Grassroots Facilitated Two-Way Immigrant Integration ...

Grassroots Facilitated Two-Way Immigrant Integration and Increased Diversity in High Growth Areas in the United States Bernardo Aguilar-González,Ligia Umaña-Ledezma and Marketa Zubkova

EURODIV PAPER 66.2009

JANUARY 2009 KTHC - Knowledge, Technology, Human Capital

Bernardo Aguilar-González, Fundación Neotrópica, Cost Rica Ligia Umaña-Ledezma, Fundación Neotrópica, Costa Rica Marketa Zubkova, Prescott College, USA

This paper can be downloaded without charge at: The Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Series Index: http://www.feem.it/Feem/Pub/Publications/EURODIVPapers/default.htm

The opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the position of Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Corso Magenta, 63, 20123 Milano (I), web site: www.feem.it, e-mail: [email protected]

The special issue on Cultural Diversity collects a selection of papers presented at the multidisciplinary and multinational Marie Curie project on “Cultural diversity in Europe: A series of Conferences” (EURODIV). EURODIV focuses on cultural diversity in Europe and aims to understand the ways of dealing with diversity and its dynamics in the globalisation era. Its primary objective is to provide top-level training opportunities to researchers in the first years of their research career. EURODIV is a four-year project (2006-2009) co-ordinated by Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) and supported by the European Commission, Sixth Framework Programme, Marie Curie Conferences and Training Courses (contract no. MSCF-CT-2004-516670). Schedule of Conferences: •

First Conference “Understanding diversity: Mapping and measuring”, 26-27 January 2006, FEEM, Milano, Italy. Contact person: Valeria Papponetti, [email protected]

•

Second Conference “Qualitative diversity research: Looking ahead”, 19-20 September 2006, K.U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Contact person: Maddy Janssens, [email protected], and Patrizia Zanoni, [email protected]

•

Third Conference “Diversity in cities: Visible and invisible walls”, 11-12 September 2007, UCL, London, UK. Contact person: Valeria Papponetti, [email protected]

•

Fourth Conference “Diversity in cities: New models of governance”, 16-17 September 2008, IPRS, Rome, Italy. Contact person: Raffaele Bracalenti, [email protected]

•

Fifth Conference “Dynamics of diversity in the globalisation era”, 15-16 September 2009, FEEM, Milan, Italy. Contact person: Valeria Papponetti, [email protected]

EURODIV goes in parallel with SUS.DIV, the Network of Excellence on sustainable development in a diverse world. For further information on EURODIV and SUS.DIV, please visit the web site: www.susdiv.org This batch of papers has been presented at the Fourth Conference “Diversity in cities: New models of governance”.

Grassroots Facilitated Two-Way Immigrant Integration and Increased Diversity in High Growth Areas in the United States Summary The southwest is one of the fastest growing regions in the United States today (US Census Bureau, 2008a). The flow of population to the formal economy is accompanied by a large growth of population that seeks opportunities in the informal sector migrating from other parts of the United States and from abroad through the border with Mexico. This new population is increasingly Latin American. The diverse ethnic and national backgrounds have not overlapped in the region without conflict. The picture has become highly polarized around the politics of identity. This research reports on 2 case studies of organizations that represent alternative models of implementing a two-way model of integration as the one prescribed by the Updated Concept of Immigrant Integration of the European Union. The two case studies focus on community based groups. The Gunnison County Multicultural Resource Office, in Gunnison Colorado, and, Prescott College’s Aztlan Center in Arizona. We evaluate them according to their achievements in the areas necessary for the two-way model of integration to work appropriately: language, education, employment, family, health care, laws, civic participation and community. Keywords: Immigrant Integration, Immigration Theory, Southwestern United States, Grassroots Organization Case Studies, Politics of Identity, Cultural Studies, Diversity, High Growth Areas, Border Studies JEL classification: Z1, Y8 The positions contained herein do not represent the official position of Fundación Neotrópica.

Address for correspondence: Bernardo Aguilar-González Fundación Neotrópica PO Box 236-1002 Paseo de los Estudiantes San José, Costa Rica, América Central E-mail: [email protected]

Grassroots Facilitated Two-Way Immigrant Integration and Increased Diversity in High Growth Areas in the United States Bernardo Aguilar-González1, Ligia Umaña-Ledezma2 and Marketa Zubkova3 Abstract The southwest is one of the fastest growing regions in the United States today (US Census Bureau, 2008a). The flow of population to the formal economy is accompanied by a large growth of population that seeks opportunities in the informal sector migrating from other parts of the United States and from abroad through the border with Mexico. This new population is increasingly Latin American. The diverse ethnic and national backgrounds have not overlapped in the region without conflict. The picture has become highly polarized around the politics of identity. This research reports on 2 case studies of organizations that represent alternative models of implementing a two-way model of integration as the one prescribed by the Updated Concept of Immigrant Integration of the European Union. The two case studies focus on community based groups. The Gunnison County Multicultural Resource Office, in Gunnison Colorado, and, Prescott College’s Aztlan Center in Arizona. We evaluate them according to their achievements in the areas necessary for the two-way model of integration to work appropriately: language, education, employment, family, health care, laws, civic participation and community. JEL Classifications: Z1, Y8 Keywords: Immigrant integration, Immigration theory, Southwestern United States, grassroots organization case studies, politics of identity, cultural studies, diversity, high growth areas, border studies.

1

Executive Director, Fundación Neotropica, San José, Costa Rica; Adjunct Facutly in Environmental Studies Northern Arizona University; Former Faculty in Latin American Studies, Prescott College; Former Faculty advisorAztlan Center for Immigrant Resources, Prescott College, Prescott, Arizona; Former representative to the Arizona Coalition for Migrant Rights, U.S.Resident Alien, originally from Costa Rica-corresponding author: [email protected]. The positions contained herein do not represent the official position of Fundación Neotrópica; 2 Fundación Neotrópica; Adjunct Instructor, Cultural and Regional Studies, Prescott College, former advisor-Aztlan Center for Immigrant Resources; Former Political Organizer for the Northern Arizona Interfaith Committee, Resident Alien, originally from Costa Rica; 3 Master of Arts, Cultural Studies with Emphasis in Latin America, Prescott College, Member of the Gunnison MRO, Foreign student from the Czech Republic. 1

I.

Introduction: The Southwestern United States, A Context of Growth and Mega-immigration.

The southwest is one of the fastest growing regions in the United States today. Nevada and Arizona rank as the two fastest growing states in terms of population (2.9 and 2.8 % per year), while Utah, Texas, Colorado and New Mexico rank 3rd, 7th, 8th and 13th respectively (US Census Bureau, 2008a). The same estimate of population growth shows us the growth in Figure 1 for the period 2000-2007. In this case, we can see that the range of growth per state is between 8.3 and 28.4% during the period, giving these states the first through third, sixth, eight and sixteenth ranks in the nation in this period (US Census Bureau, 2008b).

Figure 1-Percentage Population Growth per State in the Southwest 2000-2007. Source: based on data by US Census Bureau (2008b)

Based on these numbers, the projection is that between 2000 and 2030, these states will see a population increase in an average of a 64.8% per state, with the staggering figures shown by Figure 2. This puts these states also in the highest ranks of projected population growth (Nevada (1), Arizona (2), Texas (4), Utah (5), Colorado (14), New Mexico (26)) with an estimated percentage of the overall US population of 16%. In the specific case of Arizona, one of the states of this study, some towns have seen an impressive 2366% growth between 2000 and 2007 (Maricopa City, according to the US Census Bureau, 2008d). In the specific towns where this study focuses in North-central Arizona, Prescott Valley, Chino Valley and Prescott (commonly known as the Tri-city area) the growth has been of 56%, 32% and 24% respectively during the same period, ranking 12th, 26th and 34th among incorporated places in Arizona. Their rate of growth is higher than the average growth for Arizona in this period. These high rankings have been consistent since 1990. In the state of Colorado, second focus of this study, the town of Severance has the highest growth rate in the period (346%). The towns in Gunnison County, second site of interest, are not high growth areas with the exception of one: Mount Crested Butte (18% in the period). Yet, others are way below the state average with Crested Butte showing a 6%, Gunnison and Marble showing a constant population and Pitkin showing a 6% decrease in the population between 2000-2007 (US Census Bureau, 2008e).

2

Figure 2-Population Growth Estimates for Southwestern States 2000-2030 (in millions). Source: based on data by US Census Bureau (2008c)

Before the current economic crisis, a high percentage of this growth was fostered by a combination of jobs, real estate prices and climate (Orrenius, 2003). Young and retiring populations were relocating to these states in search for economic prosperity and good retirement conditions. The flow to the formal economy was accompanied by a large growth of population that seeks opportunities in the informal sector migrating from other parts of the United States and from abroad through the border with Mexico (Orrenius and Zavodny, 2008; Orrenius and Nicholson, 2007, Kocchar, 2008 ). This new population is increasingly Latin American (Pew, 2008; Passel and Cohn, 2008). One example of the size of this flow can be found in undocumented entries. This flow of immigrants is as high as to comprise over 95% of the total arrests by border patrol authorities in any entry point of the country (close to 1 million detentions per year just in the Southwest region recently according to DHS, 2006). Both documented and undocumented crossings make the US-Mexico border the most crossed border in the world (Andreas, 2001). This social dynamism has resulted in the development of diverse theoretical approaches in immigration theory that seek to address the conflicts that are typical of this phenomenon. Among them are models that seek to explain the behavior of host nations toward immigrants. The diverse ethnic and national backgrounds have not overlapped in the US southwestern region without conflict. Southwestern states hold a Hispanic population that ranges between 9% and 42% (Utah and New Mexico) of the total population. While the federal government has failed to enact new comprehensive immigration regulations (that facilitate documentation and integration) sticking to a policy centered on enforcement in the shadow of the war on terror, states, cities and towns have reacted to and beyond the extent of their possibilities. State laws, ballot initiatives and other local regulations have made a legal mosaic that has been highly anti-immigrant (around social welfare programs, language requirements, employer sanctions laws and others). Civil society groups have organized around anti and pro immigrant agendas. The picture has become highly polarized around the politics of identity. Amidst this context, this research reports on 2 case studies of organizations that represent alternative models of implementing a two-way model of integration as the one prescribed by the Updated Concept of Immigrant Integration of the European Union.

