Congress.  However, as far as our nation's capitol, nothing can be guaranteed except extended procrastination.

 

Long ago we should have had meaningful Immigration reform, the first since major bills were passed in 1965 and 1986, if we had not forgotten that when it comes down to the real facts, we really are a nation of immigrants.

 

 

There are a lot of things the president and congress can do to change or manipulate reality or to rewrite history but the plain truth is clear.  In 2010 there were 2.9 million pure blooded Native American and Native Alaskan Indians in America and 2.3 million Natives with mixed blood, a total of 5.2 million.
 

 

Since the total US population in 2010 was 308,745,538 that means just 1.8% of the population are original Americans, or 98.2% of Americans are immigrants or ancestors of immigrants.

 

Unlike the many countries settled since the discovery of America in 1492 the United States has the most diverse ancestry in the world.  The largest ancestral country of origin for Americans is Germany yet it only represents 15.5% of our total population.  No major country in the world can claim similar diversity of ancestry, not even newer nations like the US such as South American nations, Canada or Australia.

 

 

Since the 1800's there have been more Germans ancestors than any other immigrants to America with 48 million in 2010.  Also since the 1800's Irish have been firmly in second place with 34.7 million in 2010.

 

The dominant Hispanic country of ancestry is Mexico - 31.8 million followed by the English - 25.9 million, Italian -  17.2 million, Polish - 9.6 million, French - -8.7 million, Scottish - 5.4 million, Dutch - 4.6 million, Norwegian - 4.4 million and Scottish/Irish - 4.4 million show the dominance of European nations to American ancestry.  High profile immigrants from Russia, China, Cuba, India, Korea and Japan all range between 1-3 million.

 

 

In total about 500 ancestries have been reported to the US Census Bureau on behalf of the American population.

 

So I guess the bottom line in our message to all the nations of the world is, "We are you!"  Truly we are the only true melting pot of culture, religion, society and wealth in the world.  It makes us unique, but also makes us responsible to set the definitive example of how all of the people on Earth should be able to live in peace, harmony, prosperity and individual freedom.

 

 

Such inherent American virtues and characteristics should be embedded in our laws and actions but the dysfunctional federal government including the president and congress have made a mockery of adherence to American values.  They are yet to achieve the most basic of all actions, approving a budget, and have failed to approve one every year Obama has been president.

 

Well they better approve meaningful Immigration reform or the ancestors of immigrants may very well deport those same federal elected officials.

 

 

As for a lingering immigration issue that may still derail the reform movement, the issue of securing our borders, several years ago I proposed a very simple and logical way to achieve security.

 

We have about 2.5 million defense soldiers and civilian employees but only 1.1 million are in the USA. Since about 100,000 are in both Iraq and Afghanistan that leaves 1.2 million DOD employees all over the rest of the world.

 

There are over 735 American military bases outside the USA including 38 large and medium size facilities. At the height of the British Empire in 1898 they had 36 bases spread out around the world and at the height of the Roman Empire in 117 AD they had 37 major bases. Of course they were both trying to conquer the world. We aren't supposed to be conquering the world so we should get rid of the excess bases.

 

 

We could save billions of dollars a year if we moved a number of the very expensive foreign bases back to America and strategically located them along our southern border.  The presence of tens of thousands of US military troops and their bases would be a far greater deterrent to illegal immigrants or drugs than a few thousand more border patrol agents and a higher fence.

 

Immigration is not a political issue and should not be caught in the debate between two partisan parties.  If truth be known two partisan political parties have no business controlling the agenda for America and after their performance the last few years isn't it time we wake up?

 

 

Our Constitution does not guarantee control of any kind to the Democrats or Republicans so we need to campaign for freedom from the archaic and worn out platforms and control of the two political parties and return to what worked the first couple of hundred years, multiple political parties to choose from in elections.

 

 

The following is a summary of the history of Immigration reform in America from University of North Carolina - Greensboro.  You should read it and you will better understand the story behind the Immigration debate.

 

University of North Carolina Greensboro

 

 

A Brief Look at the History of Immigration Reform

by Dr. Raleigh Bailey, CNNC Director and Research Fellow

The U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written by refugees and immigrants and their children who sought religious and economic freedom. These documents represented ideals that became cherished around the world. For the first 100 years of U.S. history, there were no immigration laws.

The first immigration law passed by Congress was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. At that time Chinese workers were being recruited in large numbers to do hard labor on the West Coast, building railroads and other large construction projects. However, California land developers did not want the workers to have the right to stay, buy land, and become citizens.

At the same time, our northern and southern borders were essentially porous. Much of what is now Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada and California were part of Mexico until the U.S. claimed the lands through wars or treaties. As the Southwest became U.S. territory, the Hispanic populations there came under U.S. rule. In many cases, families were suddenly divided by citizenship and residency requirements, though mutual visitation was ongoing.

 

With the depression of the 1930s, many family farms were lost. Land was bought up by agribusinesses. Farm labor needs were met by the newly homeless families who had lost their lands. With World War II, when young men were called to the military, agribusiness began to rely on migrant farmworkers from Latin America and the Caribbean. Many workers were brought as contract labor and others came on their own for growing seasons, returning to join their families after the crops were harvested.

