« April 2008 | Main | June 2008 »

May 30, 2008

One of out six workers is an immigrant

Recently I posted about the Migration Policy Institute's large database on immigration in the U.S. On the right column you can find this posting listed as "a mass of...". I am excerpting here the MPI's summary for the country as a whole. At the website, you can drill down to find data for each state.

* Immigrants were one in six US workers employed in the civilian labor force (age 16 and older) in 2006, one in eight in 2000, and less than one in 10 in 1990. In California, immigrants comprised more than a third of the state's employed workforce in 2006 compared to less than 2 percent in Montana.

* More than one-fifth of the 22 million immigrant workers in the United States are recent arrivals (i.e., those who arrived between 2000 and 2006);

* More than half of all immigrant workers in the US civilian labor force in 2006 were born in Latin America and slightly more than a quarter were from Asia. The rest originated in Europe (11.8 percent), Africa (3.8 percent), Northern America (2.0 percent), and Oceania/other (0.4 percent).

* In 2006, 45.7 percent of US total civilian employed workers (native and immigrant) were limited English proficient (LEP). The share of the labor force that was LEP was higher in Nebraska (56.7 percent) and Arkansas (54.7 percent) and much lower in Maine (19.9 percent) and Montana (17.6 percent).


A conservative's endorsement of liberal immigration policy


Jason Riley, a member of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, has written a book supporting liberal immigration policy. The WSJ’s editorials on immigration reform have been favorable towards reforms envisioned by the defunct McCain/Kennedy initiative. Riley criticizes Republican conservatives who have wrapped themselves in the anti- illegal immigrant flag, calling this cause a non-starter at the polls.

Some excerpts from this review which appeared in the May 16 issue of the WSJ (subscription required):

“Immigrant workers tend to act as complements to the native U.S. workforce rather than substitutes. There is some overlap, of course, but this skill distribution is the reason immigrants and natives for the most part aren't competing for the same positions.”

“Americans may rail against illegal aliens in telephone surveys, but election results have shown time and time again that it's seldom the issue that decides someone's vote. The lesson for the GOP is that hostility to immigrants is not a political winner.”

“Reasonable people agree that illegal immigration should be reduced. The question isn't whether it's a problem but how to solve it. Historically, the best results have come from providing more legal ways for immigrants to enter the country.”

The review in full:

On Monday, federal agents entered the Agriprocessors kosher-meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa, and arrested nearly 400 workers in what immigration officials called the largest single-site roundup ever. The detainees – most of them from Guatemala and Mexico – are suspected, among other things, of being in the country illegally. If nothing else, the mass arrest – and the effect it had on the meatpacking plant, which had to shut down for lack of workers – was a reminder that even though the immigration debate has subsided recently, the matter is no more closed than are the nation's borders. In "Let Them In," Jason L. Riley, a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, argues the case for open borders, reminding us of the immigrant contribution to America's economy and culture, correcting various myths about legal and illegal immigration, and chiding Republicans for their restrictionist tendencies. Some excerpts:

The work-force effect: "The reason that immigrant workers tend not to elbow aside natives for jobs and depress wages has to do with the education and skills that foreigners typically bring to the U.S. labor market. Most immigrants fall into one of two categories: low-skilled laborers or high-skilled professionals. One-third of all immigrants have less than a high school education, and one-quarter hold a bachelor's or advanced degree. Most native workers, by contrast, are concentrated betwixt those two extremes. Hence, immigrant workers tend to act as complements to the native U.S. workforce rather than substitutes. There is some overlap, of course, but this skill distribution is the reason immigrants and natives for the most part aren't competing for the same positions."

The talent imperative: "It's a tragedy that America's public school system is geared more toward appeasing teachers' unions than educating kids. And until that changes, the trends will be difficult to reverse. The upshot of the status quo is that Mumbai and Beijing – often by way of MIT and Stanford – are currently producing a good amount of the talent that Bill Gates needs to keep Microsoft competitive. Immigration policies that limit industry's access to that talent become ever more risky as the marketplace becomes ever more global. If we want American innovators and entrepreneurs to continue enhancing America's wealth and productivity – and if we want the United States to continue as the world's science and technology leader – better to let Apple and Google and eBay make their own personnel decisions without interference from Tom Tancredo and Lou Dobbs."

The true costs: "Illegal aliens, who are one-third of all immigrants, do not have access to federal welfare benefits. And many illegals are reluctant to take advantage of the emergency health care available to them out of fear of apprehension by the authorities. Immigrant bashers who like to drag the undocumented population into the cost debate often leave out these inconvenient facts, either out of ignorance or an acute sense that it undermines their argument. The truth is this: Because the illegals who collect a paycheck also pay payroll and Social Security taxes but are denied the attendant benefits, Uncle Sam tends to come out ahead."

The political danger: "As a voting issue, immigration restrictionism is political pyrite. It's often likened to economic protectionism because both tend to poll better than they perform on Election Day. Americans may rail against illegal aliens in telephone surveys, but election results have shown time and time again that it's seldom the issue that decides someone's vote. The lesson for the GOP is that hostility to immigrants is not a political winner. That's been the lesson in the past, and given demographic trends, as well as a voting public that is more racially and ethnically tolerant than at any time in U.S. history, it's likely to be the lesson in the future. Unfortunately, it's not a lesson that some conservatives are in danger of learning anytime soon."

The populist push: "Mexican immigration was such a nonissue in American politics that it never even came up in the 2004 presidential debates. But by November 2006, Republicans and their conservative allies in talk radio and cable news would turn it into a raucous national theme. The GOP spent tens of millions of dollars on television ads that portrayed Latino immigrants as dangerous criminals and in some cases even compared them to Islamic terrorists. The spots didn't only run in border states, either. They could be seen in places like Pennsylvania, where the Latino population is relatively small and consists mainly of Puerto Ricans, who are U.S. citizens. One Republican ad, which suggested that supporters of the president's approach to immigration reform were soft on terrorism, ran in southwestern Ohio, where the only people crossing the border are from . . . Kentucky."

The policy challenge: "Reasonable people agree that illegal immigration should be reduced. The question isn't whether it's a problem but how to solve it. Historically, the best results have come from providing more legal ways for immigrants to enter the country. Most of these people are not predisposed to crime or terrorists in waiting. They are economic migrants who would gladly use the front door if it were open to them. Post 9/11, knowing who's in the country has rightly taken on an urgency. But painting Latino immigrants as violent criminals or Islamofascists won't make us any safer. Nor will enforcing bad laws and policies, as opposed to reforming them. On the whole, immigrants are an asset to America, not a liability. We benefit from the labor, they benefit from the jobs. Our laws should acknowledge and reflect this reality, not deny it."

Incremental immigration reforms held up by Hispanic caucus

Recent Congressional attempts to increase the number of temporary workers allowed under the H-1B program (i.e. Bill Gates' programmers) and to pass an AgJobs program (aimed primarily to benefit California farmers) have been stalled by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. the caucus is holding out for comprehensive reform. Both House and Senate members of the Caucus are using procedural rules to keep proposals from coming to a vote. The Caucus is holding out for comprehensive reform.

May 25, 2008

Grey market employer crackdowns and illegal workers

Massachusetts, California and Connecticut to taking more pains to find employers who are not paying workers compensation and unemployment insurance – and quite often hiring illegal workers in an exploitative manner.

Massachusetts has launched a Joint Task Force on the Underground Economy and Employee Misclassification. One of the task force’s main targets are employers to don’t buy workers compensation insurance. Under Governor Duvall Patrick, the state administration is not trying to root out illegal workers, but rather to protect workers regardless of legal status. The Pew Hispanic Center estimated in 2005 that MA had about 165,000 illegal workers (see “popular posts” for illegal workers by state).

Google for the task force’s website for more information. I can't seem to load the URL.

