2. 1
Introduction
It is said that without immigration, there would be no America. Not only has our country been
a melting pot of cultures since the colonial times, but one could even argue that Native
Americans were our country’s first immigrants when they migrating from Africa thousands of
years ago (Ewing, 2012). The immigration policy in United States history has always caused a
conflict of interests between citizens, and this conflict is extremely apparent in the most recent
changes to the law. Without the assistance or approval of congress, Obama has implemented
large modifications to the policy, postponing the deportation of illegal immigrants by three years.
It is not necessarily the change in policy that has so many people riled up, but the process in
which the president went about altering it. Yet with his aggressive approach, the changes will
only benefit the United States. Immigration has been a key component in boosting the economy
of many decaying cities through creative cultural community building and tourism.
History of the Immigration Policy
The earliest immigrants to migrate to the United States were from the Northwestern European
countries of England, France, and Germany (Ewing, 2012). These individuals sought political
and economic refuge from their native lands’ laws by moving their families to American during
colonial times (Ewing, 2012). As year went by, immigrants continued to move from other
countries around the world. The second wave of immigration came in the late 1800’s with the
arrival of many families from Southeastern Europe, followed by a third wave in the second half
of the 20th century bringing in individuals from Latin America, Asia, and Africa (Ewing, 2012).
What is interesting is that racism started to rear its head through these waves of relocation. With
the descendants of each wave settling and becoming accustomed to their new surroundings, they
began to look down at new arriving immigrants who were culturally different then themselves.
3. 2
The Northwestern Europeans looked down on the Southeastern Europeans who in turn looked
down on the immigrants that arrived from Latin America, Asia, and Africa (Ewing, 2012). Racial
superiority was prominent, and only became more progressive as the years went on.
The first time our nation saw any sort of regulation on immigration was 100 years after
America was founded in 1492, but actual restriction of races was not apparent until 1875 when a
law was put into place to exclude immigrants that were considered undesirable (Ewing, 2012).
The law itself was much like the new policy we have today in that it targeted immigrants who
were associated with criminal activity, but differed in that it also went after a specific race of
individuals: Chinese contract workers (Ewing, 2012). Exclusion furthered, and by 1891 the first
official national law was put into place allowing the rejection and deportation of immigrants who
had arrived unlawfully, practiced polygamy, or carried contagious diseases (Ewing, 2012).
Racial inequality was very apparent in the Quota Law of 1921. Not only did it place a cap on
the amount of immigrants that could enter the country in one year, but it put into place a
percentage law that favored Northwestern European immigrants. Using the demographic
population of 1910, the United States would not allow more than 3% of a specific race to enter
the country annually, and immigrants from the Western hemisphere were exempt from this law
altogether (Ewing, 2012). For example if there were only 200 Portuguese individuals out of the
entire population living in the U.S. in 1910, no more than 3%, or 6 individuals, of that race were
allowed to enter the country that current year. This gave an unfair advantage to any immigrants
who were not of European descent. In 1924 the National Origins Act created boarder control,
lowered the annual cap from 350,000 to 165,000 individuals, and changed the percentage and
year to a 2% limit of the 1890 population, furthering racial discrimination in the United States
(Ewing, 2012).
4. 3
It was not until 1965, one year after the Civil Rights Act, that the Immigration Act of 1965
was implemented and the quota laws were eradicated (Ewing, 2012). Percentages no longer
controlled the number of incoming races, yet capping was still enforced at 170,000 annually
(Ewing, 2012). This Act ended a severe 40-year law on immigration (Grogan & Proscio, 2000).
It would be hard to disagree that our country promoted racially selective programs throughout its
history that unfairly helped individuals of European decent dominate the U.S. population.
The Immigration Policy Change
Obama’s new immigration policy has a few aspects to it. First, it postpones the deportation of
illegal immigrants by three years if they are parents of U.S. citizens, have lived in the country for
the last 5 years, can pass a background check, are able to pay background taxes, and they are not
affiliated with any illegal or dangerous crimes (Acosta & Collinson, 2014; Bradner, 2014).
Secondly it does not grant green cards, federal benefits, or healthcare to these individuals, it only
grants them three years postponed deportation (Acosta & Collinson, 2014). Third, the boarder
control security will be increased and illegal immigrants will have a harder time trying to
unlawfully cross into the U.S. (Acosta & Collinson, 2014). As Obama states, “If you plan to
enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up,” (Acosta &
Collinson, 2014).
Though the new policy change has some up in arms, the real issue that most people have is
that Obama made these implementations without the assistance of congress. From a CNN/ORG
poll of 1,405 adults, 75% of Americans feel sympathetic towards immigrants and want to ease
U.S. policies (a 23% increase from 2010), but 56% say that they think his actions were too
aggressive (Bradner, 2014). Some Republicans believe that the president illegally made these
changes, and the incoming Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, has gone as far to state
5. 4
that he plans to legally challenge Obama’s implementations (Acosta & Collinson, 2014; Bradner,
2014).
