Summary:

California 40 contains the cities of Downey, Vernon, East Los Angeles, Commerce, Los Angeles, Cudahy, and more. This district has an 88.2% Hispanic population, which has increased by 7.3 percentage points in the last 10 years, with a 39.2% foreign-born population. California 40 is a wildly Democratic district, in the last 20 years Democratic Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard has been re-elected with over 60% of the votes; meanwhile, there hasn’t been a Republican candidate since 2012. Based on the research by Casellas and Leal 2013, Wong 2014, and Rocha et al 2011, a representative of California 40 should be extremely pro-immigration and push to protect immigrants’ rights. Representative Roybal-Allard has been doing just that and she should continue her representation. I argue that a representative should even push for more liberal immigration policies. It is the responsibility of representatives to work on expansive immigration reform that will defend immigrants’ rights. They should work with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to protect the borders instead of policing the interior, reform the detainment system to be more humane, and improve the immigration system to make legal immigration easier.

Op-Ed:

In late March 2019, the LA Times reported on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) using police department information to track undocumented immigrants in sanctuary cities. Undocumented immigrants are not safe, even in sanctuary cities meant to protect them. It is the responsibility of representatives to work on expansive immigration reform that will defend immigrants’ rights. They should work with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to protect the borders instead of policing the interior, reform the detainment system to be more humane, and improve the immigration system to make legal immigration easier. California’s 40th congressional district only has a small piece of Los Angeles -a sanctuary city- but the majority of the cities in the district are not sanctuary cities which means that undocumented immigrants there are at even more risk. Due to the large Democrat, Hispanic/Latino, and immigrant population in California 40, representatives in this district must work to protect immigrant rights and push for pro-immigration bills.

California 40 contains the cities of Downey, Vernon, East Los Angeles, Commerce, Los Angeles, Cudahy, and more. This district has an 88.2% Hispanic population, which has increased by 7.3 percentage points in the last 10 years, with a 39.2% foreign-born population. California 40 is a wildly Democratic district, in the last 20 years Democratic Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard has been re-elected with over 60% of the votes; meanwhile, there hasn’t been a Republican candidate since 2012. Representative Roybal-Allard votes very pro-immigration and many of her bill sponsorships are related to immigration. She calls for a reform of the immigration system by providing a pathway for the legalization of law-abiding immigrants. She also calls for more efficient border security and a cap on ICE detainment beds to focus them on detaining criminals and not innocent civilians. Her website describes her as “Original Co-Author of the Dream Act” to show that she fought for a path for legalization. This shows that immigration is an important issue for her and her constituents. I think that this representation must continue because it accurately shows the preferences of her constituents.  

A representative of California 40 should be pro-immigration because of the district’s strong support of Democrats, which Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard is. Casellas and Leal researched Congress votes to determine what factors may explain votes. They showed that “the key explanatory variables in both the House and Senate involve partisanship… Republicans were particularly favorable toward restrictive and enforcement approaches and opposed to comprehensive legislation, while Democrats took the opposite approach” (Casellas and Leal 2013). The constituents in California 40 tend to favor more comprehensive immigration legislation. Therefore, a representative for this district needs to favor comprehensive legislation, like Representative Roybal-Allard has been doing.

California 40 is a largely Hispanic district which means that a representative ought to support pro-immigration legislation. Wong researched Congressional votes on interior enforcement bills. He stated that “the size of the Hispanic/Latino percentage of the total population in a district is significantly related to a decreased likelihood of supporting legislation that tightens interior immigration enforcement for both Republican and Democratic representatives” (Wong 2014, 393). California 40 is more likely to be against tightening interior immigration enforcement. Therefore, to best represent their constituents, local representatives should be against tightening interior immigration enforcement and focus on protecting the immigrants in their district. Representative Roybal-Allard works on putting a cap on ICE detainment beds, which is a step in the right direction to restrict interior enforcement. I argue that they should even work on encouraging CBP to protect the border instead of policing immigrants already in the country, this would help to protect immigrants in the district.

Being in a mostly Hispanic district, local representatives ought to be pro-immigration to represent their constituents. Rocha et. al., researched the policy preferences of Anglos and Latinos. They state “… that Latinos in these same areas [areas with a higher proportion of Latinos] are more likely to have liberal immigration policy preferences. We further found that this result is not driven by the size of the foreign-born Latino population, but by the size of the native-born Latino population” (Rocha et al 2011, 16-17). While California 40 has a decent size foreign-born population, the majority of the population is native-born and Hispanic. This means that most of the constituents have more liberal immigration policy preferences. Representative Roybal-Allard does push for more liberal immigration policies like a pathway to legalization that would help undocumented immigrants on the inside. In addition, local representatives should support even more liberal immigration policies, for example, policies that would reform the detainment system on the border and help facilitate an easier legal immigration process.

This prior research shows that a representative of California 40 should be pushing for expansive bills and showing support for immigration. I argue that they need to be pushing for a reform of the immigration system, encouraging a more humane immigration process that will not separate families, and make it easier to enter the country legally. Representative Roybal-Allard is doing a great job of representing her constituents on the issue of immigration. It is important to be aware of the policy preferences of the constituents in California 40 because it helps representatives accurately represent their district and help the immigrants in their district. Immigration has been a large and necessary part of the United States’ history. Undocumented immigrants are an important part of our economy and are needed to fill many unwanted jobs, like jobs in agriculture, construction, and hospitality. Many undocumented immigrants even pay taxes, as seen in data provided by NewAmericanEconomy.org. They also don’t get social security benefits, even when they pay taxes. Representatives should work on helping these undocumented immigrants that are already in the country. We also need to work on facilitating legal immigration to avoid further illegal immigration. A representative in California 40 needs to protect the immigrants in their district from ICE using police department mass information to track them down because it is their duty to represent the constituents that support immigrants.

Abstract:

Congresswoman Bonnie Watson-Coleman of New Jersey District 12 tells her constituents through her voting history, website, and social media, that immigration is an issue she finds of importance. While the Congresswoman has done great work with the Healthy MOM Act, the End For-Profit Prisons Act, and more;she has room for improvement when it comes to advocating for documented and undocumented immigrants alike. I argue using interviews of immigrants from NJ 12 and peer-reviewed research that it not only is beneficial on a moral ground but on a strategic one as well that she advocates more actively for pro-immigrant policy and work to help those not just nationally but in her own district through partnerships with organizations. Action is what counts.