The California’s Workers’ Compensation Enforcement Collaborative is partly a brain child of Bill Zachry, risk manager of Safeway, the state’s largest for profit employer. Zachry is also not trying to root out illegal workers, but rather to crack down on abusive employers. To contact the collaborative, which does not have a website, contact Krystal Tena, Watsonville Law Center, Watsonville, CA 831-722-2845
KrystalT@watsonvillelawcenter.org. The Watsonville Law Center is a rural legal aid organization with a special commitment to protect low income workers. CA was estimated in 2005 yo have 1,800,000 illegal workers.

Connecticut, in contrast, is after illegal workers. It figured out that many of them work for employer who cheat on workers compensation insurance, and the state is going after these employers with the intent on finding illegal workers. CT was estimated in 2005 to have about 50,000 illegal workers.


May 20, 2008

Second generation immigrants doing well – study in New York City


This is the message from a study about New York City chidren of immigrants, as reported in the NY Times. The study shows how assimilation into the education system and labor market varies by country of origin. “A decade-long study of adult children of immigrants to the New York region has concluded that they are rapidly entering the mainstream and doing better than their parents in terms of education and earnings — even outperforming native-born Americans in many cases.”

The study was published as “Inheriting the City: The Children of Immigrants Come of Age,” by Harvard University Press.

The data are old – based on survey work done and followed up on between 1999 and 2003. The following groups were studied: Dominicans, Chinese, Russian Jews, South Americans (consisting of Colombians, Ecuadoreans and Peruvians) and West Indians. The Chinese children are doing best and the Dominican children from the West Indies are doing worse.

The article in full:

Immigrants’ Children Find Better Lives, Study Shows
By SEWELL CHAN

A decade-long study of adult children of immigrants to the New York region has concluded that they are rapidly entering the mainstream and doing better than their parents in terms of education and earnings — even outperforming native-born Americans in many cases.

But the study also warned of problems that could block upward mobility for members of the “second generation,” including persistent poverty and poor school performance among Dominicans and racial discrimination against black immigrants from the Caribbean.

The results of the $2 million study are detailed in “Inheriting the City: The Children of Immigrants Come of Age,” published this month by Harvard University Press and the Russell Sage Foundation, which finances social science research.

It focused on five groups: Dominicans, Chinese, Russian Jews, South Americans (consisting of Colombians, Ecuadoreans and Peruvians) and West Indians, defined as immigrants from the English-speaking Caribbean, including Belize and Guyana. The researchers also interviewed native-born whites, blacks and Puerto Ricans (those born on the mainland) in the New York area for comparison purposes.

The study identified broad similarities among adult children of immigrants. They were overwhelmingly fluent in English; were less occupationally segregated than their parents; lived longer with their parents than native-born Americans; and were firmly rooted in the United States, with fewer personal and financial ties to their ancestral homeland than their parents.

The Russian and Chinese second-generation adults had higher high school and college graduation rates than, and earned as much as, native-born whites their age. The other groups reported higher educational attainment and earnings than native-born blacks and Puerto Ricans their age. In almost all of the immigrant groups, women outperformed men in school, though men continued to earn more.

Family life varied considerably among the groups. Dominicans and South Americans tended to marry young, while the Chinese postponed marriage and children the longest. Caribbean immigrants had a high rate of single-parent households, but the disadvantages of being raised by a single parent were offset, in part, by close extended families and the heavy involvement of grandparents in child-rearing.

The study was based on 3,415 telephone interviews conducted between 1998 and 2000; 333 face-to-face follow-up interviews in 2000 and 2001; and a final round of 172 follow-up interviews in 2002 and 2003. The subjects of the study were 18 to 32 at the time of the initial interviews and were either born in the United States to at least one immigrant parent, or arrived in the United States by age 12. The study covered 10 counties: the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, Westchester and Nassau in New York and Essex, Hudson, Passaic and Union in New Jersey.

Three of the book’s authors — Philip Kasinitz, a sociologist at the City University of New York Graduate Center; John H. Mollenkopf, a political scientist at the Graduate Center; and Mary C. Waters, a sociologist at Harvard — presented their findings at a panel discussion on Wednesday at the Graduate Center. (This reporter served as moderator.) The fourth author was Jennifer Holdaway, who directs the migration program at the Social Science Research Council.

In 1992, Herbert J. Gans, a Columbia University sociologist, published an influential essay suggesting that members of the post-1965 second generation might do worse than their parents, refusing to accept low-level, poorly paying jobs and adopting negative attitudes toward school and work.

But the authors of the new study found that Professor Gans’s fears have not been realized. Most of the young people studied worked in white-collar clerical or service jobs in retail and major financial services and most had achieved “real, if modest, progress over their parents’ generation.”

One important reason why, according to the authors, is that even poor, uneducated immigrants have often “shown that they have the drive, ambition, courage and strength to move from one nation to another,” and transmit their determination to their children. And the new second generation is able to take advantage of civil rights programs, including affirmative action policies, in applying to universities and for jobs.

The authors acknowledged that it was hard in some cases to explain why some of the five groups studied appeared to do better than others. The relative success of Russian Jews seemed clear: They immigrated with high levels of education, benefited from government programs because they came as refugees and received aid from established Jewish organizations.

The authors said it was more difficult to explain why “Chinese youngsters have achieved the greatest educational and economic success relative to their parents’ often humble origins.” The Chinese have a fairly cohesive community with “a high degree of social connection between its better- and worse-off members,” the book argued, while ethnic newspapers, churches and media served as a link between middle- and working-class immigrants and helped share “cultural capital,” like information on how to get into the city’s best schools.

Finally, Chinese parents were less likely to divorce, and they encouraged their children to put off marriage and children until their education was completed.

West Indians tend to have high rates of homeownership and do well in school and in the labor market, even though many grew up in single-parent households. But they also reported high rates of discrimination, particularly at the hands of the police.

“In many ways they are assimilating into African-American neighborhoods and social networks,” Professor Waters said in a phone interview. “On the other hand, they tend to live on the outskirts of those neighborhoods.”

The authors found that Dominicans “probably present the clearest cause for concern.” Many second-generation Dominicans are black and face discrimination, and unlike Caribbean immigrants, few have parents who spoke English on arrival. Many live in neighborhoods that are poor and attend some of the city’s worst schools.

Nevertheless, the study found that second-generation Dominicans were much better educated than their parents.

Canada recruiting Mexican labor

It is more than interesting – it is engrossing – to compare the policies of the U.S. and Canada with respect to Hispanic immigrant worker policy. I have posted on this before. This article describes how Canada is coping with labor shortages arising out of a booming economy.

It reports that “A Canada-Mexico working group on labour mobility was announced by Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier and his Mexican counterpart, Patricia Espinosa, after the North American Leaders' Summit in Montebello, Que., last August. As the visiting workers program is expanded, the group will deal with developing a certification process that provides Canadian employers with the assurance that a bricklayer or welder will meet their specifications, as well as defining the length of temporary stays.

Currently, more than 100 National Employment Service offices throughout Mexico recruit workers and maintain a data bank, vetting applicants for appropriate work experience. They then match their data with requests from employers across Canada, funnelled through the Human Resources and Social Development ministry. The number of potential job placements in Canada can be as high as 800,000, said Jorge Rodriguez, Chief of International Affairs at Mexico's Labour Secretariat.”

The article in full:


Ottawa looks to Mexico to ease labour crunch
Government expands visiting worker program beyond agriculture in bid to bolster skilled work force
By Augusta Dwyer
The Globe and Mail (Canada), May 19, 2008

Ten years ago, Luis Vasquez left his home in Veracruz, Mexico, where he earned the equivalent of $1.50 a day picking other people's crops, to go to the city of Cuernavaca, 'thinking about a better future,' he said.