 

 

Approximately 5 million Mexicans participated in the Bracero program, a labor agreement between the U.S. and Mexico, between 1942 and 1964. The exploitation of these workers is well-documented. After the war and the growing shift toward manufacturing and urbanization, agriculture continued to rely on migrant farmworkers, both those who were documented and recruited by labor contractors and those who simply crossed the border to continue their seasonal work jobs. That system has continued to the present day.

 

The 1960s brought major changes to the U.S. immigration system. Following the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, a newly conscientious U.S. Congress passed a new law, the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, which struck down our Eurocentric bias. Persons from countries around the globe could apply to migrate to the US if they met conditions related to family reunification, U.S. employment needs, or refugee status. The flood of refugees to the U.S. after the Vietnam War led to the Refugee Resettlement Act of 1980, which formalized the refugee resettlement process and established a new flow of people seeking freedom and security.

 

 

Several years later Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. This legislation was the first time a bill made it unlawful for an employer to hire an undocumented worker, and it created a pathway to citizenship for migrant farmworkers who had a history of work in the U.S. and who had no legal problems other than being unauthorized. It was a significant piece of legislation designed to rectify the fact that the U.S. recruited and depended upon vast numbers of Latin American farmworkers who did not have travel documents in order to sustain our agricultural economy. Many of these people then moved out of the fields and into construction jobs created by our growing economy. New farmworkers, many of them without documents, then came to fill the farm jobs.

 

In 1994 the U.S. and Mexico passed NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. U.S. agribusinesses were able to sell government-subsidized corn in Mexico at below market prices, destroying the traditional farm economy there. This was further complicated by the Mexican government’s decision to suspend the “ejido” system. Ejidos, written into the Mexican constitution, are communal farm lands shared by families and villagers and passed from generation to generation. The suspension allowed ejido lands to be sold to multinational agribusiness corporations. As a result, more unemployed young men who were strong and brave enough made the dangerous trek to “El Norte.”

 

 

 In 1996 the U.S. Congress passed two major bills that severely penalized undocumented residents and restricted legal immigrants from using many public services, even if those immigrants worked and paid taxes in the U.S. The Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRRRA) was especially repressive as it required people who had an “unlawful presence” to return to their countries of origin for periods of three to ten years before they could apply to return. This was true even for spouses of American citizens.

 

Another bill, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) restricted tax-paying legal immigrants from using most public services and imposed major hardships on low-income workers, creating major legal and social snafus. Initially, pregnant immigrant women were denied access to WIC (the food supplement program for low-income pregnant women). Many premature births of high-risk, malnourished babies occurred, dramatically increasing medical costs for families and health providers. The federal government then concluded that immigrant women (documented and undocumented) could get WIC since it was nurturing their U.S.-citizen unborn babies.

 

 

In the 2000 census, North Carolina had the fastest-growing Latino population in the U.S. Most of these newcomers were immigrants, many of them undocumented and connected with the farm labor economy of the state. In the 2010 census, the state’s Latino population continued to grow but mostly due to the U.S.-born children of the newcomers from the previous decade. North Carolina has an estimated 150,000 migrant farmworkers annually, mostly from Mexico and other Central American countries. Our state has one of the largest farmworker populations in the U.S. With the tightened border security, many farmworkers now stay all year, unable to return home to see their families for fear they could not make the trek back across the desert. Some start new families here. Many families back home continue to depend on the paychecks of their husbands, sons, and fathers.

Other newcomers come on time-limited visas from around the world as students, business people, or tourists, and then they overstay their visas. Most unauthorized newcomers fall into this category. Others may be green card holders, but if U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) does not have documentation of their place of residence, their legal permanent residence status is terminated. Populations who come to the U.S. and to North Carolina as refugees regularly petition to bring their family members from their countries of origin. As recently-arrived newcomers, these refugees are typically low-income wage earners. If their families are granted permission to join them, they often come as immigrants but not as refugees, which means that they have no access to most public services. These expanded families struggle to survive because even though they are working they are barred from supplemental assistance available to others.

 

 

Economic impact is one of the major issues related to the proposed immigration reform. Most economists are clear that immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for undocumented residents, would have a strong positive impact on economic growth. Newcomers are drawn to the U.S. for job opportunities, are mostly young and entrepreneurial in spirit, and will be workers, consumers, and taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress, agrees with this analysis.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, provides an alternative analysis. The Heritage Foundation posits that providing a path to citizenship for undocumented residents will be a drain on the economy. While they acknowledge that it will be an initial boom to the economy, they project that it will be a drain over a 50-year period. The reasoning of their research analyst is that low-income undocumented workers, Hispanics in particular, have lower IQ’s than U.S.-citizen whites. Therefore, their children will also have lower IQ’s, creating an ongoing pool of low-income and low-IQ U.S.-citizen workers who will need government subsidies. In many circles, the Heritage Foundation analysis is being compared to efforts to defend segregation in the early and mid-twentieth century.

 

 

The U.S. is recognized as the world’s premier immigrant nation, historically the champion of freedom, a model of innovation and entrepreneurship, and by far the wealthiest nation. As we struggle to pass immigration reform and reconcile our ambivalence toward the undocumented who sustain our economy, the refugees who are our historic champions of freedom, and the newcomers who are drivers of innovation, the whole world is watching.

.