3

The two case studies focus on community based groups. The first one is based out of Gunnison, Colorado: The Gunnison County MRO. It is affiliated to the Public Health Department and provides a series of community services that seek to facilitate immigrant integration. The second is a college-based organization: Prescott College’s Aztlan Center, which operates providing services for the immigrants of the towns of Prescott, Prescott Valley and Chino Valley, Arizona. II. Ideologies, Progressive and Conservative Models of Immigrant Integration. U.S. and European Models of Immigration Policy Today. a. Political Positions on Immigration: The Construction of Nation and the Illegal Immigrant. Probably the main difficulty that positions on immigration have, from the theoretical perspective, comes from the fact that they are constructed around the notion of nation. The terms nation, nationality and nationalism are difficult to define. In a traditional sense, a nation refers to a given human population that has a natural solidarity based on shared history and a common destiny. This collective identity as a historically constituted people crucially entails the right to constitute an independent or autonomous political community. One of the most popular contemporary positions holds that “No scientific definition of the nation can be devised; yet the phenomenon has existed and exists” (Anderson, 1991). Benedict Anderson describes nations as imagined communities, imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign that can only be understood within the intersecting dynamics of history, language, ideology and power (Anderson, 1991). A nation is constructed from popular processes through which residents share nationality. People “imagine” they share general beliefs, attitudes and recognize a collective national populace as having similar opinions and sentiments to their own. In his view, a nation is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion (Anderson, 1991). To have one nation means there must be another nation against which self-definition can be constructed. Anderson argues for the social construction of nations as political entities that have a limited spatial and demographic extent, rather than organic, eternal entities (Anderson, 1991). He claims that nations hold such power over imaginations that patriotic calls to arms are understood as the duty of all national residents. Further, in war, national citizens are equal and class boundaries are eroded in the communal struggle for national survival and greatness. “Finally, it is imagined as a community, because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately, it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries, for so many millions of people, not so much as to kill, as willing to die for such limited imaginings” (Anderson, 1991). Nationalism is present every day. We have national weather, national time, national news, and national foods. According to Anderson, mass communication and mass migration, closely linked to capitalism, define nationalism. This is an essential reasoning in understanding the need for the construction of the other (the foreigner or the immigrant), as it is an affirmation of the boundaries of the community that is socially constructed (Anderson, 1991). The process of construction flows from within and from without the national community. Caroline Brettel holds that immigrants use memory of place to construct, imaginatively, their new world (Brettell, 2000). The imaging of community needs to be viewed from both the point of view of immigrants and from the point of view of the host society. A sense of belonging emerges among the undocumented when they have to “overcome feelings of isolation, developed a network of family and friends in the local community, acquired local cultural knowledge, and reconciled themselves to the possible threat of deportation. 4

(Brettell, 2000). However, full incorporation requires that the larger society also “imagine” immigrants as members of their community. Nationalism evolves with other developments in society and, nowadays, it clashes with the Internet and mobile technologies. Nationalism can also be a destructive force toward immigration because nationalists do not believe that different cultures cannot learn the values of the receiving community which prevents immigrants to integrate. Peter Schuck distinguishes four ideological positions toward immigration, based in the notion of nation, which are combined in public opinion as well as in the political debate over immigration policy today worldwide(Schuck, 2000). Xenophobia is an undifferentiated fear of foreigners or strangers as such. Sudden migration flows can inflame this attitude when people engage in violence against those whom they view as foreign because of their race, language, appearance, or behavior (Schuck, 2000). Nativism is a more discriminating, specific position than xenophobia. Nativists believe in the moral or racial superiority of one group; in the USA the commonly held superior group is Anglo-Saxons who became demographically, politically, and culturally dominant (Schuck , 2000). The nativisits declare that cultural values belong to particular racial, ethnic, or national groups and cannot be learned. They insist that immigrant cultures are hostile to the values of the superior culture and, at least in that sense, inferior (Schuck ,2000). John Nevins defines nativism not only as anti-immigrant sentiment but also as opposition to sociocultural difference thus involving rejection of internal “minorities” as well as “foreigners (Nevins, 2002). Nativistic sentiment was based in US colonial times chiefly on the religious and supposedly moral characteristics of newcomers, often resulting in barriers to immigration to the colonies for members of certain religious groups (especially Catholics), and the very poor and convicts (Nevins, 2002). Nowadays, neither nativism nor xenophobia are accepted as dominant in national US politics. Yet, some antiimmigrant groups like the ones described above could be classified in these trends. Principled restrictionism is accepted as a commonly held position in the United States today. It is a view that current levels of immigration threaten particular policy goals or values advocated by the restrictionists (Schuck , 2000). They believe that immigrants – particularly undocumented immigrants – are stealing jobs from US Americans, undermining wage rates and working conditions, committing crimes, overwhelming the public education and health systems, and abusing welfare and other social programs (Nevins, 2002). Some principled restrictionists emphasize values such as national solidarity, linguistic unity, religious tolerance or culture unity. For example, some groups believe in the establishment of English as the official language of the United States. Restrictionists demand that strong action must be taken to regain control of the nation’s borders by increasing enforcement efforts and by sharply limiting the number of immigrants allowed into the United States (Nevins, 2002). Pragmatic restrictionism is also a commonly embraced perspective. It resembles principled restrictionism in the policy positions that it supports, but it differs in one important aspect. Where principled restrictionists see the threat of immigration in the natural goals or values, pragmatic restrictionists view such conflicts as contingent, not inevitable (Schuck, 2000) They do not oppose immigration in principle or in general. They favor lower levels of immigration but are open to argument and evidence about what those levels should be and about what immigration’s actual effects are. Schuck believes that most Americans are pragmatic restrictionists today. Restrictionism, as we saw above, is reflected in the current political debate about the new immigration reform and the issue of illegality of immigrants. Contemporary discussion surrounding unauthorized immigration to the United States puts an increasing emphasis on legality. The dominant view is to regard 5

the “illegal alien” as someone whose criminal activity (in violating immigration laws) is independent of the actions of people and institutions in the United States. Thus, the “illegal” is someone, for whom US society do not need to accept any responsibility (Nevins, 2002). The rise in emphasis on the legality of migrants coincided with a significant increase in national media coverage of issues relating to unauthorized immigration and boundary control. Media influences policy makers and forms people’s political opinions, however, media sources often represent a very narrow spectrum of opinion. The mass media clearly helped to construct the image of immigrants and boundary enforcement crisis. The State has been most responsible in constructing the illegal as a category of social identity and as a threat to the social fabric of the USA (Nevins, 2002). The dramatic rise in public and official concerns came about at a time of a perceived immigration and boundary control “crisis,” one that arose in a context of economic recession, increasingly ineffective local government, and significant changes in the sociocultural structure of the society (Nevins, 2002). As official and popular concerns have grown, so has the actual context of the coverage in terms of the representation of unauthorized immigrants (Nevins, 2002). For example, in the 1970s, according to the media, illegals were overwhelming the USA and were associated with criminal activity and the declining standard of living of US citizens (Nevins, 2002). In this environment, various state representatives and nativist organizations created the perception of a crisis by effectively constructing the “illegal” immigrant not only as a lawbreaker, but more importantly as a threat to national sovereignty and American society more generally (Nevins, 2002). The current waning of public concern about a US - Mexican boundary as “out of control” and a supposed “flood” of “illegal” immigrants also illustrates the power of political elites to shape popular consciousness (Nevins, 2002). Both Nevins and Schuck agree that boundary enforcement and immigration were certainly a problem at that time, however, not to the image of crisis presented by media. State legislators and politicians often construct migrants – especially refugees or unauthorized immigrants – as a security problem. The government focuses on the alien as a principal source of its social problems. The alien takes the forms of the criminal, the poor, and the foreigner, who are often one and the same (Nevins, 2002). State representatives give immigrants the appearance of destroyers of social harmony: the immigrant takes “our jobs, commits crimes, threatens the social safety net, and undermines cultural cohesion. (Nevins, 2002). The State is successful in creating an image of security against the “illegal.” However, the state efforts do not succeed in terms of their material goals (significantly reducing unauthorized immigration), but they do succeed politically and psychologically. The focus on the “illegal” and the boundary often has the effect of creating greater levels of unity within the nation. The focus on unauthorized immigration is part of a more general restrictionist sentiment. Nevins believes that it is a notion of undesirable “others” who have typically been non-white, non-English-speaking people from relatively poor countries. Fear and rejection of illegals is often fear and rejection of Mexicans, or, more generally, non-white, non-English-speaking people (Nevins, 2002). According to Nevins, the emphasis on the legality of immigrants is a cover for race-based arguments that are no longer publicly acceptable. It is a cover for a larger set of concerns; for example, a concern with the putative threat that the new wave of (predominantly non-white) immigrants represents to the American nation, it represents a threat to sociocultural stability as well as to national territorial integrity 6

(Nevins, 2002). The undesirable immigrant embodies stereotypical “un-American” characteristics of class (poverty) and family life (extended family with many children). The boundaries between highly “developed” and less “developed” countries (such as between the United States and Mexico) tend to be “the most difficult and sensitive” (Nevins, 2002). Assuming that the forces that facilitate “illegal” immigration across such boundaries remain, it is quite possible that efforts to fight “illegal” immigration and immigrants will intensify (Nevins, 2002). b. Anthropological perspectives on migration Since the 1970s, migration studies within anthropology have expanded significantly, with respect to both the questions examined and the cross-cultural coverage. This has constituted one of the most dynamic and progressive approaches in this area. Anthropology focuses on culture - which includes the study of the interaction between beliefs and behavior of corporate groups and of social relationships – and in terms of migration studies, it focuses on matters of adaptation and culture change, on forms of social organization that are characteristic of both the migration process and the immigrant community, and on questions of identity and ethnicity (Brettell , 2000 ). An anthropological approach to migration is integral, as it examines motivations for migration, how migration is shaped by local, regional, national, and international economies, linkages between sending and receiving societies, relationship between migration on one hand and family structure and household strategies on the other (Brettell, 2000). Anthropologists study the human dimensions of migration and the lived experience of being a migrant. Migrants shape and are shaped by the context (political, economic, social, cultural) within which they operate, whether in the sending society or in the receiving society. The connections between society and culture, as well as an understanding of community that has both local (micro) and global (macro) dimensions, help to explain how migrants can operate in or between two (or more) worlds (Brettel, 2000). Anthropologists analyze the role of networks, based largely on ties of kinship and friendship in the process of chain migration. Networks can become self-perpetuating to migration when each act of migration itself creates the social structure needed to sustain it. Every new migrant reduces the costs of subsequent migration for a set of friends and relatives, and some of these people are thereby inclined to migrate, which further expands the set of people with ties abroad (Brettell, 2000). For example, immigrant women are at the center of these immigrant networks; they both initiate them and maintain them. The social position of immigrant women is affected by the social, economic, and political policies of states. Based on factors of class, ethnicity and gender, anthropologists described a “triple invisibility” for migrant women (Brettel, 2000). Female-based networks help immigrant women to cope successfully “with the conditions imposed by the Anglo-dominated political and economic structure or to discover ways to negotiate patriarchal barriers” (Brettel, 2000). Cultural constraints and a tight-knit enclave preclude immigrant women from engaging in political and leadership activities within and on behalf of their communities. “Despite traditional culture and gender roles, female leadership will develop and emerge when groups are in a situation in which ethnic identity and unity are strong, the employment opportunities for women are greater than those for men, and the intervention of the welfare state is significant” (Brettell, 2000).