That future never materialized. Married and the father of three daughters, Mr. Vasquez, 29, survives by doing odd jobs: harvesting sorghum, laying bricks, or working as a butcher in the local market. This summer, however, Mr. Vasquez will supplement his income in a new way, travelling to Saint-Rémi, Que., to pick vegetables under a program for agricultural workers.

And thousands more may join him, as Ottawa expands the program to other sectors of the economy, in a bid to address a deepening labour shortage.

The one-two punch of low fertility rates and retiring baby boomers will result in a labour shortage of nearly one million people by 2020, according to Conference Board of Canada predictions. Economic forecasting company Global Insight warns that this could cause annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth to shrink from the current 2.8 per cent to less than 2 per cent. Meanwhile, Mexico has far more workers than its economy can possibly accommodate.

'I wouldn't say it is the solution,' said Charles Beach, an economist at Queen's University. 'But it would help. There is a real shortage of blue-collar workers and the Canadian immigration point system does not accommodate them very well.'

In Canada, the need for labour is regional and sectoral with resource-rich western provinces booming as central Canada's manufacturing economy falters. But demand is likely to be sustained for many years, Mr. Beach said. 'Canada has been experiencing a huge increase in demand for resources, such as potash and particularly oil and gas. So Alberta and Saskatchewan are booming.'

What's more, massive construction and infrastructure projects in Western Canada mean 'there's really a lot of draw on that skilled labour work force,' he added. 'A lot of the labour market assessments suggest that 2008-10 is going to be quite a crunch period.'

A Canada-Mexico working group on labour mobility was announced by Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier and his Mexican counterpart, Patricia Espinosa, after the North American Leaders' Summit in Montebello, Que., last August. As the visiting workers program is expanded, the group will deal with developing a certification process that provides Canadian employers with the assurance that a bricklayer or welder will meet their specifications, as well as defining the length of temporary stays.

Currently, more than 100 National Employment Service offices throughout Mexico recruit workers and maintain a data bank, vetting applicants for appropriate work experience. They then match their data with requests from employers across Canada, funnelled through the Human Resources and Social Development ministry. The number of potential job placements in Canada can be as high as 800,000, said Jorge Rodriguez, Chief of International Affairs at Mexico's Labour Secretariat.

In the United States, the inflow of undocumented Mexican workers has been a boon to its economy for, among other reasons, its temporary and informal aspects. Manhattan Institute economist Tamar Jacoby puts the financial figure at $154-billion (U.S.) annually and has also pointed out its 'just-in-time' character. Millions of Mexican workers run a kind of employment exchange, alerting friends and relatives back home about job opportunities.

Last year, more than 14,000 Mexicans went to Canada to work in its fields, greenhouses and cattle ranches. About 80 per cent are returning workers, Mr. Rodriguez said. 'These farmers had a good experience with their Mexican employees, and in turn, the workers received good treatment and pay,' he said.

The workers also operate their own casual referral network: When employers express a need for more workers in the upcoming season, many workers recommend relatives and friends back in Mexico for the jobs.

That is how Mr. Vasquez got his opportunity. His younger brother, Alejandro, has already put in three summers in Quebec. Making do with a room in his father-in-law's modest cinderblock house on the outskirts of Cuernavaca, Mr. Vasquez's dream, he said, 'is to buy land and build a house, for me and

May 15, 2008

Follow up on House of Raeford case

This is the North Carolina - headquartered poultry processing firm which mistreated its injured workers and faked its safety reports. I have posted on this before. I do not know what share of its workforce are immigrants but I expect that a minority or a majority are. This kind of abuse is more easily accomplished with immigrant workers who are uninformed and/or intimidated. the North Carolina Governor is asking for more funds for safety enforcement. It sounds like the state safety regulators are dragging their feet. Thanks to Workcompcentral (subscription required), and to the Charlotte Observer for running the expose.

the Workcompcentral story in full:

Easley Requests More than $1 Million For Poultry Crackdown: Top [05/15/08]

North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley has included more than $1 million in his 2008 budget to crack down on practices in the poultry industry that include underreporting of crippling injuries and forcing severely injured employees back to work.

Responding to a series of newspaper reports that began running in The Charlotte Observer last year, Easley released a $12.5 billion budget this week that includes $720,000 to replace inspectors and others laid off at the North Carolina Department of Labor because of funding cuts ordered by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Easley's proposal calls for spending another $350,000 to hire occupational health nurses and two industrial hygienists for the North Carolina Division of Public Health.

"With the nature of these jobs, poultry plants would be the major focus," Seth Effron, Easley's deputy press secretary, said Wednesday. "He feels very strongly that all workers ought to be treated decently and humanely. There clearly needs to be a way to make sure that happens."

The Observer reported that some poultry plants earned prize-winning safety records by forcing injured workers to return to work quickly enough to avoid the recording of "lost-time" accidents.

The series focused in part on the House of Raeford Farms, based in Raeford, N.C. The newspaper reported that the plants pressured employees, include those suffering amputations and broken bones, to return to work by their next shift or on the following workday.

The series examined alleged worker abuses at poultry plants in both North and South Carolina.

The South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission launched an investigation of the House of Raeford plant in West Columbia, S.C., based on the Charlotte newspaper reports.

The West Columbia plant boasted it had logged 7 million hours without a "lost-time" accident in operations dating back to 2002. South Carolina considers lost-time injuries those involving the loss of seven days of work or more.

But the newspaper said it used federal records to identify nine workers during the period who suffered amputations or broken bones during the safety streak.

It quoted one worker fired from the plant seven months after her injury who said a conveyor belt snagged her hand, snapped her right arm and sliced off the tip of her index finger in 2003.

Cornelia Vicente told the newspaper she was rushed to the hospital and then visited that afternoon by a company nurse, who told her she was expected back at the plant early the next day.

The newspaper said other employees were required to return to the plant – sometimes within hours of their injuries.

House of Raeford denied the allegations. But The Observer complained in an editorial this week that efforts to investigate the reports have been less aggressive in North Carolina.

The newspaper chastised the North Carolina Department of Labor, which functions as an independent agency with an elected commissioner, former North Carolina lawmaker Cherie Berry.

Following the House of Raeford report this February, Department of Labor spokesman Neal O'Briant told WorkCompCentral there were no ongoing investigations of poultry plants at the agency despite reports in the series and referred a reporter to the federal OSHA website.

On Wednesday, he declined comment and referred all questions to an agency lobbyist, who did not return a phone call. The Observer said Berry is essentially allowing the poultry plants to police their own operations.

"That's not only absurd. It's inhumane, uncaring and outrageous," the newspaper said. "Yet Labor Commissioner Berry says her department's safety record is a good one – injuries are declining, she noted – and she isn't going to change anything just because a newspaper uncovers big problems in the industrial plants she is required by law to monitor and make safe for workers."

The editorial quoted Berry as complaining that Easley is trying to "micromanage our department."

Bob Ford, executive director of the North Carolina Poultry Federation, also did not return a call for comment Wednesday.

--By Michael Whiteley, WorkCompCentral Eastern Bureau Chief
mike@workcompcentral.com

May 12, 2008

Canada needs more immigrant workers

Canada is one of several countries, such as Australia, with an aggressive strategy to woo immigrants in order to grow jobs and the economy. A Canadian news service reports that “Canada is heading for a problem seems unavoidable. In the last 50 years, Canada's workforce grew by 200 per cent. That growth was responsible for raising standards of living and creating the public and private wealth the country now enjoys. But government forecasters say that, without some radical changes, the workforce will only grow by 11 per cent in the next 50 years - and that figure includes the effects of current levels of immigration.

'Our demographics are working against us,' Human Resources Minister Monte Solberg said in a speech Monday to the Canadian Building and Construction Trades' Legislative Conference. 'Baby boomers are set to retire and our low birth rate means demand for workers will soon outstrip supply.”