Op-Ed:

To my knowledge, just last week there were three more undocumented immigrants detained by ICE in Princeton, NJ. Under the Trump administration, undocumented immigrants across the country have had more and more reasons to live in fear due to the increased aggressiveness of ICE and anti-immigrant rhetoric. While there has been a push for politicians to be more vocal about their stance on immigration, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they act in a substantial manner when it comes to creating policy that will benefit their districts’ constituents. This lack of action when claiming a stance on immigration can be seen in elected officials across the US, even in the historically Democratic District 12 of New Jersey.

Bonnie Watson-Coleman, the Congresswoman for NJ 12, hasn’t created or presented any sort of immigration policy, she has voted to date on nine billsthat have to do with immigration or ICE. The majority of those bills were presented by Republican Representatives. Many of these bills had to do with gaining funding for the construction of a wall on the southern border, to prohibit funding to state or local governments that are sanctuary cities, and more. The one bill Bonnie Watson-Coleman voted “Yea” on was a bill called the “Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act of 2017.”

When looking at Watson-Coleman’s campaign website, one will see that immigration is not listed as one. On her official government website, one will find a section for immigration this time; however, once clicking into her page on immigration, one will find a small paragraph about her support for DACA and her belief that Trumps proposed wall is a symbol of hate. In addition to this, on April 5^th, Watson-Coleman’s trip as a part of a delegationfrom the Border Security, Facilitation and Operations Subcommittee that examined U.S. operations at the United States-Mexico border.Her trip to the borderand a migrant shelterin El Paso, Texas, was documented on her social media account. The purpose of the trip being to learn more about the way undocumented immigrants are treated at the border as well as what can be done to insure their treatment is humane. While it’s great that Watson-Coleman is getting to learn more about the issues immigrants are facing entering this country and that she has a more progressive stance on immigration, it is unclear on what she has done to help the undocumented constituents that live in her district.

Although NJ 12 is lucky enough to have such a progressive Congresswoman, it takes more than just picking sides to create and generate positive change, especially when it comes to the undocumented and documented immigrant experience within her district. In NJ 12, the Latino population went up +10.7pp in ten years, scholars like Abrajano & Hajnal (2015) have foundthat as a result one should expect to see negative rhetoric towards immigrants increase in the area where the Latino population has increased substantially and quickly. However, Patricia Fernandez-Kelly’s research foundthat integration of immigrants in a community is easier if there is already a pre-existing large presence of immigrants within said community. In order to find out more about the immigrant experience in NJ 12, I ended up interviewing five immigrants, shown here. Data such as: age, gender, country of origin, length of time in the community, employment, etc. was taken to contextualize the responses. I focused mostly around the “integration” of the Latino immigrant. I defined “integration” into categories: feeling of belonging; participation in broader community; accessibility to education; accessibility to resources; job security; and the ability speak English.

When asking the immigrants if they had a sense of belonging in NJ 12, all of them answered no. This sentiment is specially seen in the undocumented immigrants of whom I interviewed; the reason for this being mainly attributed to the fear of deportation they face on a daily basis since ICE has become more aggressive. Another reason would be the negative rhetoric them and other immigrants receive, including their kids at school. As a result of the lack of belonging and the fact that many of those interviewed work multiple jobs and are students, they do not participate in the broader community. One great thing about the public schools in NJ 12, is that students do not need to demonstrate citizenship or legal status in order to get an education. In addition to this, although there are many organizations which help undocumented immigrants when in need of helping pay rent, medical bills, acquiring an ID, legal help, and more; some organizations cannot help because of an immigrants legal status, furthermore undocumented immigrants are not able to qualify for fordable housing either. Unfortunately, it isn’t uncommon for undocumented workers to be exploited by their employers, but because of their legal status, it is nearly impossible to speak out without losing their job having the authorities called on you. Another obstacle undocumented immigrants face is the inability to get a drivers license, which impedes their ability to access transportation. The language takes time to overcome especially because of the fact that most immigrants stay within their small communities and do not get immersed in English. While none of the interviewees noticed demographic shifts, they have noticed the increased hateful rhetoric since the Trump administration took place. Some reflected on the atmosphere changing but not due to increase in Latinos.

Although undocumented immigrants cannot vote, naturalized citizens and Latinos can. So, even if the moral reason to actively support both documented and undocumented immigrants isn’t enough, there is also another more concrete incentive. Accordingto political scientists, Adrian Pantoja, Gary Segura, and Ricardo Ramirez, Latino voters are strongly mobilized by attacks on immigrants, which was shown in the 2018 elections. In addition to this, accordingto Matt Barreto, a political scientist at U.C.L.A, the research center he helped established foundthat in eight states with large Latino populations, the Latino vote went up 96% from 2014-2018. The same study, Barreto cites, foundthat higher Latino turnout was influential in flipping 20 out of the 40 House seats that the Democrats gained.

Although Watson-Coleman does a great job as it is with the Healthy MOM Act, the End For-Profit Prisons Act, and more; it is particularly important at this point in time with the extreme negative rhetoric around immigration and the inhumane ways undocumented immigrants are being treated at the border and in their everyday lives, to advocate for them as well. Aside from being more active in advocating for immigrants not only nationwide but in her own district and finding out ways in which to work with local organizations to help immigrants would be a great step in the right direction not just for Watson-Coleman’s constituents, but for herself as well. And it seems that after her trip to the detention centers, Watson-Coleman is more motivated to achieve this next step, she even wrote her own op-ed about it! Even if being more vocal about immigrant rights unease’s some of her constituents, more Latinos will endorse her, and due to her historical success in the district, she should be able this change.

Summary

Representative Michael Cloud argues that he supports tight border security and restrictive immigration politics to ultimately hinder drug cartels’ abilities to traffick illegal immigrants into the US. Although he claims to have the immigrants’ best interest in mind, previous research shows that his proposals not only have failed in the past, but they also have backfired and worsened conditions for illegal immigrants. It’s understandable that he panders in favor of national security, considering that his district is mostly Republican. However, if he truly wants to help immigrants as he so claims, Rep. Cloud needs to stop voting strictly along party lines on immigration, and he should start considering more permissive immigration policies.

Rep. Cloud needs to stop pandering and start acting to help immigrants.

