By JIM GENARO

Though the number of Mexicans immigrating to the U.S. ó both legally and illegally ó has reached staggering new heights in recent years, the resentment held by natives toward new immigrants is nothing new, according to Dr. Mark Gibney.

Gibney, a Belk Distinguished Professor and professor of political science at UNC Asheville, discussed the history of immigration in the U.S. at the first of two public forums on the subject at the Jewish Community Center on Sept. 24. About 150 people attended the forum, which was sponsored by the League of Women Voters and and the Congregation Beth Ha Tephila.

In his opening remarks, Gibney welcomed the audience by saying, ìMy fellow immigrants,î a greeting he said was first made by President Franklin Roosevelt to a meeting of the Daughters of the American Revolution.

ìThere seems to be an enormous amount of emotion around this issue,î he told the audience.

He began by giving a snapshot of immigration from statistics gathered in 2006.

That year, Gibney said, 1.26 million people immigrated to the U.S. legally. However, it is estimated that an additional two million illegal immigrants came in during the same time period, he added.

The vast majority of immigrants are from Mexico, Gibney noted. Mexicans make up more than twice the number from any other country.

Among legal immigrants, 580,483 were people with immediate relatives ó parents, children, or spouses ó living in the U.S. An additional 222,229 immigrants came through connections to other family members.
Gibney noted that there is no cap on the number of people that can immigrate to the U.S. who have immediate family members there.

ìLegal migration is done by family connections,î he said. ìMost other countries donít do this.î

One problem with this arrangement, Gibney said, is that the U.S. does not have a means of deciding who comes in based on whether they would be desirable candidates for citizenship.

He offered his own suggestion of how to prioritize allowing immigrants to come to the country.
ìI would start with refugees,î Gibney said. ìIf thereís any group of people that need a new locale ... itís refugees.î

However, he noted that those seeking asylum in the U.S. make up the smallest percentage of immigrants accepted into the country ó only 44,000 in 2006.

Gibney then turned to the history of American immigration. He said this history is dominated by two strains. On the one hand, Americans perceive themselves as ìa nation of immigrants,î he said. On the other hand, there has always been ìan attempt to close the door shut.î

In its early days, the U.S. had no immigration control, he said. Anyone could come or go freely until the end of the 19th century, when public sentiment against Chinese immigrants began to grow and a number of politicians began campaigning on anti-immigration platforms.

This culminated in the passage of the Chinese Exlusion Act of 1882, which restricted Chinese immigration.
After the Supreme Court upheld that law, the so-called Gentlemenís Agreement of 1907 restricted immigration by Japanese citizens.

These laws led to the passage in 1921 of a national quota system, which set limits on the number of immigrants allowed from various countries, Gibney said.

That system remained in place until 1964 when Congress changed immigration laws to allow for refugees to be granted asylum in the U.S.

However, in keeping with the Cold War politics of the time, only refugees from communist countries were allowed to come in, a requirement that remained in place until 1980, Gibney noted.

In the 1980s, illegal immigration became a major topic of public debate, as an estimated 5-16 million undocumented workers came into the U.S., primarily from Mexico.

Public concern over this issue led to the passage of the Immigration Reform Act, a law which granted amnesty to all undocumented workers who had been in the country for five years and made employers responsible for documenting the citizenship of their workers.

ìThe promise that was made in 1986 was that weíd never have an illegal immigration problem again,î Gibney said.

Since that time, however, illegal immigration has continued to grow dramatically. One factor in this is a growing integration between American and Mexican culture, Gibney said.

He noted that when the Immigration Reform Act was passed, most immigration from Mexico was still done legally. Now, illegal immigrants from Mexico are roughly twice the number of their legal counterparts.

Furthermore, the illegal immigrants tend to be poorer and less educated than those who come in legally, he said. Only 51 percent of illegal immigrants have a high school diploma, Gibney noted.

He said that most of the recent public debate over illegal immigration ìhas been, ëHow high do we build the wall?íî

But Gibney argued that tighter borders can sometimes have the opposite of their desired effect ó they can keep illegal immigrants in the U.S.

ìThe tougher you get in terms of enforcement, you may be creating the problem you want to preventî by making illegal immigrants less likely to return to Mexico after the work season is over.

Gibney closed his talk by saying that he is often asked ìArenít you mad that people are coming here illegally?î

He said he always responds to that question by asking, ìIf you lived in Mexico, would you want to come to the U.S.î Gibney said he has never met anyone who answered ìnoî to that question.

Gibney then answered questions from the audience.

ìIf we didnít have entitlement programs that allowed them to live her without working, would they still come?î a woman asked.

Gibney replied that illegal immigrants do not qualify for most government-assistance programs. The exceptions, he said, are public schools, immunizations and emergency medical aid, which courts have ruled can not be withheld from anyone, regardless of legal status.

Furthermore, he said, legal immigrants cannot receive food stamps or other public assistance for the first five years after they arrive.

Another woman asked why Mexican immigration has increased so much in the past decade.

ìSome people donít think NAFTA has been that great,î Gibney answered. ìThe standard of living in Mexico has gone downî since the free-trade agreement went into effect in 1994.

A man asked whether ìwe ought to be focusing on the needs of our own country?î

Gibney agreed, but said, ìwe do that to a certain extent.î In terms of non-family-based immigration, U.S. policy does favor those with highly technical skills who would be an asset to the country, he said.

But at the same time, he added, Americans want to allow immediate family members to come in.
ìI donít think weíve decided what we want,î Gibney said. ìWe want it all.î

A man in the audience commended the Mexican immigrants, saying they are ìextremely hard-working peopleî who tend to be well-disciplined even at young ages.

Gibney replied that Mexican immigration ìis more inline with immigration a hundred years ago.î

Mexicans who come to the U.S. tend to be very poor but hard working. This is especially true of the illegal immigrants, he said. Legal immigrants, on the other hand, tend to be more prosperous.

A woman asked about the ìsecond generation of illegals raised in the U.S.î who finish high school after having grown up in the country, but then cannot get jobs because they are not citizens.

ìAre they refugees?î she asked.

ìNo, I think itís called a nightmare,î Gibney replied.

These people are placed in difficult positions, he said. Many of them think of themselves as Americans and have few ties to Mexico, but cannot legally stay and work in the country they have lived in since childhood.

A man told Gibney that ìmost of us have lost confidence that our government is capable of controlling anything it tries to do.î

Gibney responded that since the government appears unable to stop illegal immigration, his proposal would be to double the number of immigrants allowed from Mexico ó essentially allowing the undocumented workers to come in legally.

He also said that the U.S. needs to do something about the standard of living in Mexico to make it less desirable for Mexicans to immigrate. Economic hardship, he said, needs to be seen as a violation of basic human rights.

ìWhen people are getting one dollar or two dollars a day ó if you ask ëAre their rights being protected?í ó Iíd say no.î

A woman suggested that if American companies operating in Mexico paid their workers what they would pay workers in the U.S., ìa lot of these issues might go away.î

Gibney agreed, but noted that people assume it is inevitable that companies will pay Mexican workers less.

ìPeople treat that like itís gravity ó that thereís nothing that can be done about it,î he said. ìBut it could be done and itís actually pretty simple. It just takes the political will to do so.î

He noted that American companies operating in Mexico are bound by most of the same laws they would have to adhere to in the U.S., with three notable exceptions: health and safety standards, environmental standards and the minimum wage.

If they were forced to adhere to these, Mexican immigration might not be so common, he added.