« May 2008 | Main | July 2008 »

June 28, 2008

A great pro-immigrant blog

Go to Citizen Orange and subscribe today. I just heard about it. The several people involved in it come from diverse backgrounds and put together an inspiring and informative blog.

Here is how they describe themselves:

Citizen Orange is a U.S.-based, Guatemala inspired, weblog founded for the explicit purpose of organizing around global justice. It is the successor to Immigration Orange and operates on the principle that the pro-migrant movement in the United States has the greatest potential for eradicating a host of global injustices and generating respect for peoples born on a different piece of the earth.

In order to be successful the pro-migrant movement has to move the debate from questions of nationality to questions of global inequity. It has to move the debate from questions of legality to questions of justice. Migrants are first shackled to the arbitrary piece of land that they are born onto and then chained to the forces that compel them to leave. We need to remove those shackles and chains. Citizen Orange works for migrant emancipation.

Citizen Orange is an ally space. This means Citizen Orange does not seek to represent the migrant voice, but exists, instead, as a space to support migrants in their struggle for liberty. Humility compels us to make this extremely important distinction. Even though we are all migrants, the extremity of global migrant oppression forces us to recognize that even privileges we take for granted, like access to the internet, separate us from the vast majority of migrants.

This does not mean that we cannot relate to the migrant experience through our common humanity. We constantly strive towards understanding and empathy through Citizen Orange and our daily lives. It just means that we will not profess to speak on behalf of migrants. Citizen Orange is not the place to look for a space representative of the migrant voice. If you are searching, look through our blogroll for answers, or in a community near you. Citizen Orange is not the migrant voice, but we do seek to support it and amplify it through our efforts.

June 22, 2008

4 in 10 green card holders had a prior illegal period of stay

In an astonishing report by the Public Policy Institute of California, we learn that 20% of legal permanent residents (green card holders) crossed the border illegally and 22% overstayed their visa terms!

The PPIC says, “Fewer than four in 10 (38%) legal permanent residents were new to the United States when they got their green cards and many had lived here illegally for at least some time. In California, more than half (52%) had lived in the country illegally. They either crossed the border illegally (35%) or violated the terms of their visas by overstaying a tourist visa or by working when they were not authorized (18%). In the United States, about four in 10 (42%) first lived in the country illegally. This group was more evenly divided between those who crossed the border illegally (20%) or violated their visa terms (22%).”

The study also looked into what the effect would be if the U.S. began to use a merit point system for rationing green cards, much like Canada does. The authors prepared a model to estimate how people, from PhDs to manual laborers, would fare. “An engineer with a PhD and English proficiency would not necessarily have enough points to become a legal permanent resident without some prior work experience in the United States.”

The press release in full:


Many Legal Immigrants Spent Time In U.S. Illegally

Route to Getting a Green Card Often Includes Illegal Entry or Visa Violation

SAN FRANCISCO, California, June 4, 2008 -- Many immigrants who recently became legal permanent residents first lived in the United States illegally, according to a report released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). This is particularly true in California, where more than half lived in the state illegally before getting green cards.

The report analyzes the pathways immigrants take to become legal permanent residents and finds them far from straightforward. It sheds light on the poorly understood system that selects which immigrants can live here permanently. The findings can help guide lawmakers as they weigh policy changes, from sweeping reform bills like the one debated in 2007 to current efforts aimed at securing more green cards for foreign-born engineers.

The report finds that rather than being new arrivals, most immigrants have lived in the United States for some time when they get their green cards, the official identification of a legal permanent resident.

“The public debate about immigration can be so simplistic,” says Laura Hill, PPIC research fellow, who co-authored the report with PPIC research associate Joseph Hayes. “Immigrants are characterized as either legal or illegal. But it’s more complicated. It’s very common for immigrants to move from illegal to legal status. It’s also common for them to move from legal to illegal if they overstay a visa.”