Representative Michael Cloud wrote a column for the Victoria Advocate a week after the government shutdown. In this article, Rep. Cloud addresses the issues with the state of immigration politics in Washington and the perceived influence cartels have on immigration. He wrote that cartels “maintain an outsized influence” in Mexican and Central American governments, and the lack of a tough border security “allows cartels to amass profits of tens of billions of dollars each year smuggling drugs and humans into our country”. Afterwards, he argued that because there is not enough deterrence against illegal immigrants, cartels took control of the illegal immigration transportation, pushing the immigrants “in danger of human trafficking or death.” Therefore, he calls for strengthening border security to solve “a humanitarian and criminal crisis that is driven by cartels”. It’s completely true that cartels have influenced Latin American governments, and that their crimes have harmed hundreds of thousands. However, if he wanted to truly solve the immigrant crisis, he would actually support more permissive policy that would give more support to illegal immigrants and take them in as refugees instead of leaving them to the mercy of cartels.

His proposal in the article, increasing the funding for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), is not unprecedented. According to Princeton University Professor Douglas Massey, funding has increased throughout the past few decades, with the only result that the cost of detainment has risen dramatically. Adjusted for inflation, each apprehension cost $98 in 1983, while it cost over $12,500 in 2016 (Douglas Massey, Mexican Migration Project). As well, this same research shows that while militarizing the border did decrease illegal migration from major entry points, it only pushed immigrants into alternative, more dangerous routes, while encouraging them to not return as migrating became more challenging. Therefore, his argument that increasing CBP funding would help was actually the reason that forced immigrants to take these dangerous routes, worsening the humanitarian crisis at the border.

Rep. Cloud claims that tighter border security will help solve the humanitarian crisis, but research already shows that tighter border security actually helped worsen it. Therefore, why would he support these tight measures on immigration? For starters, the district is solidly Republican, and even if it is majority Latino, it has a small foreign-born population of around 8%. UCSD Professor Tom K. Wong shows that the smaller the foreign born, the less support there will be for immigrant rights in Congress. As well, research has shown that being Republican is the main predictor to determine whether a representative will vote in favor of restrictive immigration policy (Casellas and Leal, 2013). Some might say that the high Latino population should appeal to pro-immigrant views. That’s usually the case in contested elections when the Latino population is a significant minority. Rep. Cloud’s TX-27 is around 53% Latino, which should lean towards pro-immigrant policy. However, that’s usually the case when the Latinos are not the predominant social group, or in-group (McDermott, 2013). In this case, Latinos have to be well integrated, and the fact that Rep. Cloud is married to a Mexican woman shows evidence of this integration. As well, the district is not contested at all, with Rep. Cloud winning reelection in 2018 with 60% of the vote. Considering a significant portion of the Latino population is supporting Rep. Cloud, the Latino vote does not influence his decision. Another reason for his votes in Congress is the perception of competition between whites and other minorities. Even if Latinos represent a majority of the district, 37% of the district is white, and this proportion is currently shrinking. Whenever these trends happen, the white majority tends to support restrictive immigration policies (Abrajano & Singh, 2015).

Considering the research, it is not surprising that Rep. Cloud has voted along party lines on every immigration bill. It is also not surprising that he supports every common Republican measure, as his website shows. Amongst these, he supports building a wall, interior enforcement to detain those who overstay their visas, more funding for the CBP, and defunding sanctuary cities. However, just like he did in his column for Victoria Advocate, he placed the blames and concerns for border security on the drug cartels, an argument that much more people can rally behind. At the end of the day, these policies actually put the burden on illegal immigrants who in many cases are fleeing dangerous situations.

I recommend that Rep. Cloud considers more permissive immigration policies, even if this means moving away from his party on certain key votes. Just like he says in his column, “there should be nothing partisan about ending a humanitarian and criminal crisis.” I agree with this statement. Still, research shows that the methods he is pursuing have become inefficient and worsened the problem. I understand he votes along party lines in Congress and justifies it as a national security threat against cartels. However, to truly solve the humanitarian and criminal crisis, Rep. Cloud should not support increasing funding for the CBP, nor defunding sanctuary cities, and especially not building an impractical, inefficient, and harshly divisive wall.

Summary:

Traditional models show that Asians are not well-represented in politics: Asians have historically had an abysmal turnout rate, and even in regions with substantial Asian cultural integration, there is little direct representation or interest articulation. The combination of these three phenomena seems to generally prevent Asians from being politically well-integrated in the United States. In CA-19’s San Jose, however, the traditional model seems to not apply. Asian voter turnout in San Jose is relatively high, due to concentrated efforts by Asian advocacy groups to increase turnout and political engagement. In addition, there are also a fair number of Asian representatives in California generally and San Jose specifically. Despite subverting the traditional model, however, San Jose still seems to struggle in adequately representing Asian voters’ interests. While the Asians interviewed in a small-scale study voted consistently in presidential, state, and local-level elections or frequently participated in political activities like campaigning or fundraising, their political interests were not represented by their party or in politics generally. Moving forward, San Jose’s political representatives at every level should listen more carefully to their Asian constituents: that is, understanding and addressing their many political interests through open lines of communication.

CA-19: The Limitations of Asian Political Integration in San Jose:

May marks the beginning of Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, a month in which we celebrate the culture, traditions, and history of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in the United States. The month is particularly well-advertised in San Jose: take a walk around the city, and you’ll see flyers and posters announcing the month in schools, restaurants, malls, and every other possible public space. This is not an inexplicable phenomenon, given the city’s Asian population size: while Asians are currently 5.6% of the U.S. population, AAPIs account for 15% of Californians and 30% of San Jose residents. Since San Jose serves as a population hub for Asian-Americans, it is not difficult to imagine that it would also serve as a political haven: in theory, while places in the United States with fewer Asians might not represent the group politically, in San Jose, where Asians make up 30% of the city’s population, they should be well-integrated into politics through direct representation, voter turnout, and interest articulation. This, unfortunately, is not the case. While traditional models of Asian political behavior do not predict Asian behavior in San Jose, representatives in the city – congressional, state, and local – still do not adequately represent their Asian constituents’ political interests.

Traditional models of Asian political behavior show that Asians are not well-represented in every possible way. Asians have historically had an abysmal turnout rate: in the 2016 election, 49% of Asian voters cast ballots, as compared to 64% of White voters and 59% of Black voters, and even that was considered abnormally high. Moreover, even in regions with substantial Asian cultural integration, there is little direct representation (i.e. Asian politicians) or interest articulation. One study by Aptekar (2008) finds that despite a large number of Asian cultural organizations in suburban Edison, New Jersey, few Asians hold elected positions in the region and political elites are largely unaware of Asian political interests. The traditional model would thus suggest that a combination of low voter turnout rate, little direct representation, and lack of interest articulation that prevents Asians from being politically well-integrated.