* British Columbia will be short 350,000 workers over the next 12 years.

* Alberta will require 100,000 workers over the next 10 years.

* Ontario will need 560,000 more workers by 2030.

* Quebec will have 1.3 million job openings by 2016.


The article in full:

Canada's top problem is filling labour shortage
By David Akin
The Canwest News Service (Canada), May 5, 2008

Ottawa -- When Prime Minister Stephen Harper gathered the country's premiers at 24 Sussex Drive last fall, he wanted them to focus on what he saw as the country's No. 1 economic problem: within a decade or two, there simply will not be enough workers in the country.

Although recent headlines about thousands of layoffs in Canada's struggling manufacturing sector may suggest otherwise, Harper and his cabinet are struggling to find ways to boost training programs and increase immigration to find more workers to avoid what some Conservative strategists say is an 'economic time bomb.'

That Canada is heading for a problem seems unavoidable. In the last 50 years, Canada's workforce grew by 200 per cent. That growth was responsible for raising standards of living and creating the public and private wealth the country now enjoys. But government forecasters say that, without some radical changes, the workforce will only grow by 11 per cent in the next 50 years - and that figure includes the effects of current levels of immigration.

'Our demographics are working against us,' Human Resources Minister Monte Solberg said in a speech Monday to the Canadian Building and Construction Trades' Legislative Conference. 'Baby boomers are set to retire and our low birth rate means demand for workers will soon outstrip supply.'

Already, more than 80 per cent of working-age Canadians have a job - an all-time high.

Solberg marshalled the following data to back up his claim:

* British Columbia will be short 350,000 workers over the next 12 years.

* Alberta will require 100,000 workers over the next 10 years.

* Ontario will need 560,000 more workers by 2030.

* Quebec will have 1.3 million job openings by 2016.

'We have a significant shortfall of workers in every region across Canada,' said Solberg. 'Even in areas of high unemployment, we have too few skilled workers.'

Canada's labour market has consistently defied market forecasters for the last three years. Despite a high dollar, which makes Canadian workers relatively more expensive than workers in other countries, there were 325,000 new jobs created in Canada in the last 12 months. That job gain comes despite the loss of more than 113,000 jobs in manufacturing. In other words, the economy not only replaced those 113,000 lost manufacturing jobs, it also created an additional 325,000 jobs. The construction sector alone has grown by more than 103,000 workers.

And, as the Bank of Canada noted in its monetary policy report last week, year-over-year wage growth has been strong as well, suggesting that good-paying manufacturing jobs are being replaced with equally well-paying jobs elsewhere.

Statistics Canada will release the latest monthly job data Friday.

Finding more skilled workers is one of the goals behind Ottawa's controversial proposal to change immigration rules to fast-track certain groups of immigrants although political opponents say that rationale has not been appropriately clarified.

'What we think is that the immigration policies of this country should be designed to help workers come here with their families, use their training and skills and help build the country,' said NDP Leader Jack Layton.

Layton also said that tax rules ought to be changed to help workers who have to travel to other provinces or regions.

'Right now it's very expensive to travel to use your skills. It really should be considered part of your expenses under the tax law and the NDP has proposed measures to change the taxes to make it easier for workers to travel, particularly construction workers,' Layton said.

In his speech, Solberg said his government is spending more money on training programs than any federal government in history.

But political opponents say the Conservatives could be doing more.

'The government is not doing enough at all about that' said Liberal Leader Stephane Dion. 'We need to increase our productivity. We need to adapt to an aging population. We need to do more to help the people that are over 65, if they want to, to stay in the workforce.'

how illegal farm workers from Mexico get healthcare

The New York Times reports how illegal farm workers obtain medical care for work and non work related conditions under the radar, shying away from clinics where they may be caught and favoring traditional cures. “They may visit a clinic or hospital if they are severely ill. But for many illegal immigrants, particularly indigenous Mexican groups like the Mixtecs, much of their health care is provided by a parallel system of spiritual healers, home remedies and self-medication…. the lack of access to conventional care reinforced a culture of self-medication..”

The story in full:

May 10, 2008

Illegal Farm Workers Get Health Care in Shadows

By KEVIN SACK

MADERA, Calif. — The curandera is weary from work. Three, four, five times a day, the immigrant farm workers knock on her apartment door, begging her to cure their ailments.

They complain of indigestion, of rashes, of post-traumatic panic attacks. Then there are the house calls that compel her to crate up her potions and herbs and drive across town, often after midnight, to escape the notice of immigration police.

“I’ve done so many cures that I’m exhausted; it gives me no time to rest,” said Herminia L. Arenas, 55, the curandera, or traditional healer, who has practiced in this Central Valley town since migrating 14 years ago from Oaxaca, in southern Mexico. “I want to retire, but I feel like I was sent here to help these people.”

The people need help because they are in the United States illegally and because they are poor. Few have health insurance, but the backbreaking nature of their work, along with the toxicity of American poverty, insure that many are ailing.

They may visit a clinic or hospital if they are severely ill. But for many illegal immigrants, particularly indigenous Mexican groups like the Mixtecs, much of their health care is provided by a parallel system of spiritual healers, home remedies and self-medication.

Stories abound here of people who died — of cancer, diabetes, even gangrene — because they did not make it to an emergency room until it was too late. Public health officials also worry that the lack of access to conventional care may contribute to the spread of communicable diseases. They warn that the rampant use of antibiotics, often without medical direction, may speed the development of resistant bacterial strains.

While acknowledging that some traditional treatments can complement modern medicine, they point out that others do considerable harm. Powders used to quiet colicky babies, for instance, have been found to contain heavy doses of lead. Without legal status, the immigrants have little protection against dangerous or fraudulent practices.

Immigrants interviewed amid the vineyards of Madera and the cantaloupe fields of Mendota said they had faced numerous obstacles to pursuing conventional medical care. Above all, they said, was cost, but other factors included fear of deportation, long waits for treatment in medically underserved areas, and barriers of culture and language.

Some said they supplement their care on trips to Mexico or Central America, seeking out less expensive doctors and stocking up on pharmaceuticals before trying the risky crossing back.

The healers, like their American counterparts, tend to specialize. There are hueseros, who set bones, and sobadors, who massage away pain. The curanderos use herbs and incantation to return the spirit to its equilibrium.

Farm workers, community leaders and health researchers said many immigrants devised their own antidotes. They brew recuperative teas from exotic herbs and roadside weeds. They enlist neighbors to inject them with vitamins and antibiotics from Mexico. Some of the medicines are sold under the counter at flea markets and botanicas, where amulets and incense share shelf space with Advil and Afrin.

Though the unlicensed sale of pharmaceuticals is not legal, and though some healers approach the edges of practicing medicine without a license, local police say enforcement of the laws is rare.

A recent visit to Ms. Arenas’s nondescript apartment found her in the middle of an eight-day cleansing ceremony, or limpia, for María de Jesús, a 28-year-old illegal farm worker. Ms. de Jesús explained that she had been having headaches since a car accident three months earlier.

“I feel like my heart is going to come out, it beats so fast,” she said. In visits to a clinic and an emergency room, she had been given pills for high blood pressure, to little effect. She said the doctors also had no answer for the grotesque swelling in the crook of her left arm, where she carries her tomato bucket.

At wits’ end, her husband delivered her to Ms. Arenas. “I have faith in the curandera,” Ms. de Jesús said. “That’s why I am here.”

Ms. Arenas stepped outside to collect herbs from her garden. After mixing them with dashes of a Mexican cologne, she wrapped the sodden clumps around María’s head, waist and limbs with cloth tourniquets. Her cures come to her, she explained, in a flash of revelation, sometimes as she studies the movements of a broken egg yolk.