7

Distinction between nature and culture is at the foundation of theories of ethnicity. The act of migration brings populations of different backgrounds into contact with one another and hence creates boundaries. It is the negotiation across such boundaries, shifting themselves, which is the heart of ethnicity. It is preferable to develop an ethnic group identity than accept a racial categorization. Race and identity need to be considered together in any theoretical formulations of the construction of immigrant identity. Sometimes employers convince their employees, many of whom are undocumented immigrants, that the larger society is hostile and racist. It is a form of class exploitation; these co-ethnic elites control the boundaries of the ethnic community and promote ethnic identity to serve their own ends. Immigrants engage in the host community activities which become expressions of their ethnic identity; for example, ethnic festivals can be as symbolic presentations that encode ideas about being an immigrant and being an American (Brettel, 2000). c. The Need for Policy Change A person can become an undocumented immigrant in several different ways: coming into the country without paperwork or authorization, entering the country with a valid but temporary visa and overstaying the visa, or being a person who, as legal permanent resident, has committed a crime after entry, became subject to deportation, but then failed to depart (LeMay, 2007). Unauthorized immigration may also arise out of problems in the legal system and policy. The flow of unauthorized entrants increased after 1970, reflecting unanticipated consequences associated with ending the Bracero Program and the start of the Border Industrialization Program. The Bracero Program began in 1942 as a measure to cope with the severe labor shortage in agriculture during World War II, and allowed US employers to import workers from Mexico on temporary basis – for nine months of a given year. The program ended in 1964, when it was stopped as part of an agreement to garner support for the passage of what became the Immigration Act of 1965. Around the same time, a major pole of development is established along the US-Mexico border to attract US manufacturers and provide manufacturing jobs to Mexicans (taking advantage of the lower wage rates as an incentive for U.S. manufacturers). The controlled entry of temporary farm workers was thus replaced by the flow of illegal immigrants, particularly from Mexico attracted by the U.S. and border economies. Some of these were essentially the same workers who had participated in the Bracero Program but did not return to Mexico after nine months of seasonal work. Instead, they may have remained permanently in the United States as unauthorized immigrants (LeMay, 2007). From 1965 until enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, it was illegal for workers to come to the United States without documents, but it was legal for employers to hire undocumented workers; the employers who had legally hired workers in the Bracero Program continued to hire them after it ended. The efforts to close the “back door” to undocumented immigration, while opening the front door slightly to accommodate more legal immigrants, resulted in the Immigration and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. This Act granted amnesty to about 1.5 million undocumented aliens that were in unlawful status since January 1st, 1982, and created a new classification of seasonal agricultural worker and provisions for the legalization of certain such workers. It increased enforcement at U.S. borders and created sanctions prohibiting employers from knowingly hiring, recruiting, or referring for a fee aliens not authorized to work in the United States (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services). However, the Act was difficult to implement. For example, the employer sanctions did not seem to work. They started a phony-document industry that enabled undocumented immigrants to continue coming to the United States and employers to continue hiring them without fear of legal penalty for “knowingly 8

hiring” undocumented workers . The unauthorized immigrants who met the criteria for legalization distrusted the Immigrant and Naturalization Service (INS). Only after extensive involvement by nongovernmental organizations, the INS came to amend its procedural rules allowing extensive approval of applicants. There were essentially three legalization programs: the regular program referred to as Legalizing Authorize Workers (LAWs), a Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAWs), and a Cuban/ Haitian Adjustment. The number of unauthorized immigrants entering the United States dropped slightly immediately after passage of IRCA in 1986, but then climbed once again to reach and eventually exceed pre-IRCA levels (LeMay, 2007). The 1990 Immigration Act was a major overhaul of immigration law. The Act increased total immigration under a flexible “cap” of 675,000 consisting of 480,000 family-sponsored immigrants, 140,000 employment-based immigrants, and 55,000 diversity immigrants. This Act revised enforcement activities, naturalization authority and requirements, and revised and established new nonimmigrant admission category. For example, it redefined the H-1b temporary worker category and limited the number of aliens who may be issued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status under this category to 65,000 annually (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2008). Although considered the most extensive reform of immigration law since 1965, the 1990 Immigration Act did not solve all the problems nor did it mark the end of demands for reform of immigration. In 1996, Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed into law two measures that enacted a welfare reform act that contained several immigrant-related provisions concerning both documented and undocumented immigrants. The Act restricted the federal benefits for which authorized and unauthorized nonimmigrants could qualify, denying the use of federal funds for any grant, contract, loan, professional or commercial license, or retirement, welfare, disability, food assistance, or unemployment benefits (LeMay, 2007). In addition, it authorized more Border Patrol agents and a triple fence along the San Diego border, made tougher penalties for smuggling people and creating fraudulent documents, and created an “expedited removal” process to remove anyone trying to enter the United States without proper documents. The attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. had a huge impact on U.S. immigration policy. The USA Patriot Act of 2001 put immigration under control of the newly created Department of Homeland Security and tripled the budget for Border Patrol agents along the Canadian border. It granted powers to the attorney general and the Justice Department that restricted the civil liberties of U.S. citizens, broadened the terrorism-related definitions in the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act, expanded grounds of inadmissibility to include aliens who publicly endorse terrorist activity. Also, they gave the government broad powers to monitor students and resident aliens and to detain and expedite the deportation of noncitizens suspected even of links to terrorist organizations (LeMay, 2007). The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act) was a compromise based largely on three previous failed immigrant bills from 2005 and 2006. The proposed Immigration Reform Act provided legal status and a path to legal citizenship for the approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United States, increased border security, and restructured visa criterion for high skill workers. It eliminated the employer-sponsored component of the immigration system and replaced it with point-based “merit system.” However, the hope of many undocumented immigrants to legalize their status vanished on June 7th, 2007 when this Immigration Reform Act failed. Increased social reflection seems a necessity in this process. It seems like the level of discussion in the United States is still very circumscribed by a “country club” mentality that only sees options within a narrow range of restrictionism. We feel that a step in the right direction is to go deeper in the discussion 9

as of the role that both the migrant and the receiving society should play in adapting to each other. This opportunity would come from discussing the process of integration. If would seem logical that the goal of immigration policy is the appropriate integration of the immigrant into the host society. Yet, how does this process look? How can it be more effective? d. Immigrant Integration Theory There are many meanings of immigrant integration and it can be difficult to define what exactly integration of immigrants into a new society is. It is a long-term process that can take multiple generations. A number of different models of immigrant integration have been developed over the last 100 years and have been implemented in the immigrant integration efforts in the United States and elsewhere. 1. One-way integration In the one-way integration model (OWI), immigrants assimilate to a receiving society. The characteristics of members of immigrant groups and host societies come to resemble one another. The one-way integration model is the same as classic assimilation. The Classic assimilation theory, or theory of diminishing cultural differences, was a master trend in the era of mainly European immigration into the U.S. in the 1920s and 1930s; however, the notion of the United States as melting pot (fusion of cultures) has been part of public consciousness for more than a century (Brown and Bean, 2006). Cultural differences diminished and “the new vision of American society and identity arose from the biological and cultural fusion of different people”. At that time, the immigrant integration was described as “a process of interpenetration and fusion in which persons and groups acquire the memories, sentiments, and attitudes of other persons and groups, and by sharing their experience and history are incorporated with them in a common cultural life” (Alba and Nee, 1997). In the 1960s, Gordon proposed several stages that follow the acquisition of culture and language. In his model, acculturation comes first and is inevitable in the assimilation process. In this stage, the minority group adapts to the cultural patterns of the new society; it is an independent, one-way process that lasts indefinitely. During structural assimilation the immigrants develop close relations with the host society and enter “fully into the societal network of groups and institutions”. Gordon argues that “once structural assimilation occurs…all of the other types of assimilation will naturally follow” (Alba and Nee, 1997). Intermarriage, ethnic identification with the host society, the ending of prejudice, discrimination and value conflict will follow when the immigrants assimilate into the new society (Brown and Bean, 2006). The same social conditions that facilitate an immigrant group’s economic success do not ensure rapid integration of immigrants into the receiving society; in fact, it may retard its assimilation. According to this view, the most important factor promoting assimilation is the rate at which immigrant group members marry members of the destination society which is affected by the sex ratio of the migrants. (Schuck, 2000). Alba and Nee admit that assimilation theory has been criticized in recent decades. It has been rejected due to its ethnocentric view that demands minority cultures to give up their cultural and ethnic identities. They believe that assimilation is important in contemporary immigrant integration process; moreover, assimilation is still taking place, although unevenly. Therefore, they reformulate assimilation theory and stress the important roles of institutions in achieving assimilation and acceptance of the mainstream population (Alba and Nee, 1997). 10

Assimilation of many immigrants often remains incomplete. The theory of incomplete assimilation is called the racial/ethnic disadvantage model. Discrimination, structural and institutional barriers to employment and other opportunities can be obstacles to complete assimilation (GCIR, 2007). Immigrants may not perceive these barriers because they compare the opportunities in the new country to those in their home countries. But the second or third generation may realize the obstructions and the assimilation takes longer than expected (Brown and Bean, 2006); for example, the process of marginalization and racialization of Mexicans and introducing dual wage system at the 1920s and 1930s. Regardless of skills and experience, Mexicans were paid less than Anglos for comparable work (Nevins, 2002). The segmented assimilation theory combines the elements of the assimilation and ethnic disadvantage models. Different assimilation paths exist for new immigrants. Many immigrants find ways to enter a new society, while others find such pathways blocked. These immigrants view themselves as members of disadvantage groups. Segmented assimilation focuses on identifying the contextual, structural, and cultural factors that separate successful from unsuccessful assimilation (Brown and Bean, 2006). At the beginning of the 20th century, Mexican immigration was a very small proportion of total immigration into the USA. Compared to the European immigrants who had no intention to return to their country of origin and were willing to assimilate, Mexicans were strongly attached to their native land and were not easy to assimilate. In 1930 New York Times wrote about Mexican immigrants that they are inassimilable. “It is folly to pretend that the more recently arrived Mexicans, who are largely of Indian blood, can be absorbed and incorporated in the American race” (Nevins, 2002). Therefore, Mexicans immigrants were exempted from the 1921 and 1924 race-based quota Acts (Nevins, 2002). The pace of assimilation varies among different groups over time according to demographic factors (for example, sex ratio), that affect intermarriage rates, geophysical and cultural insularity, popular hostility, and other conditions. Each individual immigrant and group of immigrants assimilating into a new society absorbs and influences elements of the receiving society; as a result, the two become more like each other. According to this position, if immigrants decide to assimilate in American society, they will – often with some sense of loss – gradually attenuate, transform, and shed their ethnic group identities (Schuck 2000). However, the assimilation can be incomplete and take longer than necessary if unidentified obstacles appear. Brown and Bean point out that the experiences of European immigrants from the beginning of the 20th century suggest that full assimilation generally occurs within three to four generations (Brown and Bean, 2006). 2. Two-way integration The two-way integration model (TWI) stresses the importance of both the immigrants and the receiving community. Both have a mutual respect for their cultures and an appreciation of the mutual diversity they are living in. Both work on strengthening the community through the integration process. According to Papademetriou, “Integration is the process through which, over time, newcomers and hosts form an integral whole.“ It transforms both the newcomers and the receiving society, creating a new whole community (Papademetriou, 2003). In the TWI model, the immigrants and the receiving community learn from each other. Immigrants create opportunities both for themselves and for members of the communities, into which they settle, thus facilitating the integration of the immigrants into the society. Established and newcomer residents work together to ensure that all community members are engaged in community life. 11