A senior administration official helps reject the claims that Obama has illegally gone past
congress to make changes to the policy by saying, “I think that they are bold and they are
aggressive but they are in keeping with the precedent,” (Acosta & Collinson, 2014). Obama’s
plans are even consistent with past presidents including Ronald Regan and George H.W. Bush,
the only difference being the high numbers of immigrants that will be reprieved of deportation;
four million undocumented individuals (Acosta & Collinson, 2014). What’s more is that these
policies are not set in stone, and a following president could reverse these new policy changes if
need be (Acosta & Collinson, 2014).
The implementations have created mixed feelings from leaders of the boarder states, but
California governor Edmund G. Brown is all for them. He went as far as saying, “In the face of
Washington gridlock, the president stepped up for hard-working families across America. This is
the right thing to do, and it’s time for Congress to finish the job,” (Acosta & Collinson, 2014).
It is important to understand the repercussions of high volume deportation. Opposing sides
may claim that with little job opportunity in cities, the population in these places should decrease
to match openings in the workforce (Grogan & Proscio, 2000). In reality, this only causes a
downward spiral effect. Immigration helps increase openings of new businesses which increases
jobs opportunity, boosts the real-estate market, helps pay taxes, and ultimately increases the
circulation of cash flow in the area (Grogan & Proscio, 2000). In fact, in a 1998 study, the
National Academy of Sciences found that incoming immigrants helped raise the gross national
product $200 billion every year following 1980 (Grogan & Proscio, 2000). In the 40 years up to
1965 that the quota laws were in place, populations of cities declined and slum conditions rose
6. 5
(Grogan & Proscio, 2000). Deporting the current four million illegal immigrants that live in the
United States would only wreak havoc on the economy of many cities.
In knowing the new policy changes for United States immigration, it is important to revisit
this paper’s thesis; Immigration has been a key component in boosting the economy of many
decaying cities through creative cultural community building and tourism. After going over the
information compiled on immigration, it is now essential to turn to actual documented case
studies of U.S. cities that prove that immigration has helped boost economy through artistic and
cultural programs.
Newark
Found on the front page of the New York Times in 2000 was a story on the Ironbound city of
Newark. Nicknamed after the railroads that surround the neighborhood, this city turned itself into
a booming economy after years of struggle from mismanagement, racial issues, and the 1967
riots (Grogan & Proscio, 2000). Newark is filled with Brazilian, Latino, and Portuguese
immigrants who have settled in the area and work for local businesses (Grogan & Proscio, 2000).
It is also a city where one third of the population still lives in poverty, yet it is one of the hottest
real-estate commodities in New Jersey (Grogan & Proscio, 2000).
How can this be the case? How is it possible to have residents making less than the living
wage, but still have a community that is economically stable? It’s because successful
neighborhoods are not only wealthy neighborhoods. The most prosperous communities contain
residents who have the will to make their neighborhood a better place and not just gentrify it
(Grogan & Proscio, 2000). Communities thrive when there are people within them to work, shop,
and raise families and that is just what Newark is doing (Grogan & Proscio, 2000).
7. 6
Ferry Street is the largest retail street in the area, and the weekends bring thousands of tourists
from New Jersey and New York that pack the restaurants and shops, and spend money (Grogan
& Proscio, 2000). It is like a domino effect; the more settlers in the area, the more businesses, the
more visitors, which ultimately brings in more financial stability. This case study is a great
example of how immigration has the ability to boost economies of once struggling cities.
Pilsen and Little Village
Located three miles Southwest of Chicago, Illinois, are two financially booming Mexican
neighborhoods called Pilsen and Little Village (Galligan, 2014). Home to 127,000 people, these
two neighborhoods alone make up 29% of the city’s total Mexican population (Borrup, 2006).
Originally, these neighborhoods were home to German and Irish immigrants who settled in
this area to work on the railroads, but later served as a port of entry for the Czech and Polish
(Galligan, 2014). It was not until 1960 that the neighborhoods held a mostly Mexican population
that endured struggle with political backing, educational reform, social rights, and working
rights, which left much of the neighborhood in poverty and abandoned (Borrup, 2006; Galligan,
2014).
Through these struggles, the two neighborhoods found ways to prevail. Though money was
not prominent, the community came together to improve the living conditions of the area. In
1982, Carlos Tortolero and a group of Chicago public school teachers worked together with only
a $900 budget to create what is now known as the National Museum of Mexican Art (NMMA)
(Galligan, 2014; National Museum of Mexican Art [NMMA], 2011). With a mission “to
stimulate and preserve knowledge and appreciation of Mexican culture through events and
exhibitions that exemplify the rich variety of visual and performing arts in Mexican culture,” the
museum embraces the neighborhoods’ cultural heritage and takes pride in sharing their artistic
8. 7
knowledge with others from around the world (National Museum of Mexican Art [NMMA],
2014).
