THE IMMIGRATION debate underway in the United States is of critical importance to New Jersey’s business community. With a sizeable immigration population, both documented and undocumented, the result of any legislation passed will resonate throughout our state. I want to highlight some important facts that deserve further consideration. 

According to the Pew Research Center, our state is home to some 360,000 undocumented workers. The Statewide Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of New Jersey does not endorse or support illegal immigration. We do, however, recognize that the undocumented population serves an important economic need within our state. 

One of the key arguments used against undocumented workers is that they take jobs away from willing workers in New Jersey. The state had an unemployment rate of 4.5% in March. In March 1986, New Jersey had an unemployment rate of 5.2%. Despite the influx of more than 360,000 undocumented persons, there was a sharp drop in joblessness over this 20-year stretch . During this same period, the total number of documented workers increased by more than 600,000. This shows that the state’s economy successfully absorbed both documented and undocumented workers. 

Does some worker displacement take place? Yes, but it does so at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. Undocumented workers are not displacing knowledge workers. Citizens and legal residents with a limited education, such as high school dropouts, are the ones at risk. They represent approximately 11% of our state’s workforce. The goal should not be to ensure that these people have lifelong access to low-paying, unattractive jobs by eliminating the supply of undocumented workers. The goal should be to find ways to provide these workers with the skills and education necessary to obtain higher-paying, more productive jobs. 

During this same 20-year period, our state has seen a remarkable increase in income. Per-capita income has increased from $18,800 to $43,800. Disposable household income has increased 133% from $16,200 to $37,800. During the period, cumulative inflation represented 84%. This indicates that both per-capita and disposable household income grew consistently and on a real basis. Both increases also outstrip the overall national growth during this period by a sizeable margin. 

With significant growth in both employment and income, the argument that undocumented workers pose an economic threat to New Jersey loses steam. This community adds to the economic strength of our state. Legislative efforts should focus on how to incorporate these members lawfully into our society. They should be held accountable for entering the country illegally, but they should not be barred from becoming full-fledged members of our society. It is in everyone’s interest to find a reasonable, compromise solution to the status of the undocumented population. Let’s focus on that.

Immigration, Diversity, and Broadcasting in the United States, 1990-2001. Vibert C. Cambridge. Athens: The Ohio University Press, 2005. 309 pp. $28.00 pbk. 

The topic of immigration is timely, especially in light of recent regulatory endeavors by various states to facilitate, or exclude, immigrant access to public services. As broadcast and other mass media, which disseminate their product to nearly every home in the United States, may yet be given universal service status (e.g., for disaster warnings), it is also timely that we turn attention to the quality of service these media provide for our multicultural communities. The third installment in the Ohio University Global and Comparative Studies series, Vibert C. Cambridge’s Immigration, Diversity, and Broadcasting in the United States, 1990-2001, provides the foundation for this attention. 

Cambridge, associate professor in the School of Telecommunications and chair of the Department of African American Studies at Ohio University, is uniquely attuned to the relationship between broadcasting and immigration. He, himself, immigrated to the United States from Guyana after working for some time in the broadcasting industry. His personal experience as an immigrant has no doubt fueled his interest in how mass media and multicultural population growth intersect. The extensive research into the multicultural programs and opportunities provided by the U.S. media is evident in the breadth of information shared in this book. 

The major strength of this book is the wealth of historical details presented for each topic covered. Logically, the major waves of immigration into the United States, beginning with colonization, are introduced first, with special attention paid to the changing demographics of the immigrants, ranging from country of origin to age and sex. Settlement patterns are also discussed, which gives readers a context in which to place the specific histories of minority-focused media outlets subsequently presented. The greater part of the book provides historical origins, general descriptions, facts and figures regarding the ethnic press, radio and minority radio, commercial broadcast and public television, cable, and community access. Attention is paid to a wide set of minority communities, including peoples of African, Caribbean, Indian, Native American, Asian, and Hispanic descent. The sheer amount of information offered provides ample opportunities to develop one’s own research questions, as well as draw one’s own conclusions on a number of dimensions. It is on this merit that I would encourage those interested in minority broadcasting and minority depictions in mass media to read this book, as well as suggest its use in the classroom. 