The report is based on a representative survey of immigrants who became legal permanent residents in the United States in 2003. This information is more detailed and rich than typical federal data on the foreign-born. Among its findings:

* Fewer than four in 10 (38%) legal permanent residents were new to the United States when they got their green cards and many had lived here illegally for at least some time. In California, more than half (52%) had lived in the country illegally. They either crossed the border illegally (35%) or violated the terms of their visas by overstaying a tourist visa or by working when they were not authorized (18%). In the United States, about four in 10 (42%) first lived in the country illegally. This group was more evenly divided between those who crossed the border illegally (20%) or violated their visa terms (22%).

* In the nation as a whole, the pathways that immigrants – whether legal or illegal – took to legal residency differed significantly according to their home countries. Those who came from Asia and the Pacific were more likely to be new arrivals to the U.S. (53%). Those who came from Latin America and the Caribbean were more likely to have crossed the border illegally (41%) than immigrants from other regions. Those who violated their visa terms at some point before getting green cards were more likely to have come from the Mideast/North Africa (31%) or Europe/Central Asia (27%).

* In the U.S. overall, immigrants who crossed the border illegally before becoming legal permanent residents were likely to be less educated and less proficient in English than recent permanent residents overall, but they were much more likely to be currently employed (72% vs. 56%). Immigrants who had violated the terms of their visas before becoming legal permanent residents were more educated, more likely to speak English well or very well, and also more likely to be currently employed than recent legal permanent residents overall (66% vs. 56%).

Understanding how factors such as country of origin or education currently affect immigrants’ opportunities and choices about settling in the United States can help policymakers as they consider proposals for change. The current system, in effect since 1965, gives preference to immigrants who seek to reunite with family members already here or to those in certain occupational categories.

The PPIC report, Immigrant Pathways to Legal Permanent Residence: Now and Under a Merit-Based System, also analyzes the potential impact of the reform bill of 2007. Although the measure failed, key aspects are likely to resurface in the future.

The reform bill included a merit-based point system that placed greater weight on employment in the United States in specific fields, advanced education, and English proficiency in considering who should be allowed to immigrate. The study concludes that the many of the intended reforms of the bill may not have occurred in practice. For example, an engineer with a PhD and English proficiency would not necessarily have enough points to become a legal permanent resident without some prior work experience in the United States. This analysis can inform policy debate in the future by showing whether the goals of new reform proposals are likely to be met in practice.

ABOUT PPIC

The Public Policy Institute of California is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research on major economic, social, and political issues. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office.

June 20, 2008

EU toughens stance on illegal immigrants

The New York Times reported on 6/19/08 that “ European Union lawmakers voted Wednesday to allow undocumented migrants to be held in detention centers for up to 18 months and banned from European Union territory for five years.

Criticized by groups like Amnesty International as “severely flawed” and an erosion of human rights standards, the so-called return directive was passed in the European Parliament here by a 369-to-197 vote, with 106 legislators abstaining.

Amnesty International said it was “deeply disappointed” by the outcome of the vote, and appealed to member states currently applying higher standards not to use the directive as a pretext for lowering them.

The Europe Union has freedom of movement among 25 of its 27 member states but no overarching policy on immigration. Supporters see the new measure as a means to unify a patchwork of systems governing treatment of migrants who overstay their visas or who, in far lesser numbers, slip clandestinely across borders.”

Previously, the EU did not have a uniform set of laws to govern how illegal immigrants are to be treated.

The article in full:

The New York Times reported on 6/19/08 that “ European Union lawmakers voted Wednesday to allow undocumented migrants to be held in detention centers for up to 18 months and banned from European Union territory for five years.

Criticized by groups like Amnesty International as “severely flawed” and an erosion of human rights standards, the so-called return directive was passed in the European Parliament here by a 369-to-197 vote, with 106 legislators abstaining.

Manfred Weber, the German center-right legislator from Bavaria who shepherded the measure through Parliament, said that it provided minimum common standards for the treatment of migrants throughout the European Union while still showing citizens it was tough on illegality.

As for the migrants, he said: “The member states must decide whether they need them; if so, then please legalize them. If you don’t need them for your labor markets, then send them home.”