In San Jose, however, the traditional model does not apply. Asian voter turnout in San Jose is relatively high, due to concentrated efforts by Asian advocacy groups to increase turnout and political engagement. Pastor, Rosner, and Tran write that in terms of immigrants generally, Santa Clara County has consistently exceeded or tied with Los Angeles County and New York City in terms of foreign-born voters. This, in large part, is because of inter-networked advocacy groups that encourage immigrant turnout, like the API Justice Coalition, headed by Asian Americans for Community Involvement (AACI) in combination with the Asian Law Alliance, the Asian Pacific Bar Association, and the Japanese American Citizens League of San Jose. In addition, there are also a fair number of Asian representatives in California, and San Jose specifically, which is a historical trend that has continued into the present day. A study by Pei-Te Lien found that in 1998, around 400 people of Asian or Pacific Islander descent held key elective positions in federal, state, and municipal governments, and 33 percent were from California. Today, direct political representation of the Asian population occurs to a great extent in San Jose specifically. Pastor, Rosner, and Tran explain that San Jose elected the first Asian-American mayor of an American city, Democrat Norman Mineta, in 1971. Since then, several San Jose Council members, like Madison Nguyen of District 7, have served on school boards and launched political careers. In addition, many of the other fourteen cities in Santa Clara County have elected Asian leadership. Cupertino has three Asian council members (a majority) and an Asian former mayor. Campbell, meanwhile, elected Evan Low, the first gay Asian council member, who has since gone on to serve as the mayor of the city and a member of the California State Assembly.

It is thus clear that San Jose does not struggle with the traditional difficulties of low Asian voter turnout and meager direct representation. The issue that San Jose seems to struggle with, however, is interest articulation. I interviewed three San Jose residents of differing ages, educational levels, and nationalities as part of a small-scale study on Asian immigrant political and cultural integration. All three said that while they voted consistently in presidential, state, and local-level elections or frequently participated in political activities like campaigning or fundraising, their political interests were not represented by their party or in politics generally. All three expressed intense dissatisfaction with the fact that their representatives, both national and local, did not frequently discuss or comprehensively flesh out positions on their interests, which included immigration, healthcare, gun control, data privacy, women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and workers’ rights. While the feeling of inadequate interest articulation may be a sentiment felt widely in our current political arena, political elites’ habit of not listening to Asian constituents specifically is a well-documented phenomena, as Aptekar showed. San Jose’s political sphere, despite having good turnout and spectacular Asian representation, is thus still not representative of Asian voters’ interests.

What, then, do San Jose’s representatives need to do? It is evident that San Jose has thus far done a great job of subverting traditional expectations of Asian political behavior, with advocacy groups that promote turnout and a fair amount of direct political representation. Moving forward, San Jose’s political representatives at every level should listen more carefully to their Asian constituents: that is, understanding and addressing their many political interests through open lines of communication. This, of course, is a difficult job: translating symbolic representation into actual representation is difficult because the name “Asian” comprises more than a few nationalities, languages, beliefs, cultural norms, and backgrounds. That being said, however, San Jose representatives’ work is not yet complete. This May’s Asian American and Pacific Islander Month is a perfect time to enjoy San Jose’s many cultural offerings while understanding that the political needs of San Jose’s Asians haven’t yet been met.

Summary: Congresswoman Judy Chu advertises herself as a strong advocate of immigration issues and rights; however, she does not address a prevalent issue in her district: gentrification and in influx of wealthy Asian immigrants. Although she is an Asian American herself, her voter base still rests upon the support of whites, Latinos, and blacks/African Americans, who are becoming directly affected by the increasing housing prices. They are slowing being displaced; thus, the racial and socioeconomic diversity of the area has diminished. Chu should address this issue directly in her campaigns, in an effort to both help diversify the area and to gain more support from the non-Asian community.

CA27: Judy Chu’s Limited View on Immigration Policy

Last week, Chris Gadsden, former Jersey City Councilman, composed a letter to city development in response to gentrification in the local area. He expressed his concern with the new build plans, stating that they are too exclusive and that the private structures imply that the surrounding neighborhood is too poor to reside there and that they are simply “not wanted.”

What happened to Gadsden is not unique to New Jersey; this issue is prevalent nationally, particularly on the coasts of the US where immigration rates are the highest. The San Gabriel Valley has seen a large influx of Asian immigrants since the past decade and consequently, has brought along a side dish of gentrification. In California district 27, the effect of gentrification has negatively impacted the area by reducing racial and economic diversity there and encouraging an environment of hostility towards immigrants.

Congresswoman Judy Chu, who advertises herself as a strong supporter of immigration and advocate of immigration issues, should focus her lens on not only issues at the border and re-uniting families, but also on the gentrification issue, which affects immigrants in the district more directly and immediately. This is real and personal to many, which may, in turn, affect her election results in the future if no action is being done about this.

In 2007, the SGV, which was roughly equivalent to CA26 at that time, had a foreign-born population of 23.4%, with the racial demographic being the following: 58.2% White, 18.0% Asian, 4.5% Black or African American, and generally, 28.8% Latino or Hispanic. A decade later, the demographics have changed with the increase in immigration to that area; the immigrant population has increased by 15.2 percentage points, in which the Asian population has grown the most at 10.5 percentage points. The African American population has stayed stagnant, and both the white and Hispanic populations decreased (18.9 pp and 0.8 pp, respectively).

Indeed, more immigrants make up district CA27; however, isn’t strange how the Asian community blew up while the Hispanic and black immigrant populations barely changed? Now, more than ever, the Asian immigrants that reside in the district include Chinese entrepreneurs, already wealthy prior to immigrating. Thus, gentrification commences. In 2009, the Zillow Home Index in Arcadia, a city within the San Gabriel Valley, averaged to around $678,000, whereas in 2017, the average rose to $1.03 million. There is a starking $352,000 difference throughout the decade, which can be attributed to the increasing demand for both space and better living conditions in the city. Mansionization is a highly debated issue in Arcadia, where modest houses are being replaced by mansions at an alarming rate and to the point where there are mansions sandwiched by significantly smaller houses (and vice versa). What happens to those who can’t afford or keep up with the heavy increase in value of homes? Unsurprisingly, they are forced to move out.