“Please bless this lady,” Ms. Arenas prayed. “Take all the bad spirits out and help me to heal her with your healing hands.”

Leaving her patient to rest, Ms. Arenas drove with Ms. de Jesús’s husband to the site of the accident, where he dug a hole and she sprinkled in rose petals, salt and holy water dispensed from a Gatorade bottle. After stomping in dirt, she waved María’s clothing and prayed for her spirit to return home.

Over the next few days, Ms. de Jesús reported feeling calmer and said her headaches were gone. The swelling in her arm had not subsided, however, so Ms. Arenas recommended seeing a physician. Ms. Arenas asked for $500 to cover her fee, as well as room and board, and the woman’s husband paid with a check (a more typical visit costs $10 to $60 and lasts a few hours, she said).

Studies find that many Latino immigrants arrive in the United States healthy, but then develop the trademark afflictions of their new home: diabetes, obesity, asthma, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. Long hours in the fields often leave them with muscular and skeletal injuries, as well as rashes and burning eyes from pesticides and dust.

There is no firm projection of the medical costs incurred by the estimated 11.1 million illegal immigrants in the United States, a fourth of whom live in California. A RAND Corporation study in 2000, the most recent year available, pegged the cost at $6.4 billion, including $1.1 billion from public sources. It found the share of medical costs attributable to illegal immigrants was half as large as expected for their share of the population.

Health demographers estimate that half to two-thirds of California’s illegal immigrants are uninsured. Women may receive occasional checkups because they qualify for prenatal and obstetrical care under Medicaid. But RAND found that half of illegal immigrant men had not seen a doctor in the previous year, compared with 25 percent of men born in the United States; one in six illegal immigrant men had never seen a doctor.

Studies also find that newcomers are only half as likely as natives to use emergency rooms, which are required to treat patients regardless of immigration status. The California Hospital Association estimates that 10 percent of the state’s $9.7 billion in uncompensated care last year was for illegal immigrants, said Jan Emerson, a spokeswoman.

“A lot of people assume the emergency room overcrowding problem is due to undocumented immigrants,” Ms. Emerson said. “That’s not what we see. They show up when they truly need emergency care.”

Jurley Cortez, 20, an illegal immigrant, has not been to an emergency room, doctor or dentist in her nine years in the United States, except for the perfunctory physical her school required for athletics. Now a high school graduate, she picks tomatoes and cantaloupe near Mendota.

Three years ago, when Ms. Cortez injured a knee in the fields, her mother could not afford a doctor and took her to a sobadora. After $20 treatments of ointment and massage, the swelling subsided. “It still hurts when it’s cold,” Ms. Cortez said. “I just take Tylenol or Advil.”

Even if farm workers in Mendota can afford the local clinic’s sliding-scale fees, they often cannot afford to miss work while waiting up to six hours to be seen. Sarah B. Horton, a University of Montana anthropologist who is studying health care in the Central Valley, said the lack of access to conventional care reinforced a culture of self-medication. There is a preference for potent Mexican drugs, Ms. Horton said, delivered, if possible, by syringe.

Rosie Q. Valdovinos, 57, a lettuce picker, recently completed a self-prescribed regimen of three penicillin injections, given by a friend, to combat a cough.

“Penicillin or ampicillin will work on anything: a cough, a problem with your chest, or if you have an infection of your kidneys, even for a tooth,” she said. “There’s no choice but to take them sometimes. To go to a doctor, you miss a day of work. You miss a day, and the next day you’re gone.”

Ms. Valdovinos, an American citizen who said she had immigrated when she was 3, is insured several months a year through the Dole Food Company, but still prefers the ease and economy of Mexican medical care. In the few weeks between the end of lettuce season and her policy’s expiration, she hops a Greyhound to Mexico and stockpiles pharmaceuticals — including Prozac, Valium and antibiotics — for herself and others.

“You pay a doctor $30 for a prescription, and they’ll give you the medicine,” she said. “I’ll spend $500 down there, and that will take care of me for six months.”

May 7, 2008

A mass of data about immigrants in the U.S.

the Migration Information Institute issued this FAQ document last year, in October 2007. It is extensive. Go through all of it to find what you are looking for. It covers demographics, workforce and geographic distribution, countries of origin, unionization,
immigration status, deportations, naturalization, etc.

Its website has a motherlode of studies about immigration.

By Aaron Terrazas, Jeanne Batalova, Velma Fan, of the Migration Policy Institute

SUMMARY

QUESTION: How many immigrants are in the United States today?

According to the US Census Bureau's 2006 American Community Survey, there were 37,547,789 foreign born in the United States, which represents 12.5 percent of the total US population.

QUESTION: What are the historical numbers and shares of immigrants in the United States?

Data on the nativity of the US population was first collected in the 1850 decennial census. That year, there were 2.2 million foreign born in the United States, 9.7 percent of the total population.

Between 1860 and 1920, the foreign born as a percentage of the total population fluctuated between 13 and 15 percent, peaking at 14.8 percent in 1890 mainly due to European immigration. By 1930, the share had dropped to 11.6 percent (14.2 million).

The share of foreign born in the US population continued to decline between the 1930s and 1970s, reaching a record low of 4.7 percent in 1970 (9.6 million individuals). However, since 1970, the percentage has risen rapidly, mainly due to large-scale immigration from Latin America and Asia.

In 1980, according to the US Census Bureau, the foreign born represented 6.2 percent of the total US population (14.1 million individuals). By 1990, their share had risen to 7.9 percent (19.8 million individuals) and, by the 2000 census, they made up 11.1 percent (31.1 million individuals) of the total US population.

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN AND DEMOGRAPHICS (also see section of Mexicans, below)

QUESTION: What were the top source countries with the largest share of immigrants in 2006 compared with those in 1960?

Mexico-born immigrants accounted for 30.7 percent of all foreign born residing in the United States in 2006, by far the largest immigrant group in the United States.

Among the remaining countries of origin, the Philippines accounted for 4.4 percent of all foreign born, followed by China (excluding Taiwan) and India with 4.1 percent and 4.0 percent of all foreign born, respectively.

These four countries — together with Vietnam (3 percent), El Salvador (2.8 percent), Korea (2.7 percent), Cuba (2.5 percent), Canada (2.3 percent), and the United Kingdom (1.8 percent) — made up 58.4 percent of all foreign born residing in the United States in 2006.

The predominance of foreign born from Mexico and Asian countries in the early 21st century starkly contrasts with the foreign born from mostly European countries in 1960. Italian-born immigrants made up 13.0 percent of all foreign born in 1960, followed by those born in Germany and Canada (accounting for 10.2 and 9.8 percent, respectively). Unlike in 2006, no single country accounted for more than 15 percent of the total immigrant population in 1960.

QUESTION: How many immigrants have come to the United States since 2000?

Of the 37.5 million foreign born in the United States in 2006, 44.1 percent entered the country prior to 1990, 30.5 percent between 1990 and 1999, and 25.3 percent in 2000 or later.

QUESTION: What is the racial composition of immigrants?

Of the foreign born in the United States in 2006, 45.3 percent reported their race as white alone, 7.8 percent as black or African American alone, 23.4 percent as Asian alone, and 21.6 percent as some other race; 1.2 percent reported having two or more races.

QUESTION: How many immigrants are of Hispanic origin?

In 2006, 47.2 percent of the foreign born reported Hispanic or Latino origins.

QUESTION: What percentage of the foreign born are limited English proficient (LEP)?

In 2006, 52.4 percent of the 37.2 million foreign-born persons age 5 and older were LEP, compared with 51.0 percent of 30.7 million in 2000. Note: Those who reported speaking English less than “very well” are considered LEP.

QUESTION: What percentage of the foreign-born population is college educated?