Ten amendments to the measure, proposed by Socialists and intended to offer migrants some protections and legal recourse, were rejected. They included a requirement that a judge approve detention within 72 hours of an arrest, the obligation to provide detainees with free legal counsel and the possibility of making the five-year ban on re-entry optional. Other amendments would have reduced the maximum detention period to six months rather than 18 and insisted on greater assurances for the protection of unaccompanied children.

One opponent of the measure, Cimade — the only French nongovernmental organization authorized to work in France’s 23 detention centers — released a statement saying that it deplored the passage of what civil liberties groups have called “the directive of shame,” and said it was weighing contesting it before the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights.

Amnesty International said it was “deeply disappointed” by the outcome of the vote, and appealed to member states currently applying higher standards not to use the directive as a pretext for lowering them.

The Europe Union has freedom of movement among 25 of its 27 member states but no overarching policy on immigration. Supporters see the new measure as a means to unify a patchwork of systems governing treatment of migrants who overstay their visas or who, in far lesser numbers, slip clandestinely across borders.

The European Union has 224 detention centers for migrants, with capacity for 30,871 people. National regulations on how long migrants can be confined vary; in France, it is 32 days; in Germany, 18 months. Eight European Union countries have no time limit. European legislators visiting Denmark in April said they were concerned about some detainees who had been held for eight years.

Mr. Weber said the measure passed Wednesday provided a limit on detention in those eight countries — though two, Denmark and Britain, can opt out of the restriction. Opponents fear the directive will encourage countries with shorter detention limits to extend them.

Dragutin Mate, Slovenia’s interior minister, had warned lawmakers that failure to approve the directive would mean no agreement on immigration in the European Union for at least three years, which would jeopardize pending legislation on workers’ rights.

The vote came a day after António Guterres, the United Nations high commissioner for refugees, said that the world was dealing with “a complex mix of global challenges that could threaten even more forced displacement” in the future than the 37.4 million people displaced last year.

The refugee agency is concerned about those fleeing conflicts or persecution who have the right under international law to seek asylum but opt for illegal entry to Europe because of a lack of legal channels.

It says that many people will be subject to the directive’s five-year re-entry ban, which does not take account of changes in their home countries that could force them to leave again.

June 12, 2008

Two cases of immigrant labor abuses

The Washington Post has been reporting on the plight of 200 Indian workers who paid recruiters a load of money to be sent to the United States to work – and, per what they were told, be in line for green cards. That proved not to be the case: they were given H-2B 10- month visas to rebuild oil rigs for Signal International. The second case involves a building collapse in New York City causing the death of a worker, Lauro Ortega – who happened to be an illegal immigrant. Workers Comp Insider, one of the best sources of information about work injury issues, has been reporting on the Ortega case, which involves negligence and a heinous attitude by the contractor.

June 10, 2008

Postville, IA: nogoodnik employer

On May 12 ICE raided the Agriproccessors plant in Postville, IA, said to be with its 1,000 odd employees the largest kosher meat processing facility in the world. ICE arrested 389 workers for illegal status. This was heralded as the largest ICE raid ever. As it happened, The state of Iowa Workforce Development’s labor division had fined Agriprocessors $182,000 in October, 2007, for safety violations. In May of this year it reduced the fines to $42,750 as part of a negotiated settlement under which the company promises to remedy its practices. One of the key safety problems was mishandling of chemicals.

According to the Des Moines Register, the owner, New York City based Aaron Rubashkin, is a prime example of an employer who resists any form of accountability. It reported (quote follows):

Aaron Rubashkin blamed his troubles partly on the media, which he compared to the state-run news outlets he saw before he emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1953. He referred to American reporters as 'the lynching press,' and he dismissed their stories. 'Everything is a lie,' he said.

Rubashkin's statements were criticized Wednesday by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, which has tried to organize the Postville plant.

'We hope that authorities in Iowa, at the federal level and at the kosher certifying agencies, take notice of this company's total unwillingness to accept responsibility for its actions,' union spokesman Scott Frotman said in a prepared statement.

'There is not a slaughterhouse in the country with a more reprehensible record of health and safety violations,' Frotman said. 'The fact that the Rubashkins are now on record accusing state and federal investigators of lying, and the fact that they would say the same thing about their own workers, shows just how morally bankrupt the management of this company is, and how important it is for Agriprocessors to be thoroughly investigated.’