Petsod, describes the immigrant integration process as “a two-way process of mutual responsibility and well-being for the immigrant community and the receiving community. It is the weaving of newcomers into the social, economic, cultural, and political fabric of the receiving community” (GCIR, 2007). Both the immigrants and the receiving community are responsible for integration. Immigrants learn the official or prevailing language of the host, get involved in the community and the education of their children, and share their culture with others. The receiving community plays an active role in meeting their needs and learns to respect the language, cultures, and skills of the newcomers. Papademetrios believes that immigrants prosper best in socially and politically supportive environments that “allow them to change most of their social and cultural traditions at their own pace, while learning and adapting to important community practices more quickly.” He argues that any successful integration model depends on continual interaction and mutual adjustments and accommodations (Papademetriou, 2003). The U.S. has no formal integration policies. Unlike this, the European Union has developed integration principles, goals and even benchmarks of integration. The Commission on European Communities emphasizes rights, duties and participation in their immigrant integration process. In the Commission’s document titled “Communication on Immigration, Integration, and Employment,” immigrant integration is defined as “a two-way process based on mutual rights and corresponding obligations of newcomers and the host society in which the immigrants fully participate” (Kerwin, 2007). Kerwin suggests that the U.S. should adopt an integration model based on the promotion of political and civic values, but also cultural respect. He defines the integration as a sense of belonging that makes the immigrants feel that they are part of the community (Kerwin, 2007). Neither the OWI models nor the TWI models are easy to implement. Neither of them is the dominant model of immigrant integration in the U.S. today. However, assimilation theory seems to be a barrier to the integration of minority cultures. 3. Diversity of immigrants When implementing the one-way or two- way integration models, we need to keep in mind that different cultures integrate into society differently; the same rules of integration cannot be applied to every immigrant and every culture that lives together in the same community. As individuals differ from one another in their way of thinking, perceiving, expressing themselves, their values and behavior, immigrants also differ enormously from one another with respect to race, language, religion, and other demographic variables, even including the gender ration of their migrating populations (Schuck, 2000). Migrants are not simply a random sample of the population in the country of origin. Even before leaving their homeland, they are special, differing in a number of important respects from the demographically similar people whom they leave behind. In migrating, these different groups transport more than their families and possessions; they also carry with them their language, art, religion, values, skills, practices, perspectives, and social institutions – their unique cultures (Schuck, 2000). Schuck belives that “immigrants differ from the migrants from other countries and from the natives of the countries to which they go” (Schuck, 2000); for example, indigenous groups of Mexico speak different languages and have different beliefs and values than other immigrants from Mexico.

12

Immigrants chose different destinations. Some prefer urban areas, others small towns or countryside. Immigrants do not always go from poorer countries to wealthier ones but they go to places, rich or poor, where they can be more productive (Schuck, 2000). In addition, migration of different groups of immigrants occurs at different times and is prompted by different historical circumstances; for example, World War I and II caused migration of European immigrants. At different periods of time, different groups of immigrants are received differently by the native populations and by their governments. For example, the “open door” policy for European immigration by US government in 1820s brought many immigrant workers from Europe, but the U.S. government “closed the door” to European immigration just a few decades later (Nevins, 2002). Since the migrating cultures are different, they compete to succeed at many levels such as economic, religious, linguistic or ideological. Immigration has both positive and negative consequences for the receiving country depending on the culture that the immigrants carry with them (Zubkova, 2008). Immigration to the United States is now more diverse that ever in national origins, linguistic, racial, cultural, and relative educational and skill-level terms (Schuck, 2000). This diversity of immigrants has caused political debates as well as different, sometimes racist, public attitudes toward immigration. Schuck believes that “Americans like immigrants more than they like immigration, favor past immigration more than recent immigration, prefer legal immigrants to illegal ones, prefer refugee to other immigrants, support immigrants’ access to educational and health benefits but not welfare or Social Security, and feel that immigrants’ distinctive cultures have contributed positively to American life and that diversity continues to strengthen American society today” (Schuck, 2000). The peaks of anti-immigrant fervor in the US have always taken place during times of economic uncertainty and decreasing job security, when the social, ethnic, and cultural disparities between the dominant culture and new immigrants have appeared suddenly and when “large and sustained” inflows of immigrants have occurred (Nevins, 2002). The southwester U.S. today is no exception to this, specially Arizona. III. Stakeholder Positions: The Polarized Immigration Discussion in the Southwest. As above stated, Hispanics have gradually become a higher percentage of the “social fabric” of the Southwest. As Figure 3 shows it, already in 1990 the percentage was very significant. Figure 4 shows us the percentage of Hispanic population for southwestern states as of 2006. It can be seen that the percentage in most states is significant, above 11% with a high in New Mexico, with over 44% of the population of this origin. In accordance with restrictionist and the prevailing view of OWI, it is said that the high level of Hispanics that make up this immigrant wave are the reason for polar positions in the United States and particularly in the Southwest today. The history of the region having been largely a part of Mexico and the existence of Chicano groups calling for “reconquista (the reincorporation of the Southwest to Mexico)” are used in this line of thought too. In a 2007 article, Malia Politzer states in the Migration Information Source webpage that the debate over immigration issues peaks in the Southwest border regions where both border crossings and migrant deaths directly impact communities (Politzer, 2007).

13

Figure 3- Hispanic Population in the United States in 1990. Source: www.census.gov/.../RHOriginPD-1990.html

Figure 4- Hispanic Population in the Southwestern United States in 1990. Source: based on data by the Pew Hispanic Center (2006)

14

She holds that in no state is the debate more polarized than in Arizona, the entry point for approximately 40 percent of undocumented migrants entering the United States along the Southwest border, according to US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). She points to the examples in the November 2006 elections, where immigration hardliner Randy Graf, a Republican who sought to represent the state's 8th congressional district, lost to Democrat Gabrielle Giffords in large part because many voters believed he wanted to go too far to fight illegal immigration. Yet, in the same elections, Arizona voters overwhelmingly passed four propositions aimed at "cracking down" on unauthorized immigration, including one that restricts undocumented immigrants' access to in-state tuition, taxpayer-funded adult education, and child care, among other benefits. The other propositions deny unauthorized immigrants' access to bail if they have been charged with committing a serious felony; declare English the official language of Arizona; and prevent unauthorized immigrants from being awarded punitive damages in any civil action in any Arizona court (Politzer, 2007). Politzer develops a useful characterization of pro and anti-immigrant groups centered in Arizona. Many of its points are applicable to other latitudes in the region. Promigrant groups are largely made up by faith-based and secular activist groups. For these groups in Arizona, the main issues are migrant abuse and fatalities. They also focus on the economic and social benefits of migration, and the human cost of current immigration and border-enforcement policies. In general, they work with local government groups, migrant shelters, church groups, and communities in both Mexico and the United States (Politzer, 2007). The history of religious groups in migration issues dates back to the Sanctuary Movement in 1980. This movement was founded by a Presbyterian church and a Quaker meeting in Tucson, initially giving humanitarian and legal assistance to Guatemalans and Salvadorans fleeing violence at home. Two years later, the churches defied INS and began providing sanctuary to Central American refugees because none of the refugees they helped had received political asylum. The movement spread and involved more than 500 congregations around the country (Politzer, 2007). The great contribution of the Sanctuary Movement was to put immigration policy on the radar screen for faith-based groups, planting the seeds for faith-based activism in the immigration sphere, and helping build coalitions with secular human-rights organizations that were already focused on immigration in Arizona (Politzer, 2007). The shift changed in June 1999 to a response of deaths in the desert. Humane Borders, an organization dedicated to reducing migrant fatalities by putting water tanks in key desert locations and raising public awareness about the human cost of US migration policies in the hope of influencing policy reform, was founded by religious leaders in 2000 (Politzer, 2007). In addition to Humane Borders, Tucson is home to other well known promigrant groups, among them Borderlinks, Coalición de Derechos Humanos/Alianza Indígena Sin Fronteras (Human Rights Coalition/Indigenous Alliance Without Borders), Healing Our Borders, Border Action Network (BAN), Tucson Samaritans, Border Solutions, Coalition to Bring Down the Walls, and the Tucson office of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) (Politzer, 2007). The coalition No More Deaths (NMD), founded in 2003, brings together many of these groups. NMD places migrant-aid camps throughout the Sonoran Desert in southern Arizona and northern Mexico from which volunteers operate "search-and-rescue patrols" and provide migrants with food, water, and medical assistance (Politzer, 2007).

15

The Tucson phenomenon gradually has spread to other cities north. In Phoenix, the John Garrido Network, Tonatierra and other organizations have created a similar landscape. Further north, smaller organizations have appeared as the impact of the migrant phenomenon becomes more overt. An attempt to create the Arizona Coalition for Migrant Rights, a statewide coalition, failed dues to feud confrontations and other structural problems. An attempt to create a successful statewide coalition of faith based organizations has been more successful in the case of the Arizona Interfaith Network, which has led many campaigns for the recognition of migrant rights and has organized major advocacy campaigns around this agenda. According to Politzer (2007), proimmigrant groups in Arizona generally advocate for comprehensive policy reform but don't always agree on what should be included. Consistently, the groups reject most of the reform proposals on the allegation that they lack effective solutions. This has to do with the traditional distance (not just geographic but also cultural) that Washington policy makers have had from the border. This results in proposals that in view of the groups do not address migrant needs. Some, like Humane Borders and the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) advocate for guest worker programs, some requesting work visas issued directly to migrants so they would not be tied to any one employer or sector of the economy, and rights for workers to join labor unions. Both groups also want legislation that would legalize the undocumented already living and working in the United States, and address the family reunification backlog (Politzer, 2007). Derechos Humanos focuses on policies favoring TWI and fights increased "militarization" of the border (e.g., building high-tech walls, increasing the number of Border Patrol personnel, etc.), a position consistent with Border Action Network (BAN) and Borderlinks. Proimmigrant groups participate in a number of actions aimed at influencing politicians and public opinion on both the state and national levels. Strategies used in the past have included organizing marches as well as postcard, letter-writing, bumper-sticker, and lawn-sign campaigns; testifying in front of Congress; and sending delegations to Washington, DC, to speak with politicians (Politzer, 2007). On the other side of the ledger, Politzer (2007) places what it calls border watch groups. These groups organized in southern Arizona also following the 1998 shift of migrant traffic to desert areas. According to this source, even if anti-immigrant sentiment has a long history on the Southwest border, there has been a surge of grassroots organizing among border watch groups since the 2001 terrorist attacks. Increasing numbers of are concerned about national security, and these groups have successfully channeled that fear towards the Southwest border, which they claim is porous and vulnerable to terrorism (Politzer, 2007). Sierra Vista rancher and Douglas, Arizona, businessman Roger Barnett founded Cochise County Concerned Citizens (CCCC) in 1999 with 20 local ranchers who supported making citizen arrests of trespassers on their land. Barnett soon teamed up with Glen Spencer's American Border Patrol from California which also organizes armed patrols (Politzer, 2007). In 2000, Texas-based Ranch Rescue, founded by Jack Foote, opened a chapter in Arizona, where volunteers began patrolling the private land of sympathetic ranchers (Politzer, 2007). While southern Arizona is home to the greatest concentration of border watch groups, the movements have gained popularity and are spreading to other border regions. 16

