Archive for July, 2009

Day 13 of the Institute: State Laws and Migration to the American West

July 24, 2009

Prof. Elliott Barkan, Prof Emeritus at California State University – San Bernardino. Research focuses on immigration and naturalization, with particular interest in 20th century comparative ethnic studies. An author of many books, in today’s lecture he’ll focus on immigrant experiences in the western states.
Prof. Barkan started with the importance of the original sources when dealing with immigration history, saying many historians get basic facts wrong by quoting from a secondary sources.

The lecture focuses on two points:

Point 1: The important of original sources.

Prof. Barkan was the first historian to use the statistics to write the story of immigrants. He gained first access to the naturalized citizens’ data from the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS). He’s also the first to conduct a public opinion polls towards immigrants. He believes a pattern could be produced by looking at the numbers because historians, by nature are story tellers who deal with narratives. Stories capture certain aspects of the larger narratives of immigrant experiences.

Prof. Barkan read a story of Jewish immigrant man who in mid 19th century started peddling, getting credit and starting more business including buying and selling ships. One important rule to story writing: be faithful to the stories. Barkan notated a theme that runs through immigrant stories is risk-taking, decision making as it relates who leaves and who stays in the old country. This is so because leaving from home village or town takes enormous courage even when there are a networks and social capitals. These decisions are collectively made by families mostly.

The gender aspect of immigrant stories is important too. Immigrating to America was liberating to many women because they could work outside the home. This was not common in many cultures where patriarchy keeps women confined to home.

The discussion shifted to how one makes judgment on what immigrant stories are authentic and how what one chooses represents the larger immigrant voice? Prof. Barkan summed up his answer that it’s up to the historian as an expert to make that judgment call. The discussion moved into how historians privilege the written word over spoken word.

Barkan moved on and discussed on a story on an Imam on 5th Mosque Brooklyn, New York, who was featured in New York Times article, looking into his experience of working with diverse Muslim women and counseling them about modern problems. This was an example of how stories in newspapers can be used as a basis for building narratives.

Barkan observed one fundamental fact about immigrants: if you want to get ahead in an economical way, you have to learn English. Monolingual foreign language immigrants have the lowest income, second level is bilingual and the highest income group of immigrants are the ones who speak English as native language. The process of Americanization of immigrants are being undermined, in his opinion, by charter schools because they replace the public schools, the historical institution of assimilation of immigrants.

Similarly, the civic religion – July 4th, the Labor Day and Thanks Giving – serves as vehicles for assimilation. They are the starting point of Americanization because they provide immigrants with neutral holidays that don’t conflict with their religious traditions.

The American West is historically presented as though it was built by Americans from the East. The fact is that it was built by immigrants. The railroads and bridges were mostly built by first or second generation immigrants. By 1920s, 1/3 of all the population of Western states was immigrants.

Point 2: Evolution of Immigration Laws :

Immigration laws result from the inter-play between city, state and federal governments. The tension between the three levels of governments gives rise to the shape and reach of immigration laws. Example of this legal tension is the San Francisco city ordinances that targeted Chinese laundries to drive out of business by promulgating regulations that were too difficult to follow. This eventually become the basis to the Chinese Exclusion Act that Congress enacted which prohibited Chinese from becoming citizens. The case of Wong Kim Ark, a native born American of Chinese descent who traveled to China but was denied to return because of Exclusion Act was litigated at the US Supreme Court. In 1898 the Supreme Court ruled in his favor based on the Fourteenth Amendment of equal treatment. This landmark ruling was celebrated all across in Chinatowns in America.

A recommended book on Chinese immigrants’ treatment in 19th century is Ericka Lee’s book on this period. The significant thing about various immigration laws was not the law itself but how it’s interpreted. When law was enacted by the Congress, it was up to the immigration officials to decide how the law is to be carried out. When particular laws reaches the officials, they would interpret it and put their initials in it. As the law reaches various administrative levels, more and more officials will do the same. This shows how enforcing officials have had disproportionate influence on the law, sometimes interpreting in ways that are favorable to immigrants, other times enforcing the law in a much harsher way than the law intended. American immigration law is, in this sense, according to Prof. Barkan, “a series of initials” and interpretations of INS officials.