Jackelyn Hwang and Robert J. Sampson, in “Divergent Pathways of Gentrifìcation: Racial Inequality and the Social Order of Renewal in Chicago Neighborhood”, find that the pace of gentrification in Chicago had a negative relationship with the concentration of blacks and Latinos (Hwang and Sampson 2014). Perhaps the reason why the numbers haven’t changed with respect to those populations is due to gentrification in the area. Looking at economic statuses in 2012, Asians made an average annual income of around $76,000, whereas blacks and Latinos both made roughly $45,000 annually in California. With this, immigrants of lower socioeconomic backgrounds struggle to support themselves and others in areas of rapidly increasing housing prices, and effectively, emigrate to other surrounding areas.

Indeed, the physical living conditions of wealthy immigrants improves while the lives of those who are less affluent begin to deteriorate. However, immigrant experiences as a whole, regardless of wealth begin to depreciate as more immigrants enter an area. According to Daniel Hopkins, in “Politicized Places: Explaining Where and When Immigrants Provoke Local Opposition”, as immigration increases in importance and relevance as an issue, there is a higher chance for immigrants in an area with changing demographics to be faced with hostility from natives (Hopkins 2010). If immigration in general triggers negative responses from the native population, isn’t it natural that gentrification will worsen this hostility? In Arcadia, the mansionization phenomenon has received major backlash from the natives; they argue that it disrupts the visuals and historical values in the city.

In a study done by Timothy Shortell, in his work The World in Brooklyn: Gentrification, Immigration, and Ethnic Politics in a Global City and reviewed by Nazgol Bagheri, uncovers that local politics and schools “favors gentrifiers’ interests over that of the original residents” (Bagheri 2013). With this, gentrification and immigration becomes a rather political issue, with the two opposing “parties” being the natives and the wealthy immigrants. As mentioned before, the average annual income for Asians was $76,000, which surpassed the average income for whites (approximately $69,000). With this, tensions arise between the two groups, as some policymakers may appeal to where the money is.

Representative Judy Chu, as an Asian-American woman, descriptively represents the Asian (immigrant) community better than the white native population. Although the majority of the population of the district is indeed Asian, there is still a considerable number of whites and most positions held in city councils within the district are still held by white Americans. Thus, Chu, although she has been winning safely in the recent elections, may face more and more backlash from the population affected by gentrification.

Ultimately, what this paper argues for is not that Chu should discourage wealthy Asians from immigrating to the San Gabriel Valley. Rather, there should be policy changes in the way wealth imbalances affect the community as a whole. Mansionization, for example, should be allowed only in specific areas of a city, and perhaps opening up programs to help support the less affluent immigrants would help increase diversity both ethnically and financially.

Summary: For this project, I decided to write on op-ed about TX-23’s representative Will Hurd’s attempt at taking a neutral stance on immigration and how he needs to take a more forward pro-immigration standpoint. To begin, I start by explaining that Hurd is a neutral representative in very divided times. He opposes Trump’s border wall, but supports border control reform, and does not mention much else on the issue of immigration. Though he has been in office since 2015, his elections have ended with extremely small marginal differences between himself and his Democratic opponents. I argue that taking a more direct stance on immigration would increase his chances of reelection in the future. This district has a very high population of Latino citizens. This is likely to increase overall pro-immigrant support. Being pro-immigrant would give Hurd a better chance at gaining support from his largest group of constituents. Additionally, a portion of the Latino community is foreign-born. The greater the foreign-born community, the more important immigration will be in a district. If Hurd openly supported immigration, he would show to the foreign-born community that he values what issues they think are important. Lastly, local media rarely discusses the issue of immigration. When it is discussed, it is not negative. Local news articles were very objective and neutral. The little salience of the topic decreases the chances of negative media which provides less biased news sources for the TX-23 population to absorb and base their opinions off of. If for nothing else, Hurd should vocalize a pro-immigration standpoint because it may help him secure the possibility of reelection.

Op-ed:

Take a Stance: Why Will Hurd (TX-23) Needs to Show Immigration Support  

The 2018 Congressional elections resulted in a shift in House power, but not all districts saw change. Will Hurd, the Republican representative of Texas’s twenty-third district has remained in office since 2015, even though each election has been incredibly close. Voters have been continuously divided, with support bouncing between Democrats and Republicans.

In today’s polarized society and divided Congress, many representatives’ platforms are based on their parties, and it is difficult to stay neutral. One of the most highly controversial, current issues is that of immigration. Many representatives have difficulty finding a balance between honoring immigrant rights, recognizing a need for border security reform, and retaining the support of their constituents in reelection.

Although moderate politicians are now scarce, TX-23’s Hurd seems to fit this profile. In regards to issues of immigration policy, Hurd has focused much of rhetoric and efforts on border security, with little actual mention of immigrants and immigration themselves. Hurd’s social media activity, website, and co-sponsored House bills show his concern for border control, bipartisan conversation, national security, and urban development within TX-23.

Hurd has also expressed his strong opposition towards President Trump’s proposed border wall. As Hurd stated in The New York Times, a technologically unprogressive wall would be “the most expensive and least effective way to do border security.” TX-23 contains a larger portion of the US-Mexico border than any other Congressional district. By recognizing a need for border security, but opposing an expensive wall, Hurd has been able to gain support from a wide range of Texan voters.       

With each election, however, Hurd’s marginal difference between his Democratic opponent has been shrinking. In the 2018 election, Hurd won with 49.2% of the votes while his opponent, Gina Ortiz Jones, gained 48.7% of the district’s votes. This small difference should concern Hurd. If this gap should decrease any more in the next election, he may lose his seat in office. He has already gained immense support from his resistance to President Trump during the government shutdown and his firm opposition to the border wall, but perhaps in a modern world with such strong opinions, this is not enough. Hurd may learn the hard way that it is difficult to remain both neutral and in office.

It seems as though Hurd has two options, both of which are backed by the same idea. He has to take a more well-defined stance on immigration. He can either present himself from an anti-immigrant standpoint to gain more Republican, working class support, or he can take a pro-immigrant attitude to secure Latino, foreign-born voter support. Based on the demographics and media perspectives in TX-23, it would be in Hurd’s best interest to take a pro-immigrant and pro-immigration stand.     