The most well-known — and possibly the most influential — group is the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC), dedicated to securing the country's land and sea borders against unauthorized entry. Based in Scottsdale, Arizona, and founded by Chris Simcox, a former kindergarten teacher from California, this group is a split off from the Minuteman Project, which Simcox and Jim Gilchrest, a retired certified public accountant and Vietnam War veteran from California, founded together in 2004. Before the separation, Simcox and Gilchrest attracted about 700 volunteers in April 2005 who patrolled a section of the US-Mexico border. This first major campaign garnered national media attention and helped establish Simcox and Gilchrest as commentators on border security (Politzer, 2007). A sign of their success is that gradually these groups have expanded north and have created chapters even in the smallest towns of southwestern states (Politzer, 2007). For instance, the Tri-city area (Prescott, Prescott Valley and Chino Valley, Arizona) has an active chapter of the MCDC. Border watch groups identify comprehensive immigration reform as amnesty for the unauthorized. They also focus on high profile enforcement. For instance, despite its focus on border enforcement, Chris Simcox initially criticized the Sensenbrenner bill, which the House passed in December 2005. The bill called for building a high-tech fence along sections of the southern border and making unauthorized presence in the country a felony rather than a civil crime. In a press release issued after the Sensenbrenner bill's passage, Simcox said that the National Guard should be placed on the border, and that possibly "thousands of miles of fence to secure the border" were necessary. In May 2006, President Bush authorized the deployment of 6,000 National Guard units along the US-Mexico border. MCDC works to influence policy primarily on the local level, although it also conducts national media campaigns. MCDC's past actions have included letter-writing campaigns, congressional lobbying, protests (both locally and in Washington, DC), fax blasts, and outreach to universities. The organization has also expanded significantly throughout the United States with 76 chapters in 36 states, according to Simcox (Polizter, 2007). In Simcox's opinion, most politicians espouse rhetoric that includes increased border security, but they do not follow through. He says that in no way does MCDC support Senator McCain's approaches to immigration reform (Politzer, 2007). It is obvious that the groups still do not dare to fully call for a TWI model in view of the strong feelings that the national security agenda have brought to the public opinion around this issue. They have relied more on a human rights promotion agenda as opposed to a strict national security approach to immigration. At the beginning of 2007, both pro and anti-immigrant groups were expectant and adjusting their strategies to the federal congress in control of the Democratic Party. The truth of the matter is that previous to and amidst the political campaign for the presidency, little has been done in the way of policy reform and all expectations are on hold to the results of the November, 2008 election. Interestingly enough, this election has, for the first time, shown the influence of the Hispanic community by having debates in Spanish for the primaries that were focused on the issues that were assumed to be important for this group. Many of the topics including educational reform and economic development policies seemed to point to the need of exploring the TWI model as a need to gain full support of this cultural community. 17

Of course, immigration reform was one of the topics on the table. The contrast between Republican and Democratic platforms was very strong, yet the results have been the same. Yet, as the campaign has advanced, immigration seems to have taken a bit of a back seat and the discussion has shifted to a contrast between the state of the economy and national security. At best, the hopes for southwestern groups to attract attention at the larger public opinion level seem to be limited to the humanitarian crisis that is revived every summer along southwestern states. In one of the most advanced documents that we have found on this topic, the Czech Republic (2008) states that a TWI model is only possible with the following prerequisites: a) A coherent migration policy; b) Personnel resources, and, c) Financial resources. At the federal level in the U.S. this would imply a complete reshuffling of the immigration institutions focusing a lot of efforts and resources toward the service and not as much on the enforcement sector. Today this seems a very radical shift for the U.S. reality. Therefore, it seems like at the macro level, the discussion will be maintained at a restrictionist level, at best hoping for the discussion to move in the direction of OWI policies. Interestingly enough, groups along the region are in fact implementing what seems to be a TWI agenda at the grassroots level in hopes of better times for a comprehensive reform discussion to include such measures. Their scale may be what makes this possible. The two case studies that follow seem to confirm this trend. IV. Case Studies of Community-Based Organizations in the U.S. Southwest Trying to Implement a Two-Way Integration Model. a. At the Local Level What Does it Take? Zubkova (2008) has synthesized the components necessary for a TWI model to be operative, based on her experience and research working in Colorado. Her conclusions are specifically based on the European Union’s Immigrant Integration Policy (Council of the European Union, 2004) and the Czech Republic’s Updated Concept of Immigrant Integration (2008). She holds that the program elements necessary for a successful implementation of this model include the areas of: language training, education, employment, understanding of family roles, healthcare, laws and civic participation, community in general and discrimination and stereotypes. A good knowledge of the host society’s official language is essential to successful integration. Being bilingual immigrants can participate in the life of community and access other services without the help of an interpreter (Zubkova, 2008). Knowledge of the language is, for an immigrant, not only a tool for acquisition of other skills, but above all, it is a bridge to understanding the thinking of individuals in the given society (Czech Republic, 2008). A new language shapes the immigrant’s new identity. it becomes a means of communication that establishes the immigrant’s relation with the community, and extends the opportunities of his/her participation in the labor market as well as offers opportunities for further education. Also, it increases the chance for immigrant to feel to be a part of the society he/she lives in (Zubkova, 2008). Education is another important aspect to immigrant integration. Many immigrant families appreciate that their children can go to public schools in the United States, but sometimes the language barrier between the school and the immigrant parents can cause communication problems. According to Downs-Karkos, teachers should learn more about the cultural background of their students, and schools need to provide 18

bilingual interpreters at parent-teacher conferences (Downs-Karkos, 2003). Another barrier to higher education is laws forbidding in-state tuition to undocumented students (Zubkova, 2008). There are many employment opportunities available for immigrants. Some immigrants feel they have to work harder than US workers to gain recognition from their employers or to be treated equally. In fact, employer treatment has a significant impact on immigrant integration. Many immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, do not quit their uncomfortable jobs and stay at jobs they do not like (Zubkova, 2008). The different credentialing requirements in the USA that keep many trained immigrants from using their skills can be another barrier in integration. The qualifications and education immigrants receive in their countries of origin are often misunderstood and undervalued in the destination country. Immigrants pursue different career options, including taking work for which they are overqualified, volunteering, having their qualifications assessed, and upgrading and broadening their training. The different recognition of qualifications is due to the demand for unskilled labor and the complicated structure of procedures aimed at recognition of qualifications acquired in the USA (Zubkova, 2008). The attitudes and behaviors of parents in the United States might be different from what many immigrants know from their country of origin; for example, Americans have different models of machismo. Within the Latin America culture machismo is seen as male dominance and control, often with culturally stigmatized behavior like beating one’s wife. This kind of violent behavior keep an immigrant male from successful integration. However, machismo may refer to something positive for men. Macho man is one who is responsible for the financial welfare of his family (Zubkova, 2008). Many immigrants believe they cannot afford basic healthcare because it is expensive and because they lack health insurance. Sometimes they rely on their traditional healers, who do not have the same resources here as in their home country. Although it is less expensive than then the services of US doctors, sometimes it can cause the patients more medical problems than they already had (Zubkova, 2008). In addition, healthcare institutions struggle with a lack of language interpretation services for their patients, and culturally competent care for immigrants, especially in mental healthcare (Downs -Karkos 2003). Many immigrants break the law unconsciously because they do not know that certain things are a violation of law in the country they migrate to, but are allowed in their country of origin. Immigrants get in trouble, go to jail, or are even deported because they do not know the laws of the country, including their own lawful rights. Therefore, it is important to inform immigrants of their rights and the intricacies of the law system through workshops, articles, and information booklets in their language. Further, community plays an important role in immigrant integration process. An individual community member can help with doctors, volunteer to tutor English, help find jobs, and make newcomers feel welcome. Immigrants can do volunteer work for a community and can teach other community members about their culture (Zubkova, 2008). The immigrant’s relations with members of the majority society will help an immigrant to become selfsufficient and independent . However, if an immigrant is to fully accept the standards and values of a given society and identify himself/herself with that society, it is necessary for him/her to establish and maintain contacts with members of the majority society. The opinions and approach of the host society 19

are, therefore, essential to immigrant integration since they strongly influence the efforts of immigrants to integrate themselves into society (Czech Republic, 2008). Immigrants often feel stereotyped by people and institutions in their new communities. They want to be judged as individuals, not as a group. They are willing to get involved in the community—while staying connected to their own culture— and to suspend judgment about the mainstream culture (Zubkova, 2008). Immigrants frequently report that they are treated differently because of their accent or limited English proficiency (Downs-Karkos, 2003). b. TWI in Colorado: The Colorado Trust and the Gunnison County MRO (MRO). i.

The Colorado Trust

The Colorado Trust, a Denver-based grant-making organization, views the immigrant integration process as a two-way street; it is a mutual and dynamic process between the immigrant family and the new home or “receiving community.” Each has an important, mutually beneficial role to play. Established residents, institutions and communities change to adapt to new residents, as they strive to adapt to the new society” (Downs-Karkos, 2003). The Colorado Trust is dedicated to advancing the health and well-being of the people of Colorado. It was established in 1985 and endowed with $191 million. It is one of the first foundations in Colorado to utilize an initiative-based approach to grant making that is strategically focused on specific issues. The Colorado Trust seeks to identify the needs of Coloradoans and develops initiatives to address these needs in specific areas that promote health and prevent disease and provide resources to strengthen families. First, the foundation researches the needs of the people of Colorado and creates a strategy to meet those needs. Then the grant is awarded and the Trust communicates with citizens, community leaders and grantees to see how effective or how big the impact of this grant is in the community. The Colorado Trust is now able to support grantees over long periods of time and therefore, the change they bring is positive and sustainable (Zubkova, 2008). In 1999, the Colorado Trust began to examine how increasing numbers of diverse immigrants were changing communities in Colorado. Many immigrants settled in the Denver metropolitan area as well as in smaller towns where they came to fill jobs in ski resorts, hotels, meat packing plants and agriculture industries. Although these immigrants brought a strong work ethic and many cultural and family values, they were also facing everyday challenges such as encountering language barriers, not accessing health care, or legal services. To help newcomers adjust to their new lives in Colorado, the Colorado Trust launched its Supporting Immigrant and Refugee Families Initiative (SIRFI) in 2000. The project was managed by the Spring Institute for Intercultural Learning, a Denver non-profit organization, which provides direct services to immigrants (Downs-Karkos, 2003). The SIRFI is an 11-year initiative with an $ 18.2 million endowment. The initial grant supported 23 organizations that provided mental health or cultural adjustment services to immigrants and refugees. Although these organizations expanded the services to immigrants, they could not meet all the challenges newcomers faced. The Trust came to a realization that, in order to fulfill all the needs of immigrants, they needed to start working with institutions such as schools, hospitals and local governments. Therefore, the Trust introduced a new comprehensive approach that involves mainstream institutions, immigrant-serving organizations and even individual community members themselves which was clearly the next step in more fully addressing immigrant needs (Downs-Karkos, 2003). 20

The Colorado Trust discussed the impact of immigration on Colorado, met with a group of local and national leaders who worked with the immigrants, and started a new phase of the SIRFI initiative which promotes immigrant integration in Colorado. Current funding supports 19 Colorado communities. Gunnison County was among the first 10 communities to begin receiving support in 2004; an additional nine communities received grants in 2006. Each community has developed a plan to establish its specific needs, such as strengthening local health care providers’ ability to offer competent care to people from different cultures, helping immigrant parents become more involved in their children’s schooling, and improving access to English classes for immigrants (Zubkova, 2008). ii.