The Japanese immigrants in California in early 20th century are another example of how immigration laws results from the intersection of foreign policy, congress, state and city laws. In this case, cities and state of California were enacting discriminatory laws against Japanese and were pressuring the Congress to do the same but the State Department lobbied against this because of the resulting diplomatic headache with the imperial Japan, a raising world power at the time.

After Wong Kim Ark’s land mark ruling, the second most important legal step was the repeal of Chinese Exclusion Act of 1946 and its expanded version of 1952 that eliminated all racial barriers to legal citizenship. This further led to 1965 Immigration Act that leveled the field and resulted within few years the fact that over half of immigrants admitted in the subsequent years were of Asian descent.

The lecture ended with Prof. Barkan’s analysis of citizenship as another important dimension of immigration laws.Citizenship is how immigrants become engaged in American society, gain privileges and protections. Citizenship is the lynchpin of chain immigration which explains ethnic immigrant enclaves. Once one gets citizenships, they tend to sponsor family members and spouses who sponsor more family members and spouses, setting off a chain migration.

Advertisements

Day 12 of the History of American Immigration Seminar: Personal Correspondence and the Culture of Emigration in Nineteenth Century

July 22, 2009

The lecture was led by David Gerber of University of Buffalo, an expert on analyzing the letter of immigrants and how they inform us in terms the day to day experiences of immigrants of 19th Century.

Prof. Gerber collected massive amount of immigrant letters and found them a pattern. Historians read letters of immigrants with a view of answering questions they’ve in mind already. This is mistake as historians need to view letters with fresh mind. Letters, says Gerber, carry a meaning that can only be decoded by reading them aloud. In doing so, one needs to focus on the relationships between the letter writer and receiver. This correspondence facilitates the continuality of who we are, which is driven from the relationships we engage, which in turn, shapes the essence of who we are.

The millions of letters written by immigrants are the only source to help us inform the experience of average immigrants. Zenniecki, a Polish immigrant who was a sociologist at the University of Chicago was a pioneer in analyzing the correspondences between Polish peasants in Europe and America. Zennicki, by analyzing these letters, was able to analyze how the peasants of Europe were dealing with the effects of the disorganization of modernization.

In this view, letters were seen as “artifacts or relationships” that revealed how modernization negatively affected immigrant families. However, not all historians saw the immigrant families as dysfunctional and suffering. These were historians who were interested in finding the authentic voices of “little people,” the immigrants.

Prof. Gerber is critical of what he calls the “instrumentalist” approach of using immigrant letters to test a pre-conceived hypothesis. This results from the long tradition of historians to push immigrants into categories of ethnicity that is not always reflected by the individual. The idea that individual is insignificant results from the approach of seeing immigrants as parts of rigid categories. An examples of these are the botanical metaphors of the two classical texts on immigration “the Uprooted” and “the Transplanted.”

Putting the immigrants in the categories of ethnicity and class leaves no room for the creative adaptations and feelings of nostalgia and hope that immigrants engage in. These feelings can be decoded from the personal letters that immigrants send and receive from old countries.

The themes that run through these letters are the ideas of “self” and “individuation.” While reading these letters are problematic in that they are written poorly in terms of grammar, punctuation and the quality of the ink and letter, yet with patience one can gleam the feelings and emotions as well as the objectives of the authors.

They key question to ask is what value do these letters have? The value of these letters is found by in the intent of the writers. Immigrants wrote letters mainly to maintain relationships. At times, the identity of authors of the letter writers emerges not from who they are but who they intend to become. In one letter, an immigrant writes home and proclaims to have become a “yankee.” Letters can reveal the psychological process that immigrants were going through.

Now the participants of the debate are engaging in a debate over the seriousness of the meaning of letters of immigrants. Some people are saying that the meaning of these letters reveal who’s reading as opposed to what is in the reading of these letters.

…I posed a question on the comparative value of 19th century immigrants and those of contemporary immigrants. The speaker acknowledged the value of such project but he hasn’t done it, saying it’s a project for someone else.

Major point for the letters immigrants send is what’s called a vicarious tourism, meaning the excitement immigrants tell in their letters is enjoyed by receivers as they imagine what life is like in America.

We broke for lunch and called it a day.

Day Ten: Barbara Posadas: Remittances and the Transfmission of Resources and the transmission of Resources by Migrating Workers”

July 18, 2009

Today’s lecture was led by Prof. Posadas of history dept. at the Northern Illinois University, has specialty in Philippine migration.

