Selected news coverage of

September 2003

By Steven A. Camarota and Nora McArdle

United Press International
The Washington Times
Gannett News Service
The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk)
National Public Radio
Agencia EFE

Analysis: Immigrants' declining diversity
By Steve Sailer
United Press International, September 8, 2003
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030905-085811-4526r

LOS ANGELES (UPI) -- The main engine of the United States' increasing demographic diversity -- mass immigration -- is becoming less diverse, as immigrants from Latin America become an ever-larger fraction of the foreign born in the United States, according to a report released Friday by the Center for Immigration Studies.

"Immigrants from Spanish-speaking Latin America accounted for more than 60 percent of the growth in the foreign-born population nationally in the 1990s," according to the report by Steven A. Camarota and Nora McArdle based on 2000 Census data released this summer.

The Center for Immigration Studies is a Washington think tank that describes itself as "an independent, non-partisan, non-profit research organization ... devoted exclusively to research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal and other impacts of immigration on the United States." As part of its self-stated mission, the center "is animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted."

The apparent increase in Hispanics as a percentage of U.S. immigration raises far-reaching questions about exactly what kind of diversity our country desires for itself.

The late Jim Chapin, a former executive director of the Democratic Socialists of America and one-time political analyst for United Press International, would boast that his neighborhood in the New York borough of Queens was almost perfectly balanced in numbers among whites, blacks, Hispanics and Asians.

He wrote, "My two cents on immigration/diversity: I'm for it, based on my own experience in Queens County for 30 years. What I am not for is what is rapidly becoming 'sole-source immigration.' Carry this on for 50 years, and the U.S. will be another Dade County (the Hispanic-dominated home of Miami)."

A single source country, Mexico, largely drives the trend toward homogeneity among U.S. immigrants. In the 1970 Census, the largest sending nation, Italy, accounted for 10 percent of all the foreign-born in the United States. By 1980, Mexico had taken first place with 16 percent, rising to 22 percent in 1990, and 30 percent in 2000.Spanish-speaking countries south of Mexico accounted for another 17 percent, bringing the Latin American total to 47 percent of the 31 million foreign-born residents of the United States. That's up from 37 percent of the 19.6 million immigrants in 1990, according to census data.

Moreover, Hispanic immigrants have a higher fertility rate than other immigrant groups (or native-born Americans), so they account for an even greater fraction of the young children of immigrants.

According to data assembled by demographer Hans P. Johnson of the Public Policy Institute of California, in the mid-'80s in California, foreign-born Hispanics women were having babies at a pace that would average out to a lifetime total of 3.25 babies per woman. As the 1986 amnesty of illegal immigrants took effect, this total fertility rate shot up to 4.44 babies per immigrant Hispanic woman by 1991. It then declined to 3.25 babies apiece by 1998, the last year for which Johnson had data.

In contrast, non-Hispanic whites, African-Americans, and Asian-Americans all average between 1.8 and 2.2 babies per woman.

Influential beltway personalities are not much exposed to this trend because immigration to the Washington area is so diverse. Mexico is the eighth-most common sending nation among the foreign born of Maryland, and it's fourth in Virginia.

In contrast, in North Carolina there are almost 10 times as many people from Mexico as from the No. 2 sending country, Germany. In Texas, the ratio is 18 to 1. Nationally, there are more than six times as many people from Mexico (9.2 million) as from the No. 2 source (China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan), up from a 4.6 to 1 ratio in 1990.

In financially wracked California, Democrat Joe Guzzardi, who teaches English as a second language to Hispanic immigrants in the Lodi public schools, is running for governor to bring attention to the problems caused by mass immigration. He told United Press International: "No fewer than 23 California counties fell into the census survey that ranked counties nationwide with the highest percentages of foreign-born residents. How California is going to handle this continued influx of people will be a major hurdle for either (Gov.) Gray Davis or his replacement. I recommend that all the candidates join me in a discussion of this vital issue."

There has been little discussion of this in recent years, however, in part for fear of being labeled "racist" or "insensitive." Interestingly, though, America's highly liberal neighbor to the north takes a more hardheaded approach to choosing immigrants.

Compared to the United States, Canada's immigrant population is much more diversified, with its largest single-source region, East Asia, accounting for 13 percent of the foreign-born.