The Gunnison County MRO

As the European Union has accepted it, involvement of the local leaders is necessary for successful integration of immigrants (Council of the European Union, 2004; Czech Republic, 2008). In this view, integration is a process that takes place primarily at the local level. The frequency and quality of private interactions and exchanges between immigrants and other residents are key elements of greater integration. There are many ways to encourage integration. An important aspect is a greater focus on promoting the use of common forums, intercultural dialogue, space and activities in which immigrants interact with other people in the host society, and on the sustained education of the host society about immigrants and immigrant cultures (Czech Republic, 2008). Specifically, consideration needs to be given to the impact of immigration on public services such as education, social services and others, especially at the level of regional and local administration which are the building-blocks of successful integration (Zubkova, 2008). The MRO is a part of the Health and Human Services Department and helps the non-English speakers in the community to get information, education, and any type of assistance that is culturally and linguistically appropriate to facilitate an integration into the Gunnison (and U.S.) society (Gunnison Multicultural Resource Office, 2007). The MRO uses the two-way immigrant integration model, in which the immigrants and the receiving community work together to foster integration. The office’s mission statement is as follows: ● Focus on providing an excellent resource for the Gunnison Valley where education, communication and networking can take place in order to aid in the integration of families into the community ● Provide interpreters as needed for client and community ● Develop, provide, and translate materials ● Provide the community with culturally appropriate materials and services ● Provide statistical information for community planning, and work with community providers to promote culturally diverse, sensitive and affordable health services The MRO depends on grants and the funding provided by several organizations. According to the MRO 2006 Report, the organizations are the following:

21

● The Colorado Trust awarded a four-year grant of $300,000 for immigrant integration projects in Gunnison County ● 5 A Day is a cancer prevention grant from the Colorado Health Department for the entire community including immigrants ● State Tobacco Education & Prevention Partnership & Cooper Institute’s Tobacco Control Partners Project Grant, whose goals are to decrease youth initiation of tobacco use through education and reduced access, promote cessation of tobacco use among youth and adult, minimize cultural disparities in tobacco use, and increase awareness of the health risks of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) exposure ● Gunnison County Commissioners provide office space and logistical support The MRO was established in 2001 and it is the only resource office for immigrants in Gunnison County. Public Health Director, Carol Dawson, who saw an increase of immigrant clients from one family to 84 families in eight years, spearheaded the MRO project. Gunnison County Commissioners, Mary Burt (Literacy Action Director at that time), and ESL teachers identified that the increasing immigrant population needed assistance with many things. They came up with a list of volunteer interpreters who were used by Dispatch and Public Health. Carol Dawson secured a small grant that allowed Public Health to do an assessment of needs of the thirty immigrant clients who Public Health served at the time. The most pressing needs were basic, such as doctor visits, and communicating with schools and community. Carol Dawson was awarded a CDPHE (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment) prevention grant and was able to hire a coordinator and create the Multicultural Office, a unique service in this small rural community. This office carried out the mission of Public Health “to protect and improve the health of all people in Gunnison County” (Zubkova, 2008). Ellen Pedersen, the Coordinator of the MRO, is effectively carrying out a model office that helps people who do not speak the same language. Her work is very broad: interpreting, translating, scheduling the appointments, finding interpreters, and virtually anything else that needs doing. The MRO works closely with Department of Health and Human Services, which has a Spanish-speaking staff who helps their nonEnglish-speaking clients (Zubkova, 2008). The MRO depends on the work of volunteers. In 2007, the MRO had 33 volunteers who collectively speak eleven languages (Cora, Czech, Danish, English, French, German, Hebrew, Portuguese, Slovakian, Spanish, and Sign ASL/PSE) (Gunnison Multicultural Resource Office, 2008). The long-term goal of the MRO is self-sustainability; the short-term goal is to get the clients to do a little more on their own each time. The office can help them with many things, but also teaches them to be selfsufficient. For example, the MRO can go to the post office with immigrants and show them how to mail a letter or go to the supermarket and show them around, but the MRO cannot do it every day with the same people (Zubkova, 2008). According to 2007 MRO Report, the majority of clients visiting the MRO in 2007 were from Mexico (93.8 %): 30.8% were Cora Indians and 1% Huichol Indians from Nayarit, and 60.7 % were Mexicans from other states. People represented South and Central American from Peru, Guatemala, Argentina, and El Salvador (6.3%). Europe/Asia included clients from Russia and England (0.5%) (Gunnison Multicultural Resource Office, 2008).. The most frequent visitors to the office are women. Some of the immigrant families do not stay in Gunnison all year round; they move to other places. However, if they visit the MRO at least once during the year, they are recorded as “clients” for that year. 22

Specific programs seek to fulfill the educational needs of immigrants.The level of education of some immigrants, particularly the Cora Indians, is low because they did not have an opportunity to go to school in their country of origin. Some immigrants are illiterate and they start to learn how to read and write in the English classes provided by Literacy Action Program in Gunnison. This program is funded by the Colorado Department of Education, and offers programs for both adults and children. There are five (most of them part-time) teachers for the Family Literacy, GED and ESL (English as a Second Language) classes that are offered year-round. The tot-parent and GED classes are scheduled in the morning; the ESL classes for adults are in the evening. Most of the morning classes are free; the ESL students need to pay $25 for a semester, which includes books and other studying materials. The Family Literacy includes various classes for parents and their children. The purpose of these classes is to integrate families into the community, particularly the immigrants. This is a great opportunity for all the families of Gunnison (Spanish and English-speaking) to get together and learn with their children. For example, “Wee Gatherings” takes place in the Recreation Center and the participants play and exercise together, “Tiempo para cuentos de niños” is in the library, and parents read together with their children. The morning Family Literacy classes are instructed in such a way that parents can learn English while their children are learning more Spanish, which prevents children from losing their mother language when they start school. ESL classes are offered in Gunnison and Crested Butte, which is a ski resort 30 miles north from Gunnison. During the summer and winter seasons, immigrants from around the world are hired to work for the ski resort. Some of them live in Crested Butte, while some live in Gunnison and commute to work every day. Many immigrants are only seasonal workers, and when the ski season is over, they return home. However, some immigrants stay in the area and come to the classes all year round. The Gunnison and Crested Butte ESL program offers classes for beginners, intermediate and advanced students (Zubkova, 2008). Other programs involve the area of healthcare. Immigrant women participate in various Public Health programs that provide nutrition education for pregnant and postpartum women, and support the healthy development of their children. All the programs provide Spanish materials to their Hispanic clients, and bilingual staff or an interpreter for home visits. The Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) is a Public Health program designed to help women in Gunnison to improve their prenatal health and their care of babies until they are two years old. Registered nurses visit women in their homes and educate them about nutrition during pregnancy, breastfeeding, and the planning of future pregnancies. The program is for low-income women pregnant with their first child; it is free and voluntary. Fathers, family members and friends are encouraged to participate in the home visits. The frequency of the visits depends on how long the participants have been enrolled in this program. After enrollment and birth, the visits are done weekly, then every other week, and then monthly for the last four months. The Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is a federal grant program for which Congress authorizes a specific amount of funding each year for program operations. WIC supports low-income women and children up to age five who are at nutritional risk by providing foods to supplement diets, information on healthy eating, and referrals to healthcare (Food & Nutrition Service). WIC participants receive checks and vouchers to purchase specific foods each month that are designed to supplement their diets.

23

Bright Beginnings (BB) helps Gunnison families support their children’s physical, emotional, and intellectual development during the critical first three years of life. The following programs are offered to interested families at no cost. In Program A (Warm Welcome program), a BB employee or volunteer visits parents of newborns and provides them with information on health, safety, childcare, community resources, health insurance, and brain development. Programs B and C (Moving On programs) give parents specific information, assessments, and tools to promote language development during the second and third year of life (Zubkova, 2008). In the area of civil education, the Gunnison County MRO, the Colorado Trust Organization, and Colorado Legal Services are the sponsors of the Living in America Workshops. The workshops are offered several times a year with topics on the law, rights and responsibilities, financial systems, community resources and law enforcement. Colorado Legal Services has received another grant to increase the number of these workshops and expand the topics to such areas as domestic violence and parental rights. Some resources are created recognizing the detailed diversity of the immigrant community in Gunnison. This is the case of an information booklet on the Cora Indigenous group. The purpose of the Cora Information Booklet is to increase awareness about a minority culture that lives in Gunnison community. This information brochure provides facts of Cora indigenous culture in Mexico, their life as immigrants and the reasons for their migration to Colorado (Zubkova, 2008). The Multicultural Office has served the needs of almost five hundred families and different organizations since its opening, and is currently being used as a model in other communities. c. TWI in Prescott Arizona: The Efforts of the Aztlan Center, Prescott Tri-City Area, Arizona. The Aztlan Immigrant Resource Center is a student club in the undergraduate program of Prescott College in the city of Prescott, Arizona. Different from the MRO in Gunnison, it is a much more spontaneous process which gave origin and has characterized the evolution of this NGO. Nevertheless, it will become clear that it also has espoused a TWI model in its work. This section relies heavily on the personal experience of the two first coauthors in being advisors of this organization for the last 9 years. This account will be organized according to the stages illustrated in Figure 5 i. Candid Vision: The Southwest Environmental Justice Center (2000-2001), Aztlan was initially created in the year 2000 by initiative of students that were interested in the growing awareness on environmental justice issues4. Their basic questioning was centered on the living conditions of Hispanic migrants in the poorer communities of Prescott. Initially known as the Southwest Center for Environmental Justice, quickly the name was changed to Aztlan in order to recognize the past of Arizona as an acknowledgement of the historical overlapping of cultures. Initially, the mission5 statement of the center sought to recognize as environmental racism, any policy practices or directives that differentially affect or disadvantage (whether intended or unintended) the environment of individuals, groups or communities based on race or color. It recognized that if environmental policy is discriminatory and unjust, it is assailable on moral grounds. Thus, the center sought to confront the immorality of few people consuming the most energy and producing the most 4

Zackary Goldberg from the Environmental Studies program was the student that first developed this idea in his senior project. 5 Ellie Kanipe and Tim Roos were extremely instrumental to develop this mission. 24

waste, while it is the health of the poor that is most affected by the resulting pollution. The Center also recognized that basing environmental, social and economic policy only on anthropocentric considerations is unethical.