June 6, 2008

Burmese workers replace illegal meat processing workers

When the Swift beef processing plant in tiny Cactus, TX, was raided in late 2006 (I have posted on this) hundreds of illegal Hispanic workers were carted off. For months the plant was barely operational. No workers in its rural surroundings. Then it started to bus workers in from Amarillo, 60 miles away. It recruited two Burmese workers from Amarillo. Then Swift tapped into the Burmese community in Houston, relocating them to Cactus. State officials leaned on Swift to provide adequate housing. 100 Burmese kids started school.

This story occurred because Swift like other meat processors located large plants in rural towns to lower wage scales – and to draw in immigrant labor, legal or illegal.

The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reported today on how the Burmese got to Cactus.

The article in full:

Factories Turn to Refugee Workers After Government Crackdown,
A Texas Town Taps Burmese
By MIRIAM JORDAN
June 6, 2008;

CACTUS, Texas -- Eighteen months ago, a federal roundup of hundreds of undocumented Latino workers nearly crippled a giant JBS Swift & Co. meatpacking plant here. Today, the slaughterhouse is on the rebound, thanks to an unexpected influx of refugees from Myanmar.

Since January, the Swift plant has hired more than 200 workers from the Southeast Asian country, also known as Burma. Most of the new legal hands came from a large refugee population that had been resettled in Houston, 12 hours away by car. The typical pay: $12.15 an hour, or more than double the state's minimum wage.
[Go to chart.]1 MORE

Chart: Where recent refugees settled2

A growing crackdown on illegal immigration has put some labor-intensive sectors of the U.S. economy in a bind. Throughout the 1990s, companies tapped workers by the hundreds of thousands from Mexico, Guatemala and other points south of the border. But lately, illegal crews have been the target of federal immigration authorities.

In fiscal 2007, arrests at factories and plants jumped to more than 4,000 people, a 10-fold increase over 2002. Last month, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency mounted its biggest raid of the year when it arrested nearly 400 Hispanic workers at Agriprocessors Inc., a large kosher meat plant in Postville, Iowa. No company officials have been charged.

At least eight million illegal workers participate in the U.S. economy. A year ago, an immigration bill championed by President Bush and bipartisan leaders in Congress collapsed in the Senate. Business interests had lobbied fiercely for the legislation, which would have coupled tighter border security with a path to legalization for many illegal immigrants working in the U.S. Opponents charged that its amnesty provisions would have rewarded lawbreakers.

With no quick fix in sight, "there are millions more jobs in the U.S. economy than there are legal workers to fill them," says Craig Regelbrugge, co-chairman of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, which represents hundreds of farmers and ranchers.

Irvine, Calif.-based Western Growers, an association of farmers and their suppliers, reports that some companies have recently downsized production by 25% because of labor shortages. Increasingly, farmers are moving to Mexico to fill the gap. The group estimates that California could lose more than $667 million in agricultural economic activity to Mexico this year.
[Chart]

Other industries, from apparel to meatpacking and hospitality, are also scrambling.

For most meatpackers, relocating south of the border isn't an option. "Our jobs can't be exported. The animals are here so the jobs are here," says Dan McCausland, a director at the American Meat Institute.

So to replenish its workers, the meat industry here has tapped into a new source of foreign, legal workers: refugees.

It's hardly a panacea. Thousands of illegal workers have lost their jobs as a result of the increased federal scrutiny. But it's something. The U.S. absorbs more refugees than any other nation -- 41,279 in 2006 and 48,281 in 2007. They hail from the former Soviet Union and the Baltic states as well as from Iran and Somalia. In the past two years alone, some 20,000 refugees have arrived from Myanmar, which is ruled by a military junta. Most entered the U.S. after years of political strife and weren't victims of the country's recent deadly cyclone.