Not only does the museum hold major art exhibitions, it incorporates all mediums of art
including two performing arts festivals, literary events, concerts, dance productions, film and
video screenings, and more (Borrup, 2006). The museum works hard to embrace and collaborate
with the community. It helps the neighborhoods economically by bringing in a large annual
income through shops like the Tienda Tzintzuntzan, a gallery that sells crafts made by Mexican
artists (Borrup, 2006). The museum also brings in over 160,000 visitors annually from around
the world making Pilsen and Little Village Chicago’s second largest generator of sales tax
(Borrup, 2006; NMMA, 2011).
The museum has a large social influence on the surrounding area. The NMMA sponsors
Radio Arté, a noncommercial bilingual radio station that gives the Mexican community a voice
that can be heard across the entire city of Chicago (Borrup, 2006). The station also trains youth,
15-21 years of age, in broadcasting to increase their working experience thus improving future
job opportunity (Borrup, 2006). It creates educational curriculum that influences over 60,000
students, kindergarten through 12th grade, from around the nation and parts of Mexico (NMMA,
2011). The NMMA holds the nation’s largest annual Dia de los Muertos (Day of the Dead),
celebration that brings in thousands of tourists while still enticing local visitors like the mayor of
Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, who was seen visiting the exhibit this past November (Galligan, 2014;
Suburban Life Media, 2014). Even locals like Efrain Loza, the owner of a local handmade
Mexican folk art shop called Astisanias D’Mexico, give the NMMA credit for positively
influencing the neighborhood (Galligan, 2014).
9. 8
With the NMMA’s national recognition, Pilsen and Little Village have gained more tourists,
thus gained more renters and business owners. Artists have taken over the 30 studios, lofts, and
galleries in the area because of the cheap rent, and murals of traditional Mexican musicians and
actors cover the buildings of the two neighborhoods (Borrup, 2006; Galligan, 2014). The area is
not only known for its art, but food too, and the streets contain new and authentic Mexican
restaurants that pull in visitors from all over (Borrup, 2006; Galligan, 2014).
Though the majority of the Pilsen and Little Village population is still working class, this
area, like Newark, shows that money is not what initially helped this area, but community
engagement and collaboration between residents (Galligan, 2014). This case study is a great
example of how a community can embrace its culture and use it to bring in tourism to the area,
thus boosting the financial economy.
Combination of Case Studies
These two case studies work together to form a strong connection between immigrants that
settle in cities and artistic culture that pull in tourists. Without immigration, the U.S. would not
be this melting pot of ethnic individuals who bring in positive cultural influences to be shared
with others. New ideas would not be formed and creativity would be limited. If marketed
correctly, communities made of up immigrants who embrace their artistic culture can bring in
tourism, which then creates income.
Conclusion
Louis Winnick’s book, New People in Old Neighborhoods, pushes the idea that immigrants
who settle in America’s decaying cities help reshape and restore them (Grogan & Proscio, 2000).
So why would the U.S. want to immediately deport four million immigrants who may actually be
10. 9
able to help our economy? Industrial cities, like Detroit, are struggling to come out of debt. So
what can America take from cases like Newark and Pilsen to improve these crumbling cities?
Money will help, but it is not everything. Gentrifying cities only pushes the poor out of their
homes. Decaying cities need to be populated. Citizens wealthy and poor must work together as
united communities to find their niches and embrace their unique qualities. If this can be done,
these neighborhoods can survive. There is not one perfect answer on how to improve a struggling
area, but kicking out four million people can’t possibly be an option.
11. 10
Citations
Acosta, J., & Collinson, S. (2014, November 21). Obama: You can come out of the shadows.
CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/20/politics/obama-immigration-speech/
Borrup, T. (2006). The creative community builder’s handbook, St. Paul, MN:
Fieldstone Alliance.
Bradner, E. (2014, November 26). Poll: Obama’s immigration policy popular, but approach isn’t.
CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/politics/cnn-immigration-poll/
Ewing, W.A. (2012). Opportunity and exclusion: A brief history of U.S. immigration policy.
Immigration Policy Center. Retrieved from
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/opportunity_exclusion_011312.pdf
Galligan, M. C. (2014, March 20). Experience Pilsen, Chicago’s lively Latino neighborhood.
Illinois Times. Retrieved from http://illinoistimes.com/article-13638-experience-pilsen-
chicago%E2%80%99s-lively-latino-neighborhood.html
Grogan, P. & Proscio, T. (2000). Come back cities: A blueprint for urban neighborhood revival.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
National Museum of Mexican Art. (2011). Did you know? [Museum website]. Retrieved from
http://www.nationalmuseumofmexicanart.org/content/did-you-know
National Museum of Mexican Art. (2014). [Facebook]. Retrieved from
https://www.facebook.com/NationalMuseumofMexicanArt/info?tab=overview
Suburban Life Media. (2014, November 14). Prospect School students meet Chicago mayor at
museum. MySuburbanLife.com. Retrieved from
http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/2014/11/11/prospect-school-students-meet-chicago-mayor-at-
museum/adch154/