In 2006, there were 30.9 million foreign born age 25 and older. Of those, 26.7 percent had a bachelor's or higher degree, while 32.0 percent lacked a high school diploma. Among native-born adults age 25 and older, 27.0 percent of 165 million were college graduates and only 12.9 percent did not have a high school diploma.

WORKFORCE CHARACTERISTICS

QUESTION: What share do the foreign born compose of the total US civilian labor force?

In 2006, of the 151.1 million workers engaged in the US civilian labor force, the foreign born accounted for 15.6 percent (23.6 million). Between 1970 and 2006, the percentage of foreign-born workers in the US civilian labor force nearly tripled, from 5.3 to 15.6 percent. Over the same period, the percent of foreign born in the total population grew from 4.8 to 12.5 percent.

What kinds of jobs do the employed foreign born have?

Of the 22.2 million civilian employed foreign born age 16 and older in 2006, 27.2 percent worked in management, professional, and related occupations; 22.5 percent in service occupations; 18.3 percent in sales and office occupations; 16.7 percent in production and transportation; and 13.5 percent in construction, extraction, maintenance, and repair occupations.

How many foreign-born workers are union members?

According to the 2006 Current Population Survey (CPS), there were 19.7 million employed foreign-born wage and salary workers age 16 and older. Of those, 1.9 million (8.5 percent) were members of labor unions.

What share of all union members is foreign born?

The percentage of foreign born among union members has increased from 8.9 percent in 1996 to 12.3 percent in 2006.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

What are the top five states in terms of the number of foreign born, share of foreign born in the total state population, absolute growth, and percent growth between 1990 and 2000 and between 2000 and 2006?

In 2006, the top five US states by the number of foreign born were California (9,902,067), New York (4,178,962), Texas (3,740,667), Florida (3,425,634), and Illinois (1,773,600).

When classified by the share of foreign born in the total state population, the top five states in 2006 were California (27.2 percent), New York (21.6 percent), New Jersey (20.1 percent), Nevada (19.1 percent), and Florida (18.9 percent).

Between 1990 and 2000, the five states with the largest absolute growth of the foreign-born population were California (2,482,565), Texas (1,390,505), New York (1,049,862), Florida (1,010,243), Illinois (591,596), and New Jersey (512,865).

Between 2000 and 2006, the five states with the largest absolute growth of the foreign-born population were California (1,037,812), Texas (841,025), Florida (754,806), New York (310,829), and Georgia (282,317).

Between 1990 and 2000, the five states with the largest percent growth of the foreign-born population were North Carolina (288.2 percent), Georgia (247.5 percent), Nevada (206.4 percent), Arkansas (198.5 percent), and Nebraska (183.0 percent).

However, between 2000 and 2006, the five states with the largest percent growth of the foreign-born population were Delaware (53.1 percent), South Carolina (51.8 percent), Nevada (50.3 percent), Georgia (48.9 percent), and Tennessee (48.7 percent).


What are the top-10 US counties in terms of number of foreign born, share of foreign born in the total county population, absolute growth, and percent growth between 2000 and 2006?

In 2006, the top-10 counties by the number of foreign born (in thousands) were Los Angeles County, California (3,517); Miami-Dade County, Florida (1,209); Cook County, Illinois (1,119); Queens County, New York (1,094); Harris County, Texas (956); Kings County, New York (949); Orange County, California (915); San Diego County, California (686); Maricopa County, Arizona (656); and Santa Clara County, California (631).

When classified by the share of foreign born in the total state population, the top-10 counties in 2006 were Miami-Dade County, Florida (50.3 percent); Queens County, New York (48.5 percent); Hudson County, New Jersey (40.5 percent); Kings County, New York (37.8 percent); Santa Clara County, California (36.4 percent); San Francisco County, California (36.3 percent); Los Angeles County, California (35.4 percent); Imperial County, California (32.6 percent); San Mateo County, California (32.1 percent); and Bronx County, New York (31.8 percent).

Between 2000 and 2006, the 10 counties with the largest absolute growth (in thousands) of the foreign-born population were Maricopa County, Arizona (215); Harris County, Texas (200); Riverside County, California (174); Clark County, Nevada (139); Broward County, Florida (125); San Bernardino County, California (112); Dallas County, Texas (111); King County, Washington (95); Gwinnett County, Georgia (86); and Palm Beach County, Florida (83).

Between 2000 and 2006, the 10 counties with the largest percent growth of the foreign-born population were St. Clair County, Alabama (421.5 percent); Wright County, Minnesota (302.1 percent); St. Croix County, Wisconsin (235.5 percent); Henry County, Georgia (234.1 percent); Frederick County, Virginia (208.5 percent); Forsyth County, Georgia (203.1 percent); Kendall County, Illinois (201.9 percent); Scott County, Minnesota (199.2 percent); Loudon County, Virginia (194.9 percent); and St. Landry Parish, Louisiana (194.5 percent).

Note: The above county-level data are from the 2006 estimates of the American Community Survey, which, for confidentiality reasons, reports information only for 782 out of 3,141 US counties. It is possible that the county rankings would be different if information on all counties were available.

LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS

How many permanent immigrants (in all categories) came to the United States in 2006, and where are they from?

In 2006, 1,266,264 foreign nationals obtained lawful permanent resident (LPR) status according to the Department of Homeland Security's Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 2006. The total number represents a 12.8 percent increase from 2005 (1,122,373), and a 50.6 percent increase from 2000 (841,002).

Of the nearly 1.3 million new LPRs, 45.8 percent were an immediate relative of a US citizen, 17.5 percent came through a family-sponsored preference, and 12.6 percent through an employment-based preference. Another 17.1 percent adjusted from a refugee or asylee status, and 3.5 percent were diversity-lottery winners.

Disaggregated by country of birth, 13.7 percent came from Mexico. The top five countries of birth — Mexico, China, the Philippines, India, and Cuba — accounted for 35.0 percent of all persons who received LPR status in 2006.

Nationals of the next five countries — Colombia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Vietnam, and Jamaica — made up another 13.3 percent of all LPRs, so that the top-10 countries of birth made up almost 50 percent of the total.

What was the total number of nonimmigrant admissions to the United States in 2006?

Temporary admissions of nonimmigrants to the United States increased by 3.5 times, from 9.5 million in 1985 to 33.7 million (not including certain Mexicans and Canadians) in 2006.

Note: Nonimmigrant admissions represent the number of arrivals, not the number of individuals, admitted to the United States.

Similar to the past, temporary visitors accounted for an overwhelming majority of all arrivals. In 2006, they represented 89 percent (29.9 million) of all admissions to the United States. Of those, 24.8 million were tourist admissions and 5.0 million were business-traveler admissions.

Temporary workers and trainees, including H-1B "specialty occupation" workers, registered nurses, temporary agricultural workers, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) professional workers, treaty traders, and intracompany transferees, among others, accounted for 1,709,953 arrivals (5.1 percent of total admissions); this figure includes spouses and children of temporary workers.

Students who came to study at an academic or vocational institute, together with their family members, made up 3.5 percent (1,168,020) of total admissions.

How many foreign nationals came on nonimmigrant visas in 2006?

According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in 2006, 25.8 million foreign nationals entered the United States on nonimmigrant visas. Of those, 4.4 million entered the United States more than once. These numbers, however, exclude the majority of short-term visitors from Canada and Mexico.

DHS does not provide a breakdown of the 25.8 million nonimmigrants by the type of admission visa under which they came.

How many visas did the Department of State issue in 2006?

The US Department of State (DOS) reports the number of visas issued to foreign nationals who wish to come to the United States for the purposes of traveling, conducting business, working, studying, and other reasons.

In 2006, DOS issued 5,836,718 nonimmigrant visas. The majority (52.3 percent) were temporary business and tourist visas (B-1 and B-2 visas), followed by J-1 exchange visitors (5.3 percent), and F-1 and F-2 academic student and family of academic student visas (5.0 percent).