Resettlement Efforts

The State Department strives to assign these people to cities where they have relatives or job opportunities. To help give them a start, the U.S. government works with various nonprofit resettlement agencies. In Texas, they were settled mostly in big cities such as Houston and Fort Worth, far from this isolated Texas panhandle town of 2,538 -- so small that it doesn't even register on some U.S. maps, and certainly not in the minds of the Burmese refugees.

That would soon change. On Dec. 12, 2006, ICE descended on six Swift plants across the country in the largest work-site raid ever. In Cactus, federal agents arrested 297 undocumented workers during the morning shift and prompted hundreds more, who worked a later shift, to flee in fear.

"The raid almost brought this corporation to its knees," says Jack Shandley, head of human resources at Greeley, Colo.-based Swift. No charges were brought against the company, which Mr. Shandley says followed the necessary legal checks in its hiring practices.
[Chart]

Recruiting was especially tough at the Cactus beef plant, a sprawling complex adjacent to a run-down town in the middle of the High Plains.

The odor of cow dung hangs in the air. Cattle outnumber human residents. Housing is in short supply. Summers are sweltering, winters are frigid, tornadoes wreak havoc. The closest major city, Amarillo, is 60 miles away.

Initially, Swift tried to attract American workers who lived within a 60-mile radius of the plant. In a "war room," company officials posted maps on the walls and circled a target recruitment area that stretched from Amarillo to Liberal, Kan. It advertised on billboards, on the radio and in newspapers. It worked local job fairs and set up a recruiting station at Amarillo's unemployment office.

Despite pay that exceeds other low-skill jobs in retail and construction -- and even some teaching posts -- takers were few. American workers came and went or didn't come at all and the circle on the map ballooned. "We had to keep reaching out further and further," recalls Doug Schult, Swift's head of employee and labor relations. "Our survival was at stake."

In early 2007, the company began free bus service from Amarillo to Cactus. Somali refugees, who were already living in the area, started signing on in greater numbers. Productivity improved -- but not by enough. The plant, still operating at about half capacity, sorely missed its deported Latino hands.

Buses and Bonuses

Then last fall, Swift poached two veteran Burmese workers from competitor Tyson Foods in Amarillo. Motivated by the company's referral bonuses ranging from $650 to $1,500 per hire, the pair phoned their Burmese contacts in Houston and other cities.
[James Hlwanceu]

"Swift asked me, 'How many people can you bring?' " recalls worker James Hlwanceu. "I told them I have more than 60 people."

On Dec. 17, Swift flew Mr. Hlwanceu and a company recruiter to Houston to gauge community interest. There, in a Burmese family's apartment, several dozen people gathered to hear about the company's pay and benefits. No English was required -- just a desire to learn by watching others. There were no long bus commutes. Workers at the Cactus plant could walk or bike to their jobs.

Three days later, a white bus emblazoned with the Swift logo pulled up to the Stone Forest Apartment complex that was home to many Burmese families. About 45 adults and children piled in, bringing few personal belongings and hundreds of sacks of rice -- the Burmese staple.

Swift had lined up dormitory-style apartments. Company staff helped the newcomers fill out paperwork at the plant, enrolled their children in schools and drove families to an Asian-owned grocery store in Dumas, about 12 miles down Interstate 287.

Some of the rookie workers had spent two decades living in bamboo huts in refugee camps in Thailand. In a weeklong training program, the Burmese learned about plant safety and company policies, with the aid of an interpreter. Then, working next to experienced Latino and African workers, they began adroitly splicing spine, bone and fat from slabs of meat.
[Joseph Hau]

Por Maung, a new Burmese hire, recently separated bellies from carcasses on the skinning line. Another Burmese, Joseph Hau, carved out muscle, in a different line. Mr. Hau says the work is a step up from his job in Houston. He says he used to get up before dawn and take two buses to reach a medical center where he washed dishes for $7 an hour.

Encouraged, Swift on Jan. 28 sent two more buses and three U-Hauls to Houston apartment complexes. More than twice as many people showed up as there were seats. That's when alarm bells rang in the Burmese community. "Some people had given up their apartments and didn't have a place to stay anymore," says Maung Maung Than, a leader of the Burmese Family Association in Texas.