TX-23 if 70% Latino. Research has shown that as a whole, higher concentrations of Latino populations increase immigration support. In 2013, Jason P. Casellas and David L. Leal published the study “Partisanship or population? House and Senate immigration votes in the 109th and 110th Congresses” which described the relationships between immigration policy making and different demographic factors. They explain that higher Latino populations are more likely to favor liberal immigration policy because there is a greater cultural understanding and solidarity. The article also states that partisanship is the greatest influence in policy support. By this logic, Hurd could earn Latino backing from a pro-immigrant platform, and still gain support from party loyalty since 48% of the district consists of Republican voters.

Roughly 16% of this Latino population is foreign born. According to Carrie Skulley’s work “Majority rule vs. minority rights: immigrant representation despite public opposition on the 1986 immigration reform and control act,” higher levels of foreign-born populations are likely to increase the importance of immigration policies. Though 16% may not seem like a large proportion, this is a much higher number of immigrants than other districts. This would give Hurd more incentive to embrace pro-immigrant attitudes.

Furthermore, Representative Hurd should show pro-immigration attitudes because of the districts’ media patterns. Surprisingly, immigration is not a hot topic in local media. During the government shutdown from December 11, 2018 to January 31, 2019, the word “border” was only mentioned in four articles in The Alpine Avalanche, one of the larger local newspapers in TX-23, and the word “shutdown” was only used in one article. The articles which did mention immigration-related issues were not overwhelmingly negative. In fact, many of the articles were fairly objective and neutral. This corresponds with Daniel J. Hopkins’ article “Politicized Places: Explaining Where and When Immigrants Provoke Local Opposition” which explains a higher salience of immigration in the media usually leads to more negative coverage. TX-23 has a special opportunity in that immigration’s low salience in local news means that the district is not as affected by overly-biased, negative media.    

If Hurd was to assume a strong anti-immigrant standpoint, a lack of negative media would not back his position. Media has a strong influence on the public’s perceptions and political decision-making, as well as how a representative chooses to act on certain issues. Having a neutral local media, when a majority of national news is generally left-leaning, would not support an anti-immigrant policy agenda when many constituents are already in support of the issue.

Hurd is already known as one of the few Republicans who opposes President Trump and some of his more conservative ideas. In addition, Hurd is known for trying to make the TX-23 community and his services available and accessible to the Latino community, where much of his support stems from. His entire website is in both English and Spanish for his Spanish-speaking constituents. Voicing more direct support of immigration would not be a surprise, nor would be going against many of the policies and ideas that he already supports. Like any other congressional representative, Hurd is concerned with reelection. In order to secure more votes in 2020, he should take a stronger position on immigration. Based on the concerns, demographics, and local media of his district, Hurd should vocally support immigration.      

Summary: Yvette D. Clarke has historically been able to hold onto her position in New York’s 9th Congressional District easily. However, in recent years, the District has become increasingly gentrified, and the white voter base has become larger and more politically powerful. While they remain a minority, this voter base has threatened Clarke’s position in congress. If Clarke wants to continue holding onto her position and wants to remain a voice for the Caribbean-American immigrant community in coming years, she needs to do outreach to local immigrant advocacy groups.

—

In 2018, incumbent Yvette D. Clarke, Representative of New York’s 9^th Congressional District, barely eked out a win against Democratic contender Adem Bunkeddeko by a margin of 1,075 votes. While Bunkeddeko’s policy platform largely mirrored Clarke’s own, his voting base was completely different. His support came not from the previously dominant low-income African-American and Caribbean-American communities, but from the majority-white, newly gentrified areas of the 9^th Congressional District.

This near upset should be a warning for Clarke: she has relied too strongly on her former regional domination and has not paid enough attention to the demographic changes occurring to her district. To win in the future, Clarke must attempt greater voter outreach to the immigrant communities that support her; by doing so, she will increase her own chances of reelection while also ensuring greater integration and representation for Caribbean-American immigrants.

Elected to Congress in 2006, Clarke has since served for New York’s 11th Congressional District, and subsequently the 9^th Congressional District post-redistricting in 2011. Clarke historically won her seat with ease due to her largely Democratic, low-income, minority voting constituency. Indeed, before 2018, Clarke had defeated Democratic challengers by a margin of 50% and Republican challengers by at least 70%.

Clarke maintained her support by continuing to advocate for Caribbean-Americans and Caribbean-American immigrants. Brooklyn is home to over 300,000 Caribbean-Americans, the majority of whom live in the 9^th Congressional District, which has about 750,000 residents. Clarke, herself Caribbean-American, appealed to this constituency through her policymaking. Indeed, according to Clarke’s own website, some of her focuses include “Caribbean Issues” and “Immigration”: using these focuses, Clarke has been able to capture a majority of votes via the median voter strategy, by which, according to a study by Tom Wong of UCSD, politicians will place themselves along a partisan spectrum in order to capture the most votes possible. In other words, understanding that her base was mostly Caribbean-American, Clarke has made herself a proponent of immigrant and Caribbean-American issues in order to appeal to the most voters possible.

But Clarke has become complacent. She has not updated her “Caribbean Issues” page since 2017, and her “Immigration” page addresses Trump’s policies rather than focusing on members of her own constituency. Her “Immigration Services” page, additionally, is sparse, directing readers to her office number or to a general FAQ on the Department of Homeland Security’s website for help.

The lack of current immigration resources is especially a problem since the base Clarke appeals to contains a large number of undocumented immigrants, who cannot vote unless they have gone through the naturalization process. This diminished voter base is particularly worrisome considering the population changes that have happened in recent years. When Clarke first took office in 2007, her district was 58% black and 27% white. Today, with the gentrification of areas like Park Slope, Prospect Heights, and Crown Heights, and the subsequent influx of white voters, the population demographics have changed to 46.9% black and 37.2% white. This rising white, voting population, compounded with the lack of naturalized Caribbean-American voters, was bound to create a political storm for Clarke.

This is exactly what happened in 2018. Although Clarke’s voting base outnumbered Bunkeddeko’s, Bunkeddeko’s mobilization of white residents was much stronger.

Since white voters still remain a minority in the 9^th Congressional District, their political power is worrying. If the congressman elected is not representative of the African-American and Caribbean-American bloc, then this bloc’s interests won’t be fully represented. Policymaking depends on whether a politician actually wants to capture the votes of a particular group; thus, if Bunkeddeko had won the election by capturing the votes of wealthier, non-minority residents, he might continue to appeal to them and would not be cognizant of the needs of the remaining residents in his constituency.

New white residents are also expected to react negatively to their new demographics, at least at first. According to Marisa Abrajano and Zoltan Hajnal of UCSD, sudden changes in demographics will induce anti-minority and anti-immigrant sentiments within white residents. These attitudes cannot be tempered by a politician who relies completely on the white-resident vote.