Disaggregated by region of origin, the majority of temporary visas were issued in 2006 to foreigners from Asia (38.4 percent) and North America (23.0 percent), followed by Europe (18.4 percent), South America (14.9 percent), Africa (4.4 percent), and Oceania (0.8 percent).

Note: The number of visas issued does not necessarily match the number of foreign nationals who came to the United States in the same year.

How many foreign born came as refugees and asylees?

In 2006, 41,150 individuals were admitted to the United States as refugees. This figure represented a 23.4 percent decrease compared to the number of admissions in 2005 (53,738). Of the refugees admitted in 2006, 25.2 percent were from Somalia, 14.6 percent from Russia, and 7.6 percent from Cuba.

The number of foreign born who were granted asylum in 2006 was 26,113. This represented a 3.7 percent increase compared to the number of admissions in 2005 (25,160). The top three countries of origin for persons granted asylum in 2006 were China (21.3 percent), Haiti (11.5 percent), and Colombia (11.4 percent). These countries accounted for the origins of nearly half of all asylees.

MEXICAN FOREIGN BORN

(Editor's note: For more information on Mexican immigrants, see the Spotlight on Mexican Immigrants in the United States, published in April 2008.)

From which areas/regions do Mexican migrants residing in the United States come?

The Mexican National Population Council (Consejo Nacional de Población, CONAPO), tracks the number of Mexican-born US residents according to their state of birth in Mexico.

In 2003, one-third of migrants to the United States from Mexico originated from just three states: Jalisco (13.7 percent), Michoacan (10.7 percent), and Guanajuato (9.3 percent) (see Map 2). In 1990, these three states accounted for 34.7 percent of Mexican migrants to the United States (16.8 percent from Jalisco, 10.5 percent from Michoacan, and 7.4 percent from Guanajuato).

In which US states do the Mexican born tend to live?

In 2006, there were 11.5 million foreign born from Mexico residing in the United States. These immigrants were overwhelmingly concentrated in the West and Southwest (see Map 3).

In New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and Idaho, the Mexican born represented 72.8, 65.5, 62.5, and 57.6 percent of each state's foreign-born population, respectively.

By contrast, Mexican-born individuals accounted for only 1.4 percent of the foreign-born population of Hawaii and less than 1 percent of Vermont's foreign-born population.

How many Mexican-born workers are in the US labor force?

According to estimates from the Migration Policy Institute, 9.4 percent of all persons born in Mexico lived in the United States in 2005. In the same year, 14 percent of all Mexican workers were engaged in the US labor force, as compared to 2.5 percent of all Canadian workers.

UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRANTS

How many unauthorized immigrants are in the United States (adults, children, mixed-status families)?

In January 2006, there were approximately 29.1 million foreign-born individuals living in the United States who entered the country between 1980 and 2005. About 16.3 million (56 percent) of them were legally resident (including lawful permanent residents, refugees, and asylees), about 1.3 million (4 percent) had temporary or other immigrant status, and approximately 11.6 million (40 percent) were unauthorized. The unauthorized population was estimated to be growing at 515,000 people per year in 2006.

Approximately 6.6 million of the unauthorized in January 2006 were from Mexico (57 percent), 510,000 were from El Salvador (4 percent), 430,000 were from Guatemala (4 percent), 280,000 were from the Philippines (2 percent), and 280,000 were from Honduras (2 percent).

In terms of the highest rates of unauthorized population growth between 2000 and 2006, India is first (125 percent), followed by Brazil (110 percent) and Honduras (75 percent).

How many people were apprehended or deported in 2005?

The total number of alien apprehensions reported by the US Department of Homeland Security steadily increased during the 1990s, from 1,169,939 apprehensions in 1990 to 1,814,729 apprehensions in 2000. In 2003, the number of apprehensions had declined to 1,046,422 before climbing again slightly to 1,291,142 in 2005.

Note: Apprehensions are events, not individuals. In other words, the same individual can be apprehended more than once.

The total number of aliens deported follows a similar trend, rising from 1,052,572 in 1990 to 1,862,218 in 2000 before declining to 1,078,265 in 2003 and rising again to 1,174,059 in 2005. However, the number of formal removals (forced deportations) rose throughout the period, from 30,039 in 1990 to 208,521 in 2005.

By contrast, voluntary departures declined over the period, from 1,022,533 in 1990 to 965,538 in 2005.

IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT

How much does the government spend on immigration control and enforcement?

Between 1986 and 2002, funding for the US Border Patrol, then part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the Department of Justice, increased 519 percent, from $268 million in 1986 to $1.6 billion in 2002. The Border Patrol is responsible for enforcing 8,000 miles of US land and water boundaries between legal ports of entry (designated points where immigration officials can regulate entry).

Following the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003, the Border Patrol became part of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) service within DHS. In 2005, the total budget for CBP was $5.3 billion. CBP is responsible for regulating and facilitating international trade, collecting import duties, enforcing US trade laws, apprehending individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally, stemming the flow of illegal drugs and other contraband, protecting US agricultural and economic interests from pests and diseases, and protecting American businesses from intellectual property theft.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the investigative branch of DHS and is responsible for the enforcement of US immigration law. Between 2003 and 2006, ICE's budget grew 53 percent to $3.6 billion.

More recently, in February 2007, President Bush requested about $13 billion for border controls and internal enforcement of immigration laws in fiscal year (FY) 2008. This represents an approximately $3 billion increase from FY 2007.

NATURALIZATION TRENDS

How many foreign born are naturalized citizens?

Of the 37.5 million foreign born in the United States in 2006, 15.7 million (41.9 percent) were naturalized citizens, according to 2006 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates.

In 2006, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) naturalized 702,589 lawful permanent residents, or about 1.8 percent of the total foreign-born population.

From a historical perspective, the number of naturalizations increased dramatically between 1976 and 2000. From 1976 to 1980, 846,218 foreign-born individuals naturalized as US citizens according to the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 2006.

By contrast, between 1996 and 2000, 3,834,706 foreign-born individuals naturalized as US citizens, partially due to the number of permanent residents who became eligible for naturalization after the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) gave them lawful permanent resident status. Between 2001 and 2006, the number of naturalizations totaled 3,489,137.

BACKLOGS

How many visa applications for permanent immigration (green cards) and naturalization applications are backlogged?

Two types of backlogs impact immigrant admissions (i.e., issuance of green cards). The first is due to visa availability. For example, the government caps employment-based visas for foreign workers and their families at 140,000 per year. Also, no country can receive more than 7 percent of the total number of annual worldwide visas (approximately 25,600 visas).

The second type is due to processing delays of applicants' documents, which is related to the government's lack of financial and human resources as well as increased scrutiny.

Once the State Department grants a visa to an immigrant, US Citizenship and Immigrant Services (USCIS) conducts background checks.

As of October 2007, USCIS was processing some family-related visa applications filed as far back as 1985, and it was still processing some employment-related visa applications from 2001.

How many naturalization applications are backlogged?

As of September 2005, USCIS reported a backlog of 2.6 million naturalization applications.

However, in September 2006, USCIS announced it had eliminated the backlog of naturalization applications as the average processing time for a naturalization application fell from a peak of 14 months in February 2004 to five months. A processing time of under six months is considered normal.

May 6, 2008

News from Global Workers Justice Alliance

The Alliance, one of my favorite activist groups reported today on two of its initiative to support labor rights of immigrant workers. One, it launched a “defender network” involving representatives from 13 human rights organizations in Latin America. It trained them on worker rights in the United States which are often compromised for H-2 guestworkers. Two, it got the U.S. embassy in Guatemala to distribute to H-2 workers a leaflet it developed with the Southern Poverty Law Center. The leaflet educates these workers on their rights. The Alliance says that “due to the excessive recruitment abuses that are illegal under Guatemalan (and Mexican) law, the guestworker program has become a vehicle for human trafficking.”