A few criticisms are offered. For example, the first chapter outlines three sets of questions Cambridge hopes to address with his research. In summary, the questions regard how the media have responded to the changing multicultural landscape, whether the media’s responses are conducive to a healthy society, and how these responses might guide the efforts of other nations’ media systems. These research questions are revisited and discussed in the last chapter of the book, but they are largely neglected in the body of the work, receiving only brief mention amidst the bulk of descriptives of media organizations and offerings. Because the presented research findings are not organized according to these research questions, the findings become somewhat disjointed from the purpose of the book and are only revived in their academic relevance in the final chapter. Also, in part because of this disjoining, the question about how the media have responded could benefit from more thorough discussion. It is largely left to the reader to not only recall the various descriptives presented but to synthesize and apply the descriptives in addressing this first question. 

The first chapter also introduces a theoretical framework consisting of social scientific, critical-cultural, and normative theories that will guide the research and research questions. This framework reappears in the fourth chapter, though this chapter focuses more on the history and philosophies surrounding the theories included in the framework rather than exploring the theories proper or discussing how these theories may intersect or inform each other. Furthermore, this framework is not expressly addressed in any other chapter, nor is it used to ultimately summarize or interpret the findings within its context. This lack of use undercuts its inclusion in the book. 

Another criticism regards the relative neglect of market forces in favor of political, social, or cultural motivations to explain media ownership and programming decisions, despite extensive treatment of economic issues. Word choice defining nomothetic methods as “preoccupied” with creating tests is also arguably questionable. 

Nonetheless, the writing is clear and the research substantial. Among the references used are newspapers and newswires, Web sites, television and radio programming directories, books and academic articles, and government and statistical reports. Summaries from in-depth interviews of minority community citizens and media outlets are twice included. Findings are largely reported in narratives written refreshingly in “plain English.” Although readers may discover some shortcomings in this book, such as those above, those shortcomings need not overshadow the immense reference value this book holds for established scholars and students alike.

Both sets of my grandparents were Italian immigrants. My grandfathers had relatives in Ohio who sponsored their entry into this country and the job market. Later, my grandfathers sponsored other members of my family and our numbers grew. Not one of my grandparents had a college education, yet they created a thriving produce business that generated enough money to buy homes, nice cars and college educations for their kids. This is hardly an unusual scenario; it’s the American dream, and it’s why this country became the powerhouse it is. The dream is at risk of fading away. 

Senators from both parties announced late last month that they had reached agreement on a comprehensive immigration bill that would offer legal status to the millions of illegal immigrants in this country. At the heart of the bill is a government-established point system that will evaluate prospective immigrants. Points would be awarded for English language proficiency, education and job skills. 

Under the current system a would-be immigrant can’t get a green card unless sponsored by an employer who pledges to put the person to work. The employer decides if he or she will sponsor a potential worker. But if the bill is approved, the new point system would take the hiring decision out of the employer’s hands and put it in the hands of the federal government. The point system would be skewed in favor of those with the most education and skills. 

On the surface, that sounds pretty good. It would allow this country to compete for the best minds. However, the Labor Department estimates that 37 percent of all new jobs in the next decade will be filled by people with a high school education or less. During that same period, the restaurant industry is expected to add two million jobs. Most of those jobs do not require advanced education. 

And let’s be honest here: a majority of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in this country are doing jobs that most Americans don’t want. There are not enough workers now to support our growing economy, and an army of college-educated immigrants are not what is needed. This bill will not help the hospitality industry. 

There’s plenty of trouble with this bill. Under a 1986 law, you are now required to ask job applicants for verification of their legal right to work in this country. Under the proposed bill, you would be required to confirm the identity and employment eligibility of all your employees on an electronic government database. There are nearly 13 million people employed by this industry, and the government will insist that you check the database for everyone or face a stiff fine. Are you willing to bet the goverment can or will keep the database updated and acccurate? 

This country was built by immigrants and their families. Under the proposed point system, some family members may pass the grade, while others may not. This bill has all the potential to rip families apart. My family and maybe yours would not have made it into the country if a similar bill had existed way back when. It smacks of elitism and discriminates against the poor and humble.

Did Bush Sacrifice GOP For Illegal Immigrants?[By Daniel T. Zanoza, Southwest Herald, (Chicago) November 27, 2006]
You don’t see headlines as straightforward as this very often. Long-time Bush watchers are disturbed to report that the current president apparently prefers Mexicans to his own people and is happy to undermine the nation’s sovereignty to benefits business [...]