The greater variety of immigrants in Canada has two main causes: Canada has fewer illegal aliens, and it aggressively tries to skim the cream off immigration applicants from around the globe, in contrast to the U.S. government's more passive role in deciding who can move to America.

The U.S. government estimates that 8 million or 9 million people are in the country illegally, which would be about one-fourth of all the foreign-born.

According to the CIS report, "The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates indicate that in 2000 roughly half of the Mexican-born population in the United States was illegal." The report set the figure at some 4.8 million illegal aliens from Mexico.

In comparison, the Canadian government claims that Canada has about 20,000 illegal aliens. Unofficial estimates run up to 10 times higher, but would still be less than 5 percent of all immigrants. In any case, Canada exerts far greater control over who gets in.

Further, the two nations exhibit a fundamental philosophical disagreement over what the purpose of legal immigration should be. To a significantly greater extent than the United States, Canada tries to choose those applicants who possess the "human capital" to most benefit Canada as a whole. The Canadian government offers an online point system where potential immigrants can quickly check out whether they've got the right stuff that Canada wants in its newcomers (mostly job skills, higher education, English or French fluency, and some degree of youth).

Minister of National Revenue Elinor Caplan, then minister of Citizenship and Immigration, on the ministry's Web site, explained, "Independent skilled immigrants (the largest single class of those admitted to Canada) are selected on the basis of their potential contribution to Canada's economic and social well-being."

In contrast, the American government's philosophy of immigration -- to the extent that it actually has one -- appears to be based more on poetry than analysis of who could most benefit current U.S. citizens.

James W. Ziglar, the Bush administration's former head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, testified to the Senate in July 2001 that his "philosophy" was that the United States should continue to be "a magnet for the tired, the poor, the homeless, the tempest-tossed, the wretched refuse of teeming shores, and the huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

Since the government is unenthusiastic about choosing among immigration applicants for the common good, others select them for it based on their

private wants. Translated to the real world, Ziglar's philosophy means that most legal immigrants to the United States (72 percent in 1998) get in by being related to somebody, typically a recent immigrant. In contrast, 11.7 percent of legal immigrants were admitted for "employment-based" reasons.

(And that includes the workers' spouses and children.)

The U.S. reliance on "family reunification" as the prime justification for picking immigrants means that the small number of countries that started sending many immigrants to the United States soon after quotas were liberalized in 1965 are permanently privileged in the struggle for visas.

Chapin, a long-time adviser to liberal Democratic politicians such as recent New York City mayoral candidate Mark Green, summed up, "I can see reasonable arguments for America being a diverse country, but I have yet to hear a good argument for turning the U.S. into a Latin American country."

=================================================================

Inside the Beltway: Subnations
By John McCaslin
The Washington Times, September 8, 2003
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030908-121522-9822r.htm

[Fifth item]

We'd known the nation's immigrant population grew by 11.3 million during the 1990s — faster than at any other time in U.S. history.

Now, the latest report from the Center for Immigration Studies finds that one country, Mexico, and one region, Spanish-speaking Latin America, have come to dominate U.S. immigration.

In 1990, immigrants from Mexico accounted for 22 percent of the total foreign-born in this country. But between 1990 and 2000, Mexico alone accounted for 43 percent of the growth in the immigrant population.

Absorbing most of the Mexicans are the states of Arizona — Mexicans grew from 55 percent to 67 percent of the state's total foreign-born population — and Texas, where Mexicans now represent 65 percent of foreign arrivals.

One downside, says Steven A. Camarota, the center's research director and co-author of the report: "Allowing in so many people from one country and region of the world may significantly slow the assimilation process by creating the critical mass necessary for linguistic, cultural, and residential isolation."

==================================================================

Mexico-to-U.S. immigration growing
Mexicans lead foreign-born list among 30 states
By Sergio Bustos
Gannett News Service, September 5, 2003
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0905immigrants-states.html

WASHINGTON -- Immigrants from Mexico topped the list of foreign-born residents in 30 states in 2000, up from 18 states in 1990, according to a report to be released today by a group that advocates restricting immigration to the United States.

