Panel explores immigration

Impassioned debate on the controversial, but extremely relevant, issue of immigration characterized the Organization of Latin American Affairs' (OLAA) first-ever Immigration Panel.

The event, which was co-sponsored by the College Republicans, was held on Thursday, Dec. 6 and featured four panelists, all with their own unique viewpoints on the subject of immigration. Students arrived early, quickly filling up all available seats, the stairwells, and the back of the room. Moderator Nora Frias, BC '07, opened the evening by greeting the packed house of over a 100 students and stating the OLAA's objective in hosting the panel.

"While we as an organization stand in solidarity with all immigrants, it is not our place to impose our views on you," Frias said. "It is up to you to make your decision. We hope that you leave today with a better understanding of this matter."

Kevin Kenny, professor of the history department, was the first panelist to speak, offering a condensed, 10-minute history of immigration in America. Kenny said that there were three distinct waves of immigration to the United States, the third of which is still ongoing. He also covered the various laws and policies that have been used to restrict immigration over the years, including some that students found surprising.

"About 300 Chinese came in [the 1800s], but their immigration was restricted on strictly racist grounds, with the idea that they would not be able to assimilate to American life," Kenny said. "Also, Asian immigrants were not eligible to become citizens of the U.S. due to naturalization until 1952."

Kenny also said that when immigration reform took the form of national-origin-based quota systems in 1924, 82 percent of those allowed in by the quotas were from Northwest Europe, and there were no openings for Africans or Asians.

After Kenny's brief history of the issue, each of the other panelists introduced themselves and spoke briefly about their experience with the issue of immigration.

Elena Letona, an immigrant from El Salvador, actively works and speaks about immigration laws and reform. Marcia Drew Hohn, director of public education and civic outreach at the Immigrant Learning Center in Boston, was also on the side of freer immigration policy. Jessica Vaughn, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C. offered the restrictionist viewpoint on immigration. She said that the United States needed to employ stricter immigration policies because current immigration levels were too high and were thus draining the resources available to immigrants.

"We need to adopt pro-immigrant policy," Vaughn said. "We would be better off with fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome; but we cannot offer that welcome with the level of immigrants that are currently arriving."

One steady point of discussion and debate among the panelists was the effect that immigration has on job availability. Letona contended that immigrants take jobs away from American workers.

"We don't have jobs [but] that has more to do with jobs [that are increasingly] being shipped overseas. Policies are favoring corporations over workers," Letona said. "Briefly, I want to say that in this model, the reason why undocumented immigrants are able to come here and find jobs is because we need low-skilled labor."

Vaughn responded by saying that the problem is in part due to a greater lack of education among immigrants. Only 70 percent of immigrants have received a high school education, compared to 92 percent of native-born Americans.

"The reality is that our current immigration policy is actually playing right into the hands and benefiting the owners of capital more than anyone else," Vaughn said. "The way our policy is today is benefiting owners of capital. The losers really are those Americans and recent immigrants who are competing for the same kind of job."

Hohn also referenced related research that the Immigrant Learning Center has done that focuses on the effect of immigrant-owned businesses on impoverished neighborhoods.

"We looked at the three Boston neighborhoods and what ways these [made] neighborhoods get better," Hohn said. "What we have found is that they really revive economies in places that were dark and depressed."

The panel also broached the topic of immigrant use of welfare and government services, with both sides offering rebuttals to counter the other. Vaughn said that immigrants were much more likely to use welfare than native-born Americans and Hohn said that immigrants were not eligible for welfare benefits for the first five years. Those with American-born children, however, were eligible, Vaughn said.

Hohn also asserted that immigrants did not always use government services without contributing taxes.

"The IRS is happy to issue anyone a number that they can use to pay taxes," she said.

Hohn said that a majority of undocumented immigrants pay taxes.

Elvis Jocol, director of social and political action for the OLAA and organizer of the evening, said that he was very pleased with the turnout and the event overall.

"The panelists did a good job of keeping it a civil debate," Jocol said. "It never got to the point where people were throwing out insults."

While he was satisfied with the caliber of the debate, Jocol wasn't assured of any clear ending to the immigration question.

"The future of the immigration issue is truly unknown and I don't think there is a solution to this problem anytime in the near future," he said.

While the evening did not attempt to offer a grand, ideal scheme for solving all immigration problems, it did enlighten and strengthen the viewpoints and opinions of Boston College students as they continue to consider an issue with no easy answer. n