Figure 5- Stages in the History of the Aztlan Center. Source: Authors Elaboration

The Aztlan Center took an initial commitment for the respect of the environmental rights of the socially marginal. According to its mission statement, these rights included: 1- The right to participation, 2- the right to live in a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and, the right to a decent standard of living. The Center also recognized the interconnections between these rights and their importance in the pursuit of happiness. Finally, the center defined its geographical area of work to comprise the State of Arizona and neighboring areas of the southwest region, including areas beyond the political border between Mexico and the United States, giving emphasis to work that affects its immediate neighboring region in Prescott, Arizona. This radical initial stance started an enthusiastic trend of bringing environmental justice scholars, strengthening the content of courses in Ecological Economics and Environmental Law in this area and undertaking independent studies and senior projects. Pretty soon this naïve perception was altered by the reality of the city of Prescott. The reality of the Latin American community in the area was that for them speaking about their environmental rights was too abstract. Their immediate needs were way more basic. Serious literacy gaps 25

were detected and verified by statistics. A high percentage of the population did not speak English and was working in the informal sectors of the economy, while staying invisible and stereotyped. ii. Sensing the Needs of the Latin American Community and Bridging the Gap Between It and the Rest of the Tri-City Communities (2001-2005) Two initiatives marked the beginning of a second stage in the history of the center. As English literacy seemed an essential need, a weekly program of ESL was established through volunteers and in coordination with the Sacred Heart Catholic Church. In order to promote cultural contact and reduce invisibility, a parallel program of SSL was initiated at a time and date that made it 6necessary for the two cultural communities interact in the same space (Machia, 2003). As recognition to the success of this program, Ligia Umaña was also put in charge of the social development ministry of the church and held a seat in the Parish Council for several years. Nevertheless, the fact that the space used for these classes was located in the church itself, made some members feel uneasy as to the affiliation with the church it could suggest. Further, some members also wanted the center to be completely a community initiative, independent of the college. In their view, the college did not send a welcoming message to the Hispanic community, due to the affluence and prevailing ethnic origin of its students. For these reasons, the center sought to find a space for rent in order to conduct its business. The effort it took to raise funds every month to pay rent made the center change its mind and go back to the church and holding meetings at the college. The amount and dedication of the volunteers involved in this stage was remarkable and guaranteed that even if short of money, the center would stay open. The second initiative that was started at this time was a cooperation program to organize immigrant rights workshops in coordination with the public relations officers of the Immigration Service from Phoenix. (Koniarski, 2003) It was agreed that, without checking attendant’s status, the INS (ICE today) would send an officer about twice a year to Prescott to make this workshop where he/she would explain the rights an immigrant has regardless of status and would give pointers to undocumented ones as of typical problems they could get themselves into. This program was highly successful and went uninterrupted for 18 months until 2003. At this time, the center’s motto was …”bridging the gap.” (Machia, 2003) Part of the reflections of this period had to do with the reasons why the students in the center felt that the Hispanic community did not trust the college. One of the things that became apparent was that the curriculum that we had in the undergraduate program focused on the reality of Latin America or Latin American in the United States from a very detached and observational perspective. Students would frequently say that the felt the college was “othering” and making Latin Americans exotic and fitting of the stereotypes that were being perpetuated by the educational model that was used to focus on this area of the curriculum. This led to initiatives that started taking courses to field trips in Latin America and the US-Mexico border that sought to fill this void through the use of political ecology (the study of environmental conflicts that arise from inequity) in these areas, while using a “reality tour” approach. Some of these courses were the direct creation of student’s senior projects too.7 6

Among the initiators Ariana Salvo and Ligia Umaña. This was the case of Faline Harshbarger’s senior project where she co-created the very popular course: US-Mexico Interface: The Border. This course grew from an initial run with 3 students to becoming one of the most popular field courses in the curriculum. 26

7

At this time a major curricular change happened in the undergraduate program at Prescott College. The Cultural and Regional Studies program was created. As a new program, seeking identity, this program garnished a lot of the energy of the active group of students that were involved with Aztlan to build such identity. New faculty was hired due to the increased demand in the area of Latin American Studies (LAS). A new slate of courses was implemented into the curriculum with a stronger history and cultural studies content. Aztlan maintained its language and immigrant education programs. Due to the commitment of volunteers, the program was kept on going throughout the whole year.8 The center started playing an advocacy body too. A big step in this direction was the creation of a weekly called the Toilet Paper, which was really effective and ingenious, being placed in Prescott College bathrooms every week.9 The popularity of the Latin American program became larger and as such the volunteers for the center grew in numbers and commitment. The center became the way in which the issues that were focused on in the field courses were kept alive at home. The range of topics included immigration, free trade, cultural wars, the emerging new left in Latin America and its impacts and many others (Haas, 2003; AguilarGonzález, et. al., 2005). Aztlan was now an integral part of the curriculum, as seen in Figure 6.

Figure 6- The Aztlan Center as an Integral Component of the Curriculum. Source: Authors elaboration.

8

instrumental to this were volunteers like Julie Spear Natalie Canfield and Meredith Marder gave the Toilet paper a real push by devoting a lot of their time to its creation. 27

9

A clear sign of this growth and maturity was one of its advocacy/educational activities, where the center was able to raise significant funds as to bring to the small conservative town of Prescott the world renowned Chicano artist Guillermo Gomez-Pena.10 His presentation, with a packed Elks theatre, was a challenge to the community and raised praise and harsh criticism due to the controversial nature of the concepts with which the artist plays (white privilege, progressive’s hypocrisy, political correctness, sexual “othering”, etc.). The feeling of the members of the center was that this process of making the community uncomfortable was healthy to wake the community up from its numbness on racial problems. One good thing of the presentation is that, for the first time, it allowed the center to establish a relationship with Latin American businesses that in one way or the other have continued to support the center’s work.11 Yet, unfortunately, the presentation did win some antipathy for the center from some members of the Prescott College Community as they saw Aztlan as starting to project an image that was too radical for their taste. By the end of 2004, Aztlan got involved with a campaign to defeat Anti-immigrant proposition 200 in the Arizona Ballots. This proposition, Proposition 200 was drafted by the Protect Arizona Now (PAN) Coalition with the support of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR, a restrictionist anti-immigrant group), which poured $450,000 into the signature collection process. FAIR’s calculation in supporting Proposition 200 was that by targeting a border state where people were upset over illegal immigration, they could win by a large margin. Its hope was that this would result in the intimidation of national policy makers who were moving forward on immigration reform, and that anti-immigration advocates in other states would be encouraged to push for copy-cat initiatives. (FAIR and affiliated organizations tried to qualify ballot initiatives in California, Colorado, and Nevada in 2004 but failed to do so.) (National Immigration Forum, 2004). Proposition 200 sought to limit undocumented immigrants’ access to public benefits and voting by requiring proof of citizenship when voting and when applying for (vaguely defined) public benefits. In addition, it forces public servants to deny services to undocumented immigrants and to turn them over to authorities. Failing to do so could result in jail terms and fines. A media poll in early summer registered support for the initiative as high as 80% among voters. Given these numbers and FAIR’s involvement, advocates knew that defeating this measure would be an uphill battle—if not impossible. In September a broad-based, bipartisan, labor/business/faith, Anglo/Hispanic coalition came together to fight Proposition 200. It organized a targeted media and grassroots campaign that reached voters across the state. In the process it raised $1.3 million dollars, mobilized new voters, and brought together an unprecedented coalition from the right and the left including key groups such as the AARP, the Chamber of Commerce, unions, and virtually every law enforcement agency in the state (National Immigration Forum, 2004). Once the campaign against Proposition 200 started, the support for the initiative dropped in the polls to 66% and then finally to the high 40s a week out from the election. This significant drop was the result of a timely and targeted strategy that highlighted the fact that Proposition 200 was not going to do what its proponents said it would do—stop illegal immigration—and would have unintended consequences that would make life for all Arizonans more difficult. This strategy worked; and having a range of voices that spoke against the initiative—including leading Republican and Democratic elected officials from Sen. John McCain to Gov. Janet Napolitano and Reps. Kolbe, Flake, Pastor and Grijalva—made it more powerful. Furthermore, shortly before the election, it was revealed that the anti-immigration proponents— 10

The leadership of Sarah Launius and Meredith Marder were very indispensable here, with the hard work of many other volunteers. 11 Don Tito’s Taquería Guadalajara, Casa Sanchez and later Ben Alvarez’ Casa Alvarez. 28

FAIR in particular—used fraudulent materials to get the measure on the ballot in the first place (National Immigration Forum, 2004). In short, the more voters learned about the initiative and its impact on the state, the less they liked it and the more they knew it was a bad non-solution to the perceived problem of illegal immigration. In the end, while the measure did pass with 56% of the vote, this is not the wide margin FAIR was hoping for (National Immigration Forum, 2004). Aztlan got involved in this campaign in support of the efforts of the Arizona Interfaith Network (AIN), specifically, the Northern Arizona Interfaith Council (NAIC), whose work in the region was coordinated by one of the authors of this paper. As a whole, regardless of the defeat, this campaign made Aztlan a more mature and networked organization. Volunteers were involved in canvassing, writing articles for local newspapers and other activities. As part of the pro-immigrant community, the significance of the campaign was that it showed that regardless of very hard conditions to overcome (restrictionists have a very strong base in the state), an unprecedented coalition could be created that led, not only to a great fundraising effort, but also to bipartisan opposition. This established an aggressive ground game of cooperating grassroots organizations and a real awareness that, more than partial solution ballot measures, voters resonated more with a comprehensive reform approach (National Immigration Forum, 2004). iii. Generational Rifts, Consolidation as Part of the Curriculum and Making Sense of an Autonomous Identity(2005-2006) The success attained in the last stage made Aztlan a player in the region. It had a name and a reputation. As such, different groups started placing attention on its work and tried to co-opt or absorb it. Such were the cases of No More Deaths and the Border Action Network. Members of both organizations got interested in the activist base and community image of the center. There were attempts by both to render the work of the center irrelevant and too localized, in an area where the “real” issues were not happening. Others contended that the topics into which these organizations wanted to take the center were too ideological and broad. Aztlan suffered an internal division. The center opted to stay focused local, even if open to networking and cooperation. It became a member with a chair in the board of the Arizona Coalition of Migrant Rights, a statewide organization that attempted to join groups from all the state (Border Action Network, No More Deaths, Alianza Braceroproa, Coalición de Derechos Humanos/Alianza Indígena Sin Fronteras , the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the Coalition for Latino Political Action, the Center for Community Change, Inmigrantes Sin Fronteras, Tonatierra, the Organización Maya Chapin de Guatemala en Arizona, the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project and Aztlan) to advocate for just immigration policy and law, work to defend and expand the rights of migrants and their families in Arizona, and educate its communities to advance immigration reform and social change (ACMR, 2005). This membership allowed the center to have a very active networking relation with other organizations and still support the work from its former members that went to work down at the border with No More Deaths and other humanitarian organizations such as Borderlinks. In fact, Aztlan became an open promoter of voluntarism with these organizations, which was seen as a way to strengthen its base and support the LAS curriculum (Isaacs, 2007, Haas, 2007). Another sign of the success of the continued work of the center was the initiative by Barbara Garvey, Prescott College president‘s spouse to support the ESL class program by creating groups that she 29