Lecture opened with the a story that appeared in Milwaukee Journal on Philippine woman. The story appeared in 2006. The woman came to the US in 1985 as a maid, an illegal one, but stayed for over 20 years because she was kept as an indentured servant. She did not attempt to travel because she was afraid if she went back home she would not be able to come back. Even if she wanted, she couldn’t because her passport was confiscated. This family, the Calimlins, instructed their Filipino servant not to appear with them and kept her in conditions similar to slavery.

How can this family of doctors be so cruel to this immigrant Philippine? The story, while troubling in nature, is typical for many immigrants who work so hard and sacrifice their life for the betterment of their families.

Historians of immigration have for the most part, ignored the issue of remittance. This is so because most historians focus on the people who came to America to stay. Money sent home as remittances where seen as money intended to buy ticket for the families left home. However, the research shows otherwise as the case of Italians who sent money home to buy houses and farms. The classic case of this argument is made by Handlin, in his book, “the Uprooted” that imagines immigrants as pushed peasants who suffered a lot but at the end will become Americans some day, and if not them, their children will.

In contrast to Handlin, Maldwyn Jones, views immigrants as “pulled” by the economic and upward social mobility opportunities available to them here in the US.

John Bodnar who wrote, in his book, “The Transplanted” goes step further and demolishes the notion of immigrants as victims. He focuses on the activities immigrants engage in to construct a social space for themselves. Remittances are the most striking example of this.

The latest book on the historiography of immigration by Spickard, “Almost All Aliens,” discusses the immigrants’ role of sending remittances as the leading economic sector for their home countries.

The second part of the lecture was on the key changes affecting immigration to the US.

The 1965 Hart-Cellar Act of immigration reform law opened the doors for non-European immigrants mainly Asians.

Other changes were attributed to the changes in transportation and communication. It’s easier now due to the cheaper airplane tickets. Similarly the communication such as cell phones and internet makes the decisions of immigration more likely as the immigrants tell their lives in US to their families. Immigrants can also use the easier communication to strategize how to help the families left behind come to the US.

Prof. Pasados moved on to discussing the “Transnationalism” defined as trans-migrants who maintain and develop multiple relations – familial, economic, social, organizational, religious and political that span borders. Trans-migrants take actions, make decisions, feel concerns and develop identities within social networks that connect them to two or more societies simultaneously (Schiller, 1992).

In transnationalism, remittances are central concepts. The immigrant sending remittances often sets a chain migration in motion. The importance of remittances is illustrated by the fact that in the Philippines, over 17 billion US$ was sent back to home as remittances.

Torrie asked whether there is a pattern that explains which group of Philippines goes to specific places? Prof. Posados, explained the class dimension where immigrants with specific skills go to specific countries. An example is construction workers who go to Saudi Arabia and nurses who come to the United States.

Point to Note: Ethnic immigration, April 9th, 2010 keynote speaker will be Keith Ellison, the congress man in my area.

Finally: the gender and class dimension of remittances needs to be pursued further. Something I’ve to think about.

We broke for lunch.

Day 10 of the Summer Institute: International Relations: An International History and US Immigration