There were other issues. Some Burmese immigrants had begun charging a fee to shuttle their countrymen from Houston, Austin and other cities to Cactus -- sometimes as high as $200 a person, according to community leaders and refugees. Swift says it was unaware of any fee scheme.

'Suddenly Uprooted'

When word first reached refugee-relief agencies that 400 Burmese had surfaced in Cactus and nearby Dumas, it didn't strike them as a good thing.

"It was somewhat alarming," says Caitriona Lyons, refugee-program coordinator for Texas. The agencies offer services such as English classes and job placement to the newcomers. In cities like Houston, the Burmese "had been getting medical screening; children were being vaccinated; they were receiving public benefits...and they were suddenly uprooted," says Ms. Lyons.

Some people in the Cactus area voiced concern about the new stress on area schools, local hospital and other services. "We haven't had to deal with different languages other than Spanish," says Mark Strobal, assistant superintendent of the school district, which enrolled more than 110 Burmese children in the first two months of the year. (The district has since hired two interpreters.)

Eventually, state resettlement officials decided to approach Swift to begin a dialogue. During a tense meeting with company executives in March, they laid out various concerns, including the refugees' living conditions.

In some of the temporary housing, "there was no heat, no bedding and no groceries for them," says Betty O'Neill, an official from Catholic Family Service Inc., a resettlement agency in Amarillo.

Rumors also spread that the refugees might carry tuberculosis. Some locals feared that Burmese children, who often coughed during winter months, might contaminate other students.

To alleviate concerns, Swift had some 180 Burmese adults screened for tuberculosis. None carried the active disease. The company also helped transport 100 children to a clinic to receive inoculations.

In a late-March meeting attended by town officials, refugee administrators and senior Swift executives, the parties outlined a plan. To help ease the refugees' transition, Swift agreed to pay the salaries of two full-time Burmese-speaking case workers, trained by resettlement agencies. It has also worked to address any lingering housing concerns: Swift's Brazilian parent, which bought the company in July 2007, approved the purchase of 50 acres of land in Dumas for affordable housing. A nonprofit builder is expected to break ground on the tract later this summer.

Inside the beef plant, production levels are approaching preraid levels. "The refugees have been a huge part of that success," says Scot Brinkley, general manager. Still, the company has halted the referral bonus program to allow time for the housing stock, schools and other services to adjust to the growing population.

Ter Htoo, his wife and five children are glad they made the journey from Fort Worth to Cactus along with 10 other families. Mr. Htoo, whose hands are calloused from trimming fat off chunks of meat, cracks a wide smile and says, through an interpreter, "It's good here. I like it."

Write to Miriam Jordan at miriam.jordan@wsj.com3

June 5, 2008

14% of Mexicans work in the U.S.

Mexican workers who work in the U.S.

I was asked the other day about the source of the estimate that a large share of Mexico’s labor force works in the U.S. The source in the Migration Policy Institute, in a publication dated November 2006. “MPI estimates that 9.4 percent of all persons born in Mexico lived in the United States in 2005. In the same year, 14 percent of Mexican workers were engaged in the US labor force compared to 2.5 percent of Canadian workers.”

The report goes on: “According to Inter-American Development Bank estimates, remittances sent in 2001 by Mexicans working abroad totaled $8.9 billion. By 2005, this amount more than doubled and reached more than $20 billion, a lion’s share of which came from the United States. Mexico remains the largest recipient of remittances among all Latin American countries, accounting for nearly 40 percent of the total $53.6 billion sent to Latin America. In 2005, remittances equaled to 2.8 percent of Mexico’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).”

Also go to my post, “Why poorer educated Mexican men come work in the United States.”

Immigrant Hispanic unemployment rate: 7.5%

The Pew Hispanic Center reports that in the first quarter of this year, the unemployment rate for immigrant Hispanics was 7.5%, compared to all Hispanics at 6.5% and 4.7% for all non-Hispanics. About half – 52.5% -- of all working age Latinos (ages 16 and older) are immigrants.

In recent years the immigrant Hispanic unemployment rate was law compared to all non-immigrant rates, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for 2006 - 2007. And, not reported in these figures, the labor force participation rate of illegal Hispanic immigrant males was extremely high. (This Pew report does not break out illegal immigrants.)