To mediate this, Clarke should work to improve the political mobilization of the Caribbean-American community. She can no longer rely on easily winning the median voter. Demographics are changing, and without mobilization, Clarke could lose her seat, and Caribbean-Americans could lose a voice in congress.

But Clarke should be able to facilitate mobilization. As a Caribbean-American herself, Clarke already has intimate ties to her district, and reaching out to the Caribbean-American community should be effective. Clarke should therefore attempt to reach out to local immigrant advocacy groups, which, according to Els de Graauw of Baruch College, can connect with constituents successfully.

And, as Kristi Andersen of Syracuse University claims, local immigrant advocacy groups become stronger when linked together with other, specifically political, organizations. Thus, if Clarke can forge a relationship between her office and local immigrant advocacy groups, the strength of local immigrant advocacy groups will grow. Immigrants will also feel a closer tie to Clarke herself, ensuring that they are loyal to her in election seasons. This tactic will also help boost voter participation: nonprofits help mobilize people during campaign seasons, and can even help in the naturalization process, ensuring that Clarke’s base can grow even larger.

Of course, as a caveat, none of this will stop the continual gentrification of the district. Yet, this is exactly the reason why Clarke should focus her energy on improving local community organizations. These organizations will last, and when representatives inevitably change, these organizations will have the experience and knowledge necessary to campaign for immigrant rights.

So perhaps it’s good that Bunkeddeko ran against Clarke: if anything, it is a wake-up call for Clarke. But this depends on whether Clarke takes her lesson. If Clarke wants to be able to hold the district in coming years, she needs to be able to adapt. And if, down the line, Clarke wants Caribbean-Americans in Brooklyn to have a vote, she needs to mobilize them.

Below is my op-ed regarding how Susan Davis should adjust her strategy to focus on local, rather than national, issues in order to represent immigrants better in her district. See the Abstract below for a comprehensive summary of my approach.

Immigration in CA-53: Recommendations for Susan Davis

Abstract

Susan Davis, the congressional representative of CA-53, treats immigration as an important issue and is historically in favor of humanitarian and pro-immigration efforts. Much of the work mentioned under the “Immigration” tab on her website is in response to national immigration issues; however, there is room for improvement on support of local issues. Current scholarship indicates that districts like CA-53 — districts that are undergoing demographic changes, especially those observed in CA-53, and are close to the border geographically — are prone to intergroup tensions. I performed a media content analysis of the San Diego Union Tribune (SDUT) and concluded that San Diego, and subsequently CA-53, may be currently experiencing these tensions in line with current scholarships predictions. Davis’ support for immigration on a national level is excellent, but more emphasis on its local implications is prudent.

Existing Scholarship

Current scholarship, as well as common sense, primes immigration to be a highly salient topic in regions close to the international border (Branton et al. 2009). CA-53 has been experiencing some demographic shifts communicated to researchers in the differences between the demographics reported in 2007 and 2017 according to the US Census Bureau’s American Fact Finder. Specifically, CA-53 has experienced a large decrease in White, small increase in Hispanic or Latino, and small increase in immigrant populations. Pertinent to these changes in CA-53: scholarship indicates that changing demographics lead to intergroup tensions and increased Hispanic and immigrant populations both lead to increased hostility over immigration. (Enos 2014, Adida et al. 2018, Hopkins 2010).

Susan Davis’ Current Actions

An exploratory look into Davis’ website clearly indicates her strong support for immigration, with support for DREAMers and Middle Eastern refugees taking up the bulk of the page. On the Related News section beneath the page, only 1 out of 5 stories is decidedly local: “Congresswoman Susan Davis’ Statement on the Closing of the San Ysidro Point of Entry.” It would appear that Davis’ pro-immigration sentiments largely fall under the scope of national policy interests.

My Research

I performed a media content analysis, meaning that I took a form of media (SDUT) and wanted to compare saliency and tone of immigration in local and national scopes. Saliency here means I was interested in how often immigration was discussed in terms of local issues vs national issues. Tone here means I was looking at how negative the articles about immigration were on local vs national issues. My analysis, which can be seen in full here, indicates that immigration is an especially salient topic on a local level in CA-53, even greater than on a national level. A larger percentage of local articles on a specified topic included immigration than national articles on a comparable topic. Potentially even more impactive, sentiment of local immigration articles was significantly more negative than sentiment of national immigration articles. Understanding that media outlets pander to their viewers’ beliefs politically, these results indicate that CA-53 is in line with scholarship and is feeling intergroup tensions from the demographic change of the last ~12 years.

Results

The scholarship indicates that districts resembling CA-53 experience negative intergroup sentiments and attitudes towards immigration. My media content analysis indicates that CA-53 is more inclined to feel local tensions pertaining to immigration on a local scale than immigration on a national scale. Both the scholarship and my research are in agreement that CA-53 constituents observe local immigration issues as more important than national immigration issues and that there is some tension regarding local immigration issues.

Recommendation

Davis’ existing strategy — focus on immigration at the national level — is not a bad strategy in terms of working for change. She has experienced success in this arena by cosponsoring comprehensive legislation that have gained traction in both parties. Her behavior on a national scope is in line with her constituents’ beliefs: favoring national over local immigration.

However, if Davis is interested in serving the immigrants in her district better, she should address tensions within her home district and increase her involvement in local immigration issues. These shifts would need to be done with care considering it is an approach that may make some of her constituents uneasy, but her continued success in CA-53 elections indicates that she can afford to take this stance without worrying about reelection.

Erring on the side of caution: given that increasing Davis’ presence in the local immigration conversations may be politically risky in terms of constituents feeling tension: I have included two lists of recommendations. One, entitled “Shifts,” is moderate adjustments that require little change. The latter, entitled “Changes,” is less moderate and more intense in terms of change required.

Shifts

1. Continue to advocate for immigration reform at the national level
2. Continue to vote in favor of positive immigration reform
3. Occasionally attend events held by — and meet with coordinators of — local immigrant activist groups (Welcoming San Diego, Ready Now San Diego, Border Angels, etc)
4. Balance issues between local concerns/national concerns on the immigration tab of Davis’ website OR include discussion of local implications of national issues

Changes

All actions delineated above in addition to:

1. Recruit immigrant interns/staff
2. Regularly work to populate “Immigration Events” in the website calendar (currently none scheduled nor any past events listed)
3. Speak publicly on the importance of welcoming immigrants in our community
4. Standing in opposition to organizations that threaten immigrants regardless of legal status

I include eight recommendations here on two different levels of magnitude to increase the likelihood of one or two being enacted and to emphasize the importance of increasing support for local immigration efforts.