July 17, 2009

Day 10 of the Summer Institute: International Relations: An International History and US Immigration
By nehinstitute
We read three journal articles, mostly on our way back from New York. After three days of hectic stay in New York, there was no much energy left for studying but we had no choice.
Today’s speaker is from my home state, Minnesota. Prof. Gabaccia is at the University of Minnesota where she directs the Immigration History Research Center.
Prof. Donna Gabaccia is introduced by Prof. Maureen Nutting, the Institute’s director. Immigration History Research Center (IHRC) has rich material on east and southern European migration as well as new refugees.
The lecture started with A. Wimmer and N. G. Schiller on explanation of the “methodological nationalism: Nation- State Building, migration and social science” in Global Networks (2002). This is new theory that advocates immigration seen in the context in its global and transnational nature.
The discussion is broken in 3 parts: the terms, specific individual projects.
Terminology and Methodological Nationalism:
Immigration, migration, mobility, movement and other (diasporic). The group was asked to discuss what these terms mean to them as they relate to their specific projects.
Prof. Jim, an institute participant posed the question: the term, transnational’s, is used loosely and not well defined.
Prof. Mary, another participant: Nation states are contested in Africa. Thus the transnationalism may not be well suited as a conceptual analysis.
2. Methodological Nationalism and Research
Discussion focused on the focus of region and country as well as the problem that academics have with people who study immigration in transnational context.
Prof. Kraut: the health perspective particularly germs are transnational in nature. Similarly the Jewish studies are transnational and diasporic in nature.
Prof. Gabacciano: Best way to study immigration is look at the where immigrants start their immigration and where they end.
Conclusion on methodology, teaching and resources?
What if we ask not about how migration builds US but connects a nation to the rest of the world.
What if we consider US openness to immigration as a form of engagements with the wider world?
What if we analyze US immigration in relationship to other forms of engagement with the world (i.e. diplomacy, foreign trade, commerce)?
Why foreign relations? One aspect of this is the non-state actors that engage in negotiations and other cross-national history. Migrants are an example of non state actors. Immigrants, in this context, are foreign relations of previous and natives. The networks that make their movements possible are a form of foreign relations. As such immigrants seek to influence official or governmental foreign relations.
International migration sometimes is driven by the bilateral diplomatic relations that governments engage in.
Example of how immigrants influence government was the history of history of sponsorship based on family reunification, a notion that started with the Jewish groups fleeing prosecution.
Prof. Gabacciana refuted the myth of 19th century American immigrants as breaking with the past and leaving everything behind. This ignores the fact that immigrants have always been in contacts with the “old world” as evidenced by the volume of letters sent back and forth as well as the remittances going both ways.

5th Day of the NEH Seminar: Assian Migration: Excusion and Discrimination

July 9, 2009

Today’s lecture was led by Prof. Madeline Y. Hsu of University of Texas. Widely known for her expertise in Asian immigration, particularly Chinese immigration, Prof. Hsu lectured on the historiography of Asian immigrants.

Prof. Hsu started her lecture with the fact that the notion of American nation-state was built on the premise of “who can’t become American,” not who wants or can become a citizen of this country. This led to a related discussion on laws and legislations built around this exclusionary idea.

The second part of Prof. Hsu’s discussion focused on the ethnicity and the problems that result the laws targeting the different ethnic groups. The melting pot and who can melt to become part of the citizenry started in late 18th century. The concept of melting pot was built on the assumption that only European nationalities leaving the old countries behind were the only group of people allowed to become part the “great race” of America.

The Asian immigration centered around the Pacific basin. Harnessing the natural forces of currents and seasonal winds in Pacific ocean, Chinese immigrants used boats to cross the breadth of Pacific ocean.

Unlike the traditional American migration to “Go West,” Asian immigrants moved from west to east. The significant thing in Asian immigration is the idea of the use of border control to exclude immigrants from coming the America. This took hold in late 1890s, precipitated by economic depression. In this period, the Chinese were portrayed as rat eating savages that would work for any wage thus lowering the leaving standard of working American. This resulted in the “draft riots” that subjected the Chinese immigrants to lynching and violence. In the same period, there was numerous political cartoons depicting Chinese workers as filthy, greedy and sub-human. This was perpetrated mostly by Irish who used to the exclusion of Chinese as a way to leverage their status and elevate them to a higher place in the race conscious America.

The first Chinese Exclusion law was passed in 1882. These laws, while serving expedience for local politicians, created a problems for the State Department as it affected their diplomatic engagements vis-a-vis with the government of China. The laws targeting Chinese also targeted other Asians such as Japanese which even created more problems as Japan was a world power at the time hence more diplomatic difficulties for State Dept.

Prof. Hsu noted that although the Chinese were marginal here in the US, their transnational life allowed them to attain higher status in their Chinese villages. And so while they were at the bottom of American society, the Chinese were considered as middle class in their societies.

The laws limiting Chinese from becoming citizens legislated Asians as “aliens ineligible for citizenship” even if they were born here in the United States. Chinese challenged this through courts but were unsuccessful save for few cases.  This category effectively barred Chinese from immigrating to the United States. The laws remained in effect until World War II when China and America became allies against Japan.  This resulted in the “Repeal of Exclusion” law in 1943. For Japanese, the exclusion was lifted in 1947 by the Congress. This fight against the exclusionary laws was led by Japanese American veterans who came from European theater of World War II. Their heroic service in the war allowed them to fight for more rights. Despite this, the laws against miscegenation were not repealed until 1967 by Supreme Court.