Much of the unemployment rate increased is attributed to the housing slump. “Mexican immigrants have suffered the effects of the construction downturn most keenly. Latino workers who exited construction in 2007 included about 221,000 immigrants. Some 152,000 of those workers had migrated from Mexico.”

“Labor market outcomes for Hispanic women appear to be worse than for men during 2007. They left the labor force in greater proportion and experienced greater increases in unemployment than did Hispanic men. Some 130,000 more Latino women became unemployed in 2007, and their unemployment rate increased from 5.6% to 7.0%.

“Weekly earnings for most groups of Hispanic workers also slipped backward in the past year. Again, Latino construction workers suffered most from the decline in wages. Their earnings tumbled in 2007 and they now earn less than they did two years ago in the first quarter of 2006.”

The report in full:

Latino Labor Report, 2008: Construction Reverses Job Growth for Latinos

Rakesh Kochhar, Associate Director for Research, Pew Hispanic Center
Report Materials


Due mainly to a slump in the construction industry, the unemployment rate for Hispanics in the U.S. rose to 6.5% in the first quarter of 2008, well above the 4.7% rate for all non-Hispanics. As recently as the end of 2006, the gap between those two rates had shrunk to an historic low of 0.5 percentage points--4.9% for Latinos compared with 4.4% for non-Latinos, on a seasonally adjusted basis.1

The spike in Hispanic unemployment has hit immigrants especially hard. Their unemployment rate was 7.5% in the first quarter of this year,2 marking the first time since 2003 that a higher percentage of foreign-born Latinos was unemployed than native-born Latinos. Some 52.5% of working age Latinos (ages 16 and older) are immigrants. Latinos make up 14.2% of the U.S. labor force.

Despite the disproportionate impact that the economic slowdown has had on immigrant Latino workers, there are no signs that they are leaving the U.S. labor market. Their labor force participation rate--that is, the percentage of the immigrant working-age Latino population either employed or actively seeking employment--has remained steady. However, they now play a smaller role in the growth of the Hispanic workforce than in recent years.

The latest trends in the labor market represent a dramatic reversal for Latino workers. Hispanics lost nearly 250,000 jobs over the past year because of the recent slump in the construction sector. For several years, construction was the mainstay of job growth for Hispanic workers, especially those who are immigrants. Even as home building stumbled in 2006, Hispanics found nearly 300,000 new jobs in the construction industry from the first quarter of 2006 to the first quarter of 2007. The ongoing slump in construction over the past year has wiped out those gains, virtually in their entirety.

Mexican immigrants have suffered the effects of the construction downturn most keenly. Latino workers who exited construction in 2007 included about 221,000 immigrants. Some 152,000 of those workers had migrated from Mexico. Latino immigrants who entered the U.S. in 2000 or later (from any country) lost 69,000 jobs in construction. For each of these groups of immigrants the jobs lost in construction accounted for the majority of losses from the first quarters of 2007 to the first quarter of 2008.

Labor market outcomes for Hispanic women appear to be worse than for men during 2007. They left the labor force in greater proportion and experienced greater increases in unemployment than did Hispanic men. Some 130,000 more Latino women became unemployed in 2007, and their unemployment rate increased from 5.6% to 7.0%.

Weekly earnings for most groups of Hispanic workers also slipped backward in the past year. Again, Latino construction workers suffered most from the decline in wages. Their earnings tumbled in 2007 and they now earn less than they did two years ago in the first quarter of 2006.

These findings emerge from the Pew Hispanic Center's analysis of the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau. Most of the data are from the Current Population Survey, a monthly Census Bureau survey of approximately 60,000 households. Data from three monthly surveys were combined to create larger sample sizes and to conduct the analysis on a quarterly basis.

________________________
1The estimates for Hispanics in this paragraph are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Estimates for non-Hispanics are derived by the Pew Hispanic Center from BLS data for all workers and Hispanic workers. Both are seasonally-adjusted.
2This estimate, from the Pew Hispanic Center, is not seasonally adjusted.