The report by the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies found that the number of Mexicans has climbed steadily over the past three decades and accounted for almost one in three foreign-born U.S. residents in 2000. The report was based on the most recent Census Bureau data from 2000.

Steven Camarota, an analyst with the center and the report's co-author, said the foreign-born population in the United States has grown larger than ever, drawing people from every corner of the world. But he said Spanish-speaking immigrants, mainly from Mexico, make up a larger share of all immigrants.

"One country, Mexico, and one region, Spanish-speaking Latin America, dominated U.S. immigration during the 1990s," Camarota said.

Almost 46 percent of the 31 million immigrants in the United States in 2000 hailed from Latin America, including El Salvador, Cuba and the Dominican Republic.

Up until 2000, the highest percentage of immigrants had been Germans, who constituted 25 percent of all immigrants in 1900, Camarota said. But in 2000 Mexicans accounted for 30 percent of all U.S. foreign-born residents, up from 22 percent in 1990.

In Arizona, where Mexicans have long outnumbered other foreign-born residents, Mexicans make up 67 percent of all foreign-born residents in 2000, up from 55 percent in 1990. The state was home to 435,001 Mexicans in 2000.

The group is not recommending any specific federal legislation to curb the flow of Mexican immigrants into the country but wanted to call attention to the lack of diversity among the nation's 31 million foreign-born residents.

A larger and less diverse immigrant group, Camarota concluded, may have benefits but prove burdensome for U.S. society. He said that providing public services may be easier when newly arrived immigrants speak a single language but that such immigrants may not assimilate as well as other immigrant groups.

Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigrant group, said Camarota's report is puzzling because it implies Spanish-speaking immigrants are not integrating into the rest of U.S. society and do not want to learn English.

==================================================================

Melting pot's still filling up, but it's not quite as mixed
By Katrice Hardy
The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk), September 5, 2003
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=59262&ran=82782

More immigrants flocked to America between 1990 and 2000 than at any other time, but a new study says the patterns of growth actually are making the United States -- and Virginia -- less diverse.

More foreigners are coming from Mexico and Spanish-speaking Latin American nations than ever before, and they're arriving in greater numbers than people from other countries, according to a report to be released today by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington.

The shift could affect everything from government services and education to the languages people learn and the foods they eat.

And while Virginia is still diverse, the national trend is occurring here.

"Virginia once had significantly more East Asian immigrants," said Steven A. Camarota, who co-authored the report and is director of the immigration center. "Now it's becoming more Latin American."

Among the study's findings:

* In 2000, about 31.1 million immigrants lived in the United States,
compared with 19.8 million in 1990 and 14.1 million in 1980.

* In 2000, Mexican natives made up about 30 percent of the U.S. immigrant
population, up from about 22 percent in 1990.

* In 2000, more than 35,000 of Virginia's nearly 585,000 immigrants were
from Mexico -- compared with about 7,900 out of about 307,500 in 1990.
Mexicans in 2000 represented the fourth-biggest group of immigrants in
Virginia, up from the 11th-largest group in 1990.

* More immigrants came to Virginia from El Salvador than from any other
nation between 1990 and 2000. Korea was the previous leader.

Experts say the new pattern could help local, state and federal officials
who work to meet the needs of immigrants.

It should be easier for local governments to provide services if one main group is in an area, Camarota said. For example, a government agency might be able to translate documents in fewer languages.

Rudolph Wilson, chairman of Norfolk State University's political science department, said the shift will force educators to enhance their English as a Second Language programs with an emphasis on Spanish-speaking students.

Officials also will have to be more sensitive to the cultural, educational, political and economic needs of the Spanish-speaking population, Wilson said.

Locally, he said, many Mexicans take low-wage jobs in the construction and hotel industries.

"We'll have to examine how we can increase their employability," he said. "We'll have to come to terms with them as a primary population."

In the past, the region has had a high concentration of Asians, in particular Filipinos.

Wilson said he suspects that Asian-Americans will still constitute a major immigrant population for Hampton Roads because of the military presence. Many Asian immigrants relocated to the United States by joining the military.

Still, the region has seen a rise in the number of Hispanic-owned stores and restaurants.

"When we first moved here in 1990, there was one store and one restaurant," said Janice Sigala, the Hispanic outreach coordinator at St. Gregory Catholic Church in Virginia Beach. "Now I can't keep track. A new one opens up every few months. There must be at least 30 between Virginia Beach, Norfolk and Chesapeake."