There was  a brief discussion by seminar participants focusing on the race dynamics between African Americans and Chinese and how these dynamics played out during the Civil Rights movement.  Prof. Hsu discussed how the class profile of Chinese community and that of Asians in general was affected by the immigration laws that dictate who can came and how the current policies give preference to immigrants who have certain skills in certain professions.

At 10:30am we broke for 10 minute break and came back for Q and A discussion.  The discussion focused on Wang Gungwu’s article on Chinese Sojourners in south east Asia. Sojourners is a new concept in migration studies. It describes people who like the Mexican Braceros of during and after World War II work on a short term basis in their host countries with the understanding of returning to their homeland.

How immigrants are seen as threats (in the context of Asians in South Asia)?

Prof. Hsu: sojourners could be useful because they alleviate the fears of locals because the notion that these sojourners are temporarily here makes their admission more likely.

Why people keep moving around or what keep immigrants move permanently. Prof. Kraut commented that sojourners maintain flexibility to move back and forth depending on the availability of jobs and economic up/down turns.  

Question I posed to Prof. Hsu: Do immigrants sometimes label themselves as sojourners not for political and economical reasons but for psychological reasons to maintain the hope and yearning for returning hope one day?

Prof. Hsu Delved into the economic aspects of migration and people’s movement. Others gave responses that elaborated the disconnection between sojourning as a romanticized exile mentality and the reality of immigrants, who for all practical proposes overwhelmingly remain here or any other place that these immigrants migrated to.

The discussion veered into the controversies over the terms that immigration historians use such as assimilation etc. Prof. Hsu invoked the book on this subject by Alpha Knees. I hope to check out this book someday.

Prof. Gary moved the group from the obsession with semantics and moved the debate to the core burning political issue: is immigration threat? If you’re living in Fuji, immigration is threat if you’re native. This made the debate more vigorous.

Prof. Torrie Hester asked how exclusionary immigration policies were used to raise the “image” of the concerned countries in late 19th century and early 20th centuries given that Mexican politicians used this argument as a reason for excluding Chinese immigrants. Prof. Kraut commented the fact that “border control” was always associated with the idea of modern nation state hence the exhortation by pundits i.e. Bill O’Really to call for building the wall and putting the US marines on the border to “CONTRON OUR BORDERS!” This is being discussed with vigor in the context of current immigration debate.

Last Question: There was no last question:

Two people joined us now: an elegantly dressed man who was introduced as former president of American Historical Association. His name is Roger. He gave spiel of his role in the creation of National History Center. … and wished us good luck.

Day Four of my Summer Institute at the American U and Library of Congress

July 9, 2009

Day four of my National Endowment for Humanities Summer Institute focused on African, Afro-Caribean immigrants. Led by Prof . Violet Johnson, the authors of many articles including “What, Then, Is the African American?” African and Afro-Caribbean Identities in Black America.
A Sierra Leone descent, born in Nigeria and now American citizen, Prof. Johnson’s lecture started with discussion on semantics, the terms used to describe the immigrants of African Descent. Some scholars talk about voluntary immigrants vs forced immigrants to make distinction between black immigrants and descendents of slavery.
Despite the inclination of some scholars to present African immigrants as homogenous group, Johnson observes these  are not monolithic. Some are well established. Actually African immigrants as a group are the most educated group in America, more than even Asians and whites. Others are refugees forced from their home by war and prosecution. Prof. Johnson lamented that refugees are presented as a helpless group who lack what social scientists  call “agency.” Agency refers to the person’s ability to  make personal decisions that affect their destiny and fate.

Another problematic approach to studying Africans is the simplistic comparison between African immigrants and African Americans where immigrants are idealized as a hardworking, survivors  who avoid dysfunctions stereotypically associated with African Americans. This “model minority” representation does not take the social problems African immigrants, more so the second generation, continue to face in contemporary America. Prof. Kraut, the director of the Institute and noted immigration historian commented that it’s common to have the historiography of immigrants go  through stages. The stages include the creation of the immigrant image as hero and noble. This type representation is perpetuated often by people who have agenda of using the success or claimed success of one immigrant group as a prove that the promise of America is within the reach of everybody who’s willing to work for it.  

Prof. Johnson discussed how second generation immigrants reclaim their heritage event they don’t have personal experience in that heritage. This cultural production takes the form of parades and other public celebrations. The most prominent parade is the Nigerian Independence day in New York. This is being mainstreamed so much that it has the potential to become another St. Patrick’s Day where everybody becomes Irish, in this case , for a day.