The announcement in full:

Global Workers is proud to announce the formal launch of the Global Workers Defender Network. After two years of laying the groundwork, Global Workers invited 23 advocates from 13 human rights organizations from southern Mexico and Guatemala to Tapachula, Mexico from April 28-30 to the first Training on Defending Transnational Migrant Workers in the United States. The excitement for the launch of this unprecedented network was palpable.

Over three days, these seasoned human rights advocates learned about the legal rights of migrant workers in the United States. In addition, they learned how to identify cases of workers who have returned to Mexico and Guatemala after suffering labor and trafficking abuses in the United States. Time was also dedicated to the details of civil litigation so these Defenders can skillfully partner with US advocates to seek justice for individual workers in US courts. Finally, Mexican and Guatemalan legal experts explored the myriad of recruitment abuses H-2 guestworkers suffer before leaving to work the USA.

To read more about the Global Workers Defender Network inaugural training go to our blog at http://globalworkers.org/txp/.

On another note, Global Workers has achieved an important break through in its guestworker advocacy, the H-2 visa program that brings 180,000 workers to the US each year to work in temporary non-professional jobs. The US consulate is now handing out Know Your Rights flyers to Guatemalan workers bound to the US. The flyer, which Global Workers developed with the Southern Poverty Law Center, orients workers to their basic rights and where to seek assistance. In addition, two weeks ago the US consulate started to notify US employers of their obligations under Guatemalan law when recruiting Guatemalans to work in the US. Due to the excessive recruitment abuses that are illegal under Guatemalan (and Mexican) law, the guestworker program has become a vehicle for human trafficking. Global Workers applauds the consulate for its leadership and will soon launch an initiative to ensure that other consulates follow suit.

Immigration Mexican American blog

Go here to read a very active blog run by Dee Perez-Scott, a Mexican-American married to an Irish American for twenty years, and a long term employee of a major corporation. She became active after witnessing the anti-immigration surge in the last few years. Her current posting is about the 66 ICE detainees who have died while in custody, as reported in the NY Times.


May 4, 2008

Remittances to Latin America are flat or down

From 2001 to 2006, remittances from the U.S. to Latin America boomed from $15 billion to $45 billion, according to the Inter-American Development Bank. Since then they have barely grown. Why? According to a survey of 5,000 Latin American immigrants reported in the New York Times, “Latino immigrants said life had become more difficult for them here. Of those interviewed, 81 percent said it is harder to find a good-paying job. Almost 40 percent said they were earning less this year than the previous year. The largest group of immigrants in the survey — 18 percent — worked in construction, which has been especially hard hit in the slowdown.

As a result of the difficulties, among immigrants who had been here less than five years, 49 percent said they were thinking of returning home, while 41 percent said they planned to remain in the United States. Over all, slightly under one-third of the immigrants said they were thinking of leaving this country.

In an interview in Phoenix on Wednesday, Yolanda, a 45-year-old illegal immigrant from Mexico who did not participate in the survey, said that she had started to think of going home, after 13 years in the United States. Before November, she was sending at least $400 a month to Mexico City to support her three children. This year she can manage only $300 every two months, she said.”


The article in full:

Fewer Latino Immigrants Sending Money Home
By JULIA PRESTON

In a sign that the economic downturn is hitting hard among Latino immigrants, more than three million of them stopped sending money to families in their home countries during the last two years, the Inter-American Development Bank said on Wednesday.

Growing numbers of Latino immigrants are also considering giving up their foothold in the United States and returning home in response to a slump in low-wage jobs and the crackdown on illegal immigration, the bank reported in a survey of 5,000 immigrants from Latin America.

The survey found that only half of the 18.9 million Latino immigrants in this country now send money regularly to relatives in their home countries, compared with 73 percent two years ago.

“The major dynamic that is holding them back from sending money is fear,” said Sergio Bendixen, a Miami-based pollster who conducted the survey. “They don’t know whether they won’t be able to get a job anymore.”

With fewer people sending money home, money transfers to some Latin American countries have started to decline, reversing five years of often spectacular growth. In the first quarter of this year, transfers to Mexico dropped 2.9 percent from the first quarter of 2007, Mexico’s central bank reported on Wednesday, the first significant decline since Mexico began tracking the transfers in 1995.

For Latin America as a whole, the amount of the money transfers, which are known as remittances, remained virtually flat over the last two years, the development bank reported. It estimated total remittances to the region at $45.9 billion in 2008, an increase of $500 million over 2006.

That contrasts with the period from 2001 to 2006, when the amount of remittances to the region tripled, to $45 billion from $15 billion, according to figures from the development bank, a multilateral organization based in Washington that finances development projects in Latin America. Total remittances did not drop more sharply in the last two years because those immigrants who continued to send money sent larger amounts more frequently, the bank’s survey found.

“The longstanding pattern of increasing numbers of Latin American immigrants sending increasing amounts of money back home has stopped,” said Donald F. Terry, the general manager of the Multilateral Investment Fund at the development bank and the official in charge of the survey. The survey was conducted in Spanish from Feb. 9 to 23, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 1 percentage point.

With lower income and less job security, Latino immigrants said they were spending or saving their money here rather than sending it to support children, spouses and parents at home.

Latino immigrants said life had become more difficult for them here. Of those interviewed, 81 percent said it is harder to find a good-paying job. Almost 40 percent said they were earning less this year than the previous year. The largest group of immigrants in the survey — 18 percent — worked in construction, which has been especially hard hit in the slowdown.

As a result of the difficulties, among immigrants who had been here less than five years, 49 percent said they were thinking of returning home, while 41 percent said they planned to remain in the United States. Over all, slightly under one-third of the immigrants said they were thinking of leaving this country.

In 2001, the last time a similar survey asked a comparable question, about 20 percent of Latino immigrants said they were thinking of going home, said Mr. Bendixen, who conducted that survey as well.

However, Mr. Bendixen said that immigrant workers who participated in focus groups as part of the survey said they were not ready to leave the United States quite yet. Before taking the drastic step of moving back home, immigrants said they were taking jobs at lower wages or sometimes working two jobs to try to maintain their income, he said.

“These are resourceful people who will do whatever job is available,” Mr. Bendixen said.

The economic pressure appears to have fallen equally on illegal immigrants and those authorized to be in the United States. Of the immigrants interviewed in the survey, 47 percent said they did not have legal status. The others were legal immigrants and American citizens.

A large majority of those surveyed — legal and illegal — said they experienced increasing hostility as a result of efforts to curb illegal immigration and punish employers who hire unauthorized immigrant workers. In the survey, 61 percent of Latinos who were American citizens and 66 percent of those who were legal immigrants said discrimination had become a major problem for them.

In an interview in Phoenix on Wednesday, Yolanda, a 45-year-old illegal immigrant from Mexico who did not participate in the survey, said that she had started to think of going home, after 13 years in the United States. Before November, she was sending at least $400 a month to Mexico City to support her three children. This year she can manage only $300 every two months, she said.

Yolanda, who asked that her last name not be published because of her immigration status, said her trouble stemmed from the crackdown on hiring of illegal immigrants, fewer jobs and higher prices.

“We can’t keep up with expenses and also send money,” she said in Spanish. “If you can’t even eat, what’s the point? This is the worst it’s been, because we’ve never not had enough for food and our bills.”

Mexico, which received $24.7 billion in remittances last year, will be hardest hit by the decrease. The majority of the families of an estimated 3.2 million immigrants who will no longer receive transfers are in Mexico, Mr. Terry, the bank official, said.

Jonathan Higuera contributed reporting from Phoenix, and Elisabeth Malkin from Mexico.