Immigration Backlash Your report on the immigration backlash [Nov/Dec 1995] was intriguing, especially the argument made by Ratl Hinojosa and Peter Schey that low-cost Mexican labor is the key to economic renaissance for the United States as well as Mexico. I was surprised, however, by how the editors, in their intro- duction to the Report, reduced the entire immigration debate to "back- lash" and "folk myth," as if there were no intellectual room on the left to question the supposed bene- fits of rising immigration flows. This preemptive attitude seems to come out of several assumptions running through the issue. One is that supporting border control is by definition racist (if you're Anglo) or buckling under to racism (if you happen to be African American or Latino). Perhaps this is a result of approaching such a complicated bundle of problems via a single debate, over Proposition 187 in California. I've hardly been alone in opposing Prop 187, for some of the same reasons laid out by your con- tributors. Yet I feel that the only way to protect U.S. wage levels is to control the flow of non-native labor. Unless Hinojosa and Schey can convince me otherwise, I doubt that any common good is served by pro- viding suburbanites and labor con- tractors with fresh supplies of ultra- exploitable labor. Obviously, with- out the resulting downward pull on low-end wages, the U.S. economy would look different. For example, labor scarcity would force wages to rise. Unions might find it easier to organize workers. Right-wing dem- agogues might find it harder to play the race card. Isn't this what the left used to want? If border control is, by definition, racist, then it would seem that the only moral position in immigration debates is acceptance of an open border. Judging from the worried references to African Americans, Puerto Ricans and other Latinos who fail to perceive that they bene- fit from rising immigration levels, your authors are aware that they are not a very popular vanguard. This raises another assumption running through several articles: that people of color should swallow their doubts and instead look forward to the benefits of building up large racial voting blocs. This is identity politics, of course. Hopefully, Mike Davis will update us on how well it is working in southern California. Latinos are not the threat to American culture that white racists think they are, despite the high- sounding rhetoric of some Chicano activists. Contrary to the implications of the issue's cover-a border crosser who is being frisked with his arms up like a crucified Christ-the undocumented are not the only vic- tims of the great immigration game. What we have instead is a complex chain of victims and victimizers that stretches all the way back to sending communities and forward to future generations. Victims in one context can become victimizers in another, and vice versa. For all of these reasons, NACLA should not use the campaign to nul- lify Prop 187 to discourage debate over the larger issues posed by immigration. To the contrary, more debate is badly needed, especially on the left. In conclusion, may I suggest that the many costs of immigration are why, as the Report introduction states, "the progres- sive response to the backlash has so far been muted." The reason is that NACLA is defining "progressive" contrary to how the majority of working people perceive their interests, regardless of color. David Stoll New York, New York Puerto Rican Attitudes WX hile Howard Jordan's article "V "Immigrant Rights: A Puerto Rican Issue?" was objective and informative, it was incomplete. It did not address the immigration debate in Puerto Rico, and how that shapes so-called "Puerto Rican ambivalence" towards immigration among Puerto Ricans living in the United States. Under the current colonial arrangement between Puerto Rico and the United States, Puerto Rico has no jurisdiction over immigra- tion. As a consequence, any U.S. citizen can live, work and set up a business on the island, often to the irritation of many Puerto Ricans. Over 500,000 people-15% of the island's population-is "foreign born," including 150,000 North Americans. More than 200,000 Dominicans -thousands of whom are undocu- mented-currently live in Puerto Rico. Many came in rickety boats in search of their "visa para un sueiio" (visa for a dream) as Juan Luis Guerra puts it in one of his songs. While many Dominicans use the island as a stepping stone to the United States, a good number decide to remain on the island. The reaction of Puerto Ricans on the island against these Dom- inicans is not unlike the reaction of U.S. residents against immigrants in the United States. Dominican immigrants in Puerto Rico tend to have low-wage positions as house- keepers, janitors and construction workers-jobs which most Puerto Ricans on the island don't want. Nonetheless, Dominicans are blamed for taking away jobs from Puerto Ricans, as well as for the high crime rate on the island. The tensions between Puerto Ricans and Dominicans in Puerto Rico also have racial connotations. Some Puerto Ricans, especially lighter-skinned ones, look down on Dominicans, who tend to be of darker complexion. To grasp the complexity of the immigration issue and the effect it has on Puerto Ricans both on the island and on the U.S. mainland, we must take into account the role that Puerto Rico plays in the inter- national division of labor. The island operates as both a labor magnet and a labor exporter. Al- though I approach the topic from a somewhat different perspective, I would, in the end, agree with Howard Jordan: immigration defi- nitely is a Puerto Rican issue. David Fontdnez New York, New York