In Africa, there is growing recognition to the Diaspora. Ghana now celebrates the Diaspora Day where the celebration or marking of the day of “Departed” take place.

In the last half of the lecture, we were divided into three groups with each group tackling a set of questions that deal with how to teach African immigration and its importance.

Then we broke for lunch….

…and moved to the Library of Congress reading rooms to do research. A painstaking but rewarding process that tests one’s patience. The Library of Congress is behemoth, a maze that I got lost several times in a matter of minutes.  I took the reminder of the day to acclimate myself with this labyrinth of archives and collections of knowledge that is estimated to be 123 million items. Hopefully, I’ll be able to gather the type of I need in a timely fashion so I can maintain the required progress for my research.

 

…That’s it for day four. Stay tuned for day 5.

Day Three of the Seminar

July 8, 2009

Day three focussed on Irish immigration…(I’ll complete this post late since I lost my notes on this day’s lecture)

First three Days at the Institute

July 8, 2009

Prof. Posadas of history dept. at the Northern Illinois University, has specialty in Philippine migration.

Lecture opened with the story that appeared in Milwaukee Journal in 2006 on Filipino woman. The woman came to the US in 1985 as a maid, an illegal one, but stayed for over 20 years because she was kept as an indentured servant. If she travelled and went back home she was afraid that would not be able to come back. Even if she wanted, she couldn’t because her passport was confiscated. This family, the Calimlins, instructed their Filipino servant not to appear with them and kept her in conditions similar to slavery.
How can this family of doctors be so cruel to this immigrant? The story, while unusual in nature, is typical for many immigrants who work so hard and sacrifice their life for the betterment of their families. These immigrants work conditions where they are exploited but they endure it because it helps them support their loved ones in the old country by sending remittances.
Historians of immigration have for the most part, ignored the issue of remittance. This is so because most historians focused on the people who came to America to stay. Money sent home as remittances were seen as money intended to buy ticket for the family left home. As such, immigrants were presented as forward looking individuals who break with the old country and direct their energies and resources to their adopted land. The classic case of this argument is made by Handlin, “the Uprooted” that imagines immigrants as pushed peasants who suffered a lot but at the end will become Americans some day, and if not them, their children will. In contrast to Handlin, Maldwyn Jones, views immigrants as “pulled” by the economic and upward social mobility opportunities available to them here in the US.

However, the research shows otherwise as the case of Italians who sent money home to buy house and farms in their villages. John Bodnar who wrote “The Transplanted” goes step further and demolishes the notion of immigrants as victims. He focuses on the activities immigrants engage to construct a social space for themselves. Remittances sent to back home are the most striking example of this.
The latest book on the historiography of immigration by Spickard, “Almost All Aliens,” discusses the immigrants’ role of remittances senders as the leading economic sector for their home countries.
The second part of the lecture was on the key changes affecting immigration to the US.
The 1965 Hart-Cellar Act of immigration reform law opened the doors for non European immigrants mainly Asians. Other changes were attributed to the changes in transportation and communication. It’s easier now due to the cheaper airplane. Similarly the communication such as cell phones and internet makes the decisions of immigration more likely as the immigrants tell their lives in the US to their families. Immigrants can also use the easier communication to strategize how to help the families left behind come to the US.

Prof. Posados moved on to discussing the “Transnationalism” defined as trans-migrants who maintain and develop multiple relations – familial, economic, social, organizational, religious and political that span borders. Trans-migrants take actions, make decisions, feel concerns and develop identities within social networks that connect them to two or more societies simultaneously (Schiller, 1992).
In transnationalism, remittances are central concepts. The immigrant sending remittances often sets a chain migration in motion. The importance of remittances is illustrated by the fact that in Philipines, over 17 billion $US was sent back to home. The negative side of this felt when it is affected by the fluctuations in the economy.
Torrie asked whether there is a pattern that explains which group of Philippines goes to specific places? Prof. Posados, explained the class dimension where immigrants with specific skills go to specific countries. An example is construction workers who go to Saudi Arabia and nurses who come to the United States.
Point to Note: Ethnic immigration, April 9th, 2010 keynote speaker will be Keith Ellison, my congressional delegate.
Finally: the gender and class dimension of remittances needs to be pursued further. Something I’ve to think about.

We broke for lunch.

Hello world!

July 8, 2009

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!