More than 2,100 Mexicans lived in Hampton Roads in 2000, according to the most recent census figures. A comparable statistic for 1990 was unavailable.

Sigala, who is from Puerto Rico, said she had to buy Mexican spices from Asian stores 10 years ago. Not anymore.

She helps Hispanic immigrants adjust to life here.

One of them was Salvador Villeda, 38.

He has been working construction jobs in Virginia and North Carolina for the past seven years. He said he makes more money working in the United States and regularly sends it to his family back in Mexico.

He has noticed evidence of the changing demographics when he sits down to eat -- more authentic Mexican cuisine is available, in addition to Mexican-American offerings.

"I see Mexican people everywhere now," he said through a translator. "That's a big change."

==================================================================

Transcript
National Public Radio, September 5, 2003

Census figures out this week show a dramatic decade long surge in the
number of immigrants continues. A survey estimates there are some 33
million foreign born residents in the U.S. - a jump of 5 percent from the
previous year. It includes both legal and illegal newcomers. Another
study today notes a decline in diversity among those immigrants. They are
increasingly Latino - and some worry this will make their assimilation more
difficult. NPR's Jennifer Ludden reports.

The Center for Immigration Studies found the snapshot of immigrants
changing across the country. Mexicans and other Hispanics make up a
greater percentage of the foreign born not just in immigrant magnets like
Texas and California. but also in places like Arkansas, Tennessee, and
Delaware. CIS research director Steve Camarota says nationwide, nearly
HALF of all foreign-born residents are Spanish speaking.

CAMAROTA: "And the potential is you'll have a community where you can
go shopping, get a job, buy a newspaper, and never have to move out into
the larger society, because you have this kind of critical mass necessary
to foster linguistic and cultural isolation."

In fact, that wouldn't be so new, says demographer Jeffery Passell of the
Urban Institute. He notes that in the mid to late 19th century, censuses
showed nearly a third of the immigrant population was from Ireland, and
another third from Germany. Passell says the big concern at the time was
that largely Protestant America was being overrun by Catholics - but
language was also an issue.

PASSELL: "In the late 19th century there were a number of German speaking
communities and German language schools, public schools, and private
schools run in German only. Our entry into World War One pretty much ended
that. But it was not uncommon at all."

Of course, no war with Latin America looms. . The Center for Immigration
Studies favors limiting immigration -- it's survey suggests that Spanish
enclaves will become so pervasive, native born Americans will have to learn
Spanish to be employable. But Passell and others dismiss fears that the
mythical melting pot will stop working.

KELLEY: "It flies in the face of what we know of decades and decades of
immigration in this country, of hundreds of years of immigration in this
country."

Angela Kelley is with the National Immigration Forum.

KELLEY: "Sociologists call the US a language graveyard, um because in fact
immigrants come here and they know their ticket to success for themselves
and certainly for their children is to learn English as quickly as possible."

As the daughter of Spanish speaking immigrants, Kelley says her own POOR
Spanish skills provide the perfect example of this. And she cites high
Latino rates of naturalization, intermarriage and home ownership as other
key measures of assimilation. Kelley also questions the motive of the new
survey, since the Center for Immigration Studies supports limiting
immigration. Still, even critics admit the current mass of Spanish
speaking newcomers is greater than previous immigrant groups. And unlike
the waves of Irish, Germans and Italians, CIS researcher Steve Camarota
says this one shows no sign of letting up.

CAMAROTA: "Mexican immigration has been the top sending country now
for over two decades, and that will continue for at least another 3 or 4
decades because the population is so big, there's no way another country
could displace it."

If the trend holds, it means about 800,000 new Hispanic residents in the
U.S. every year. But while that's part of the biggest influx in
generations, today's overall immigration rates are only half those of a
century ago. Demographer Jeffery Passel says it's too early to say how
much the growing numbers of Latino immigrants will change America or be
changed by it.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The Census Bureau press release is online at:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03cn66.html

==================================================================

Hispanics making foreign-born population less diverse
Agencia EFE, September 5, 2003
http://www.quepasa.com/content/?c=104&id=189438