Carnegie
Corporation
of New York
Winter 2008
In the summer of 2001, Carnegie Corporation had refocused its attention on immigrant issues in response to a period of rapid growth in the number of newcomers. “Immigrants are expected to account for one-third of population growth over the next fifty years,” Mannion wrote at the time, “and when their children are included, the proportion rises to two-thirds.” Noting the influx of Muslims and Buddhists and the shift of immigrants to new gateways such as North Carolina, Nebraska and Tennessee, she asked, “Will the United States become a nation that integrates these newcomers in all aspects of civic life, or a nation divided?” To find the answer, the Corporation’s Board of Trustees approved funding for a major study 2 of immigrant attitudes toward civic participation—a first step in a long-range plan to help bring immigrants into the American mainstream. Nor was the Corporation alone in seeing the need for progress in this policy area. In early September 2001, President George W. Bush had been about to enter into an historic agreement with Mexico’s President Vicente Fox that served as “a signal of the Congress’ willingness to work with the Mexican Government to achieve our common goals, and to maintain fair immigration policies,” in the words of Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy. But 9/11 put an end to any such aspirations.
“Where there had been a great feeling of opportunity, there was now increasing anti-immigrant backlash,” Mannion recalls, “which impacted upon this new phase of grantmaking.” Two of Carnegie Corporation’s important grants (to the Washington D.C.-based Migration Policy Institute and National Immigration Forum) meant to deal with the challenges and opportunities of large-scale immigrant integration ended up being used to put out fires. In the wake of 9/11, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which spells out admissions criteria and exclusion rules for all foreign nationals who come permanently to the United States as immigrants, or temporarily as nonimmigrants, was broadened to deny entry to representatives of groups that endorse terrorism, prominent individuals who endorse terrorism, and (in certain circumstances) spouses and children of aliens who are removable on terrorism grounds. As immigrants bore the brunt of these heightened national security measures, efforts to integrate millions of legal immigrants and to assist in the legalization of undocumented immigrants stalled. Everything had to be reframed in relationship to security.
Background checks and other administrative rules from the Office of Homeland Security—now in charge of Citizenship and Immigration Services—further delayed naturalization and visa applications and increased burdens on legal residents and their families. Those who were undocumented or in a mixed-family status (where the children may be citizens and either parent undocumented, for example) retreated further into the shadows.
The U.S. has traditionally “paid more attention to how people get here (immigration policies) than to how they get along once they are here (immigrant policies),” according to Mannion. While even the old gateways are ill-equipped to handle the new influx, nontraditional receiving states are especially lacking in resources for integrating newcomers. “Negative attitudes from native-born citizens, particularly since September 11, 2001, further complicated the process of integration,” she adds, “meaning local and state governments and nonprofits face significant challenges as they try to build an infrastructure for immigrant integration and advancement.”
2 Now That I’m Here: What America’s Immigrants have to Say about Life in the U.S. Today by Steve Farkas, Ann Duffett and Jean Johnson with Leslie Moye and Jackie Vine.
www.publicagenda.org/specials/immigration/immigration.htm.