I pledge my honor this paper represents my own work in accordance with University regulations. – Tabitha Lynne Belshee

The representative I am studying, Congressman Dan Crenshaw, recently advocated for quicker denials of asylum seekers and an expansion of detention facilities to stop Central American migrants from coming. I use Professor Massey’s article “What were the paradoxical consequences of militarizing the border with Mexico?” to argue that pursuing these tough actions on asylum seekers will only incentivize them to use illegal methods to get into the country and to stay in the country once they do get across illegally. I then tie the growth of undocumented immigrants that Massey shows to Abrajano and Majnal’s argument that a growing Latino population causes more cultural anxiety and fears that Latinos are depleting social services, which has caused today’s hostile environment around immigration. I argue that the solution to this problem is to give temporary work visas to males from Central America, like what Massey notes was done pre-1960s, so they can easily come back and forth to Mexico, where I argue their families should stay as Mexico has been welcoming to migrants and shares the same language and similar culture to the Central Americans. This solution gives migrants economic opportunities while minimizing backlash towards changing demographics and potential social service competition. Finally, I use Professor Tom Wong’s theory of a large foreign-born population pressuring politicians to support less restrictive policies to argue that the large foreign-born population in Congressman Crenshaw’s district could organize and threaten Crenshaw’s seat if he continues supporting tough immigration measures.

“Congressman Crenshaw, “tough” asylum policies would fail and incentivize more illegal immigration

Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) took to the national airwaves this week advocating for larger detention facilities to house surging numbers of Central American migrants escaping violence and poverty and closing loopholes that give preferential treatment to migrants with children. The problem Crenshaw identifies is real: many migrants are turning up with their children at the southern border and voluntarily turning themselves in to authorities, knowing that bringing children increases their chances of being released into the country under American asylum laws. But his tough solutions ignore why people come to the United States, may cause the undocumented population to rise further, and hurt him politically with immigrant constituencies.

To understand why Crenshaw’s solutions will make the migrant problem worse, an outline must be given on the history of Latino migration in the United States. In a forthcoming article by Princeton sociologist Douglas Massey titled “What were the paradoxical consequences of militarizing the border with Mexico,” Massey notes that Latino migrant workers have come to the United States for jobs since the 1940s, with the trend always being that migrants would work temporarily in the US and make many trips back home (mainly to Mexico) to spend time with their families. This circular migration continued even after the Bracero program, which gave migrant farm workers temporary visas, ended in the 1960s. Even though the migrants were newly “illegal,” their stay in the United States remained temporary and their families remained abroad. This changed in the 1980s with expanded fencing and detention centers along the border, which made traditional circular migration more burdensome and costly. Therefore, migrants chose to settle in the United States, instead of returning home, and paid for their families to be smuggled into the United States. The undocumented population skyrocketed, putting Americans into more contact with people who did not speak their language and were relatively much poorer than themselves.

UCSD professors Marisa Abrajano and Zoltan Hajnal identify that this explosion of poor Latino migrants coming to the US illegally helped cause white working-class voters to believe they were in greater competition for social services with Latinos, as well as facing changing cultural norms like bilingual education. While these claims are often disputed (undocumented immigrants are ineligible for most welfare benefits), this group of voters has made their disdain clear in their support for restrictive immigration policies, like the wall and limiting the volume of immigration.

The failure of past “tough” immigration policies boosted the undocumented population to its current levels and created today’s hostile political climate around immigration. Therefore, if we were to implement Congressman Crenshaw’s ideas and prolong detentions of Central American families, we would incentivize them to pursue other (illegal) ways of getting into the country, which will be both more dangerous for the migrants and lead to more backlash from native-born Americans.

Pursuing tough immigration policies will never fully negate the enormous economic benefits migrants obtain from immigration. What we should instead aim to pursue is a plan like what we did in the past: give work visas to young men that allow them to easily move between the United States and Mexico. Their wives and children should stay in Mexico, a country that has been very welcoming to the migrants and shares the same language and similar culture to the migrants. Mexico has expanded the issuance of humanitarian visas to migrants over the past year and cut down on deportations, making it a safe place for women and children to stay. Moreover, the children staying in Mexico means they will not be eligible for American public education, an expensive program paid for by American taxpayers and the subject of past controversy, such as California’s Proposition 187 in 1994, which sought to ban undocumented children from attending public schools.

A last point involves electoral consequences for politicians, like Crenshaw, that continue to be tough on immigration. UCSD Professor and former advisor to the Obama administration Tom Wong notes that a large foreign-born population pressures elected officials of both parties to pursue less restrictive immigration policies. Immigrant voters sympathize with other immigrants and wish for their representatives to not treat immigrants harshly. United States Census data shows Congressman Crenshaw’s district is 21.4% foreign-born, above the national average of 13.7%. This demographic reality can be seen looking at the recent electoral history of Crenshaw’s 2nd Congressional District. In 2014, the first election after Texas adopted new congressional maps, former 2nd District Congressman Ted Poe, also a Republican, won by 38 percentage points. Four years later, after immigration came into the spotlight in both the 2016 and 2018 elections, Dan Crenshaw won the same district by only 7 percentage points. If politicians in diverse districts like Crenshaw’s continue to use tough rhetoric on immigration, they may soon be forced to give up their seats.

Critics will argue that the pre-1960s visa regime I advocate for ended due to declining wages of natives forced into competition with immigrants. A study from the National Academies of Sciences comprised of both immigration skeptics and supporters acknowledges that small numbers of low-skilled domestic workers will be displaced and see wages decline. But overall the country’s long-term GDP growth will be higher as a result of immigration due to immigrant consumption and augmenting the country’s aging workforce. Therefore, my plan will not adversely affect the nation’s economy.

From a political and policy standpoint, the temporary visa program I advocate for would be the best way for our country to fulfill our humanitarian obligations while minimizing the fears of our citizens. I recognize this solution will not satisfy everyone: immigrant rights groups will argue I am breaking up families and conservatives will say I am pushing for open borders that hurt American workers. What we need is a middle road that can solve the problem and not be broken down by “leaders” blindly spewing partisan banter.  Such thinking will not only solve this issue but reunite our divided country.”