coordinated and managed by herself. Aztlan’s volunteers kept their own class slots and supported some of Mrs. Garvey’s, which allowed expanding the offerings. This initiative started bringing the Latin American immigrants directly to the college for the classes. Given this, Aztlan embarked in an effort to make the campus friendlier, more culturally embracing. As part of this, it led a campaign to take off signs that were offensive to the immigrants. For a long time, the only signs in Spanish in the Prescott College campus were “no loitering” signs. These were taken off in part thanks to an awareness video that was produced by the center. More friendly external signs (like murals) started being made by classes and students and were placed facing the corner of Lincoln Street and Grove Avenue, right where a large contingent of Latin American day laborers were standing. In order to get them to feel comfortable in the college, Spanish movie nights were organized too. On the academic side, the work of the center continued being benefited from senior projects and independent studies focusing on social, organizational and cultural aspects that increased its learning process.12 Among these, the idea for the creation of a day labor center started emerging in order to organize and protect the Latin Americans that were standing across the street from the college. For the first time too, Prescott College courses started using Latin American families for home stays, as a step to promote cultural integration. Another excellent element for cultural integration was the hiring by the college of a young and hard working masters student, who was a member of the Mexican-American community, as an adjunct to teach Spanish.13 She tailored her courses to include more than language training, an introduction to the culture of Latin America in different ways. Around this time, a large volunteer base of the center graduated. This led Aztlan to have to focus in finding more stable ways of keeping a base of work, since it was a time when work was undertaken by a smaller, yet very committed base of students.14For reasons that were hard to understand at the time, the LAS program at Prescott College started being decimated in terms of resources. This started happening even if the institution still kept it as a regular feature in marketing and promotional materials. iv. The Golden Times, Resources for Work in Programs and Institutional Consolidation (After 2006). The enthusiasm of a small group of committed volunteers began to yield relatively significant progress and generated a strong enrollment for the last 2 years. A new generation of volunteers built up with more infrastructural support. Through senior projects, independent studies and volunteer work, a LAS field course fund that eventually sought to help students pay for their expenses in field courses was started. Concurrently, the center was able to access Work Study funds that allowed it to pay its ESL and SSL instructors as well as an organizer and a program developer. Combined with the small allocation it received from the Student Activities fund, managed by the Student Union, these resources allowed the center to have a stable enough base as to embark in other programs that advanced more a TWI model.

12

Examples of these were Claire Mclane’s and Geoff Boyce’s work. Meulen Bajo 14 Such as Kelly Glynn and Joe McElligott. 30 13

Among these were more Immigrant Rights workshops and Citizenship Fairs in collaboration with NAIC and ACMR. Citizenship fairs basically consisted on recruiting volunteers that could help pro bono lawyers in filling applications for citizenship for those legal residents that were eligible and for some reason had not done it in the past or were just getting to be at the time to apply, yet had no resources to see a lawyer for help. The attention that this activity attracted was more than expected. The hope of the center when it announced it was that a few people would come. The attendance overwhelmed those expectations as it was over 100 people coming from places as far away as Tucson and California. In the end, after long hours of work, 50 applications for citizenship were submitted with the hope that 50 more Latin American voters would result. The work in coordination with the LAS program continued yielding excellent projects. The celebration of the Day of the Dead became a regular feature in the Prescott campus. Further, excellent senior projects and independent studies were implemented (awareness campaigns on the femicide problem in Ciudad Juarez, reflections on privilege and multiculturalism from a Latin Americanist perspective, documentation of stories of women in the border region15, among others). One of the most ambitious among these was a Group Independent Study that grouped Aztlan members and non members in a collective effort to advance toward the creation of a Day Labor Center in the area. The work and results of this initiative were highly significant from a maturation perspective. Not only was an ambitious project of documentation of similar experiences undertaken, but workshops and Ally Meetings were implemented to make the larger community of Prescott a participant and a promoter in this effort, getting the support from significant groups and individual members of the community. Further, impressively well attended activities were organized to bring the Latin American community to the campus of Prescott College and raise funds. These included invited speakers (as Salvador Reza from Tonatierra) and two large fiestas with Mexican musical bands at the college’s Crossroads Center. In this time, Aztlan has also been involved in several campaigns (Lewis, 2006). It was involved in a campaign to oppose Arizona’s ballot proposition 300, in coordination with the NAIC. This proposition restricted public program eligibility for undocumented immigrants including no access for in-state tuition at public universities, childcare and ESL classes (McKinley, 2008). In spite of a strong effort by several organizations throughout the state, this proposition passed. This marked another restrictionist victory. Also, the center was involved with awareness and fundraising campaigns to support the efforts of those supporting voting no in the referendum in Costa Rica to become party to the Central American Free Trade Agreement and to support the victims of 2007 floods in Tabasco and Chiapas, Mexico. As part of its awareness campaigns, the center organized a yearly program of talks, Latin American Mondays which included talks and presentations on various aspects of Latin American current issues. These were free and well attended. Further along the lines of a TWI approach, Aztlan promoted a very particular senior project known as El Servicio. This service consisted basically in a regular assistance phone line that would help Latin American immigrants with help in logistics of any sort that would allow them an easier integration to their receiving community. The program included filling forms, help with shopping, paying bills and a wide range of other services. One victory for a TWI approach was the participation in the Major’s Immigration task force. This force was convened to address the conflicts that immigration was creating in Prescott. Since December 2006, a 15

From Jessica Lichtig, Elizabeth Griztmacher and Haley West respectively. 31

chapter of the MCDC was organized in Prescott. Their main target became the workers that sought day jobs across the street from Prescott College. They organized with other anti-immigrant groups to harass the workers by taking photos of them and the people that came to hire them. This happened at the same time as a severe employer sanctions law was passed in Arizona. The issue became polarized when Aztlan and other local organizations started opposing the arbitrary actions that seemed to be happening in connection with this issue. Actions where the local and county police was involved beyond what seemed to be their normal jurisdiction were documented. These included less than clear cooperation with the federal immigration authorities in operatives to serve warrants that ended up in raid type operations, were the observance of constitutional and civil rights became less than clear. It was believed that the actions of the MCDC were connected to this and that their influence was strong with the local major to whom they were lobbying for the participation of local police officers in a training program that would allow them to enforce immigration regulations themselves. Aztlan members undertook a very active campaign in coordination with other local organizations to oppose these arbitrary actions. This included very active participation in the media (Rowland, 2008; Umaña-Ledezma and Aguilar-González, 2008), including an active cooperation with the local Spanish newspaper Alianza. In recognition of the polarization that the issue created in the Tri-city area, Major Jack Wilson created an Immigration Task Force with membership from the business sector, the anti-immigrant groups, the Hispanic community and the Pro-immigrant groups including representation from the Aztlan Center and the Sacred Heart Catholic Church. The result of this task force was a community agreement to request from the federal government a real effort for comprehensive immigration reform, the organization by the city of two guest lecturers to inform the community better on the issues surrounding immigration and to create a permanent immigration advisory committee for the city (Rhoden, 2008). This can be seen as a major victory in trying to implement a TWI and another sign of the maturity of the work of Aztlan. Today, the Aztlan Center is about to embark in a new stage. Its faculty advisors are moving from Prescott. Yet, the Toilet Paper still appears in the bathroom. A new leadership team is being configured, including alumni that have come back and will manage with experience the resources of the center. The challenges ahead should benefit from the experience obtained and summarized here. We have seen throughout this section, an account of two case studies where a TWI model has been implemented. We would like to conclude with a synthesis and a few reflections about the lessons learned. V. Conclusion: A Brief Synthesis of Lessons Learned. The comparative experience shows us an MRO experience as a better planned and endowed experience in Gunnison Colorado. It definitely shows the diversity of services and comprehensive reach that an effort of this nature can achieve to implement a TWI model of integration. The lesson from Colorado works within an area that mixes small town environment with the growth that is typical of tourism resorts in that area of the Southwest, with dormitory communities providing the labor for a service base community with high peaks of seasonal influx. Aztlan on the other side, shows us a more chaotic, less endowed path at the beginning. The important lesson there seems to come from maintaining its independence and community focus in order to 32

implement an agenda of TWI with the resources it has. The greatest advances here had to do with the comprehensiveness of the agenda that was allowed by advocacy work, while maintaining a solid base in some services (language classes and immigration information). The state of Arizona is one of those mega growth areas where gradually the border moves north and the issues become more pressing for communities that chose to ignore them in the past. Prescott used to be seen by undocumented migrants as a safe haven for this reason. The growth in the influx of population and immigrants has changed this. The importance of an organization like Aztlan in this case may reside in its capacity to foster, aside from services, a strong and active process of learning about the issues that pertain to a process of TWI. Both organizations though show us a common lesson. For the Southwestern United States, an area of high growth and great friction, probably the most effective way of implementation of a TWI can be the action of smaller focus groups. The advance shown here in the communities in question is way more significant than what can be perceived at the larger scales of State and federal levels. This may be further documented by generating research of similar case studies and developing methodological studies that center on the effectiveness of implementing these models of integration at the different levels of government and community. From the perspective of the authors, this has the potential to be one of the most effective paths to actually generate a real comprehensive immigration reform in an area reserved to the federal congress. VI. Dedication: Marketa Zubkova… Bernardo Aguilar-González and Ligia Umaña-Ledezma wish to dedicate this work to the people that made the work of the Aztlan Center possible: the students of Prescott College. They wish to honor their love and dedication, which they hope will keep the center alive as an independent community-oriented service and advocacy organization for many years to come. They also want to dedicate it to the Latin American community in Prescott, Arizona, especially the day laborers, without whose continuous inspiration ten years of work would have not meant as much as they did. VII.

References.

ACMR (2005) Arizona Coalition for Migrant Rights. Available at http://www.migrantrights.org/main/index.php Aguilar-González, B., et. al. (2005) “Latin America provides socio-economic inspiration” Transitions. Prescott College, Fall 2005, pp. 20. Alba, Richard and Nee, Victor. ”Rethinking Assimilation Theory for a New Era of Immigration.” International Migration Review 1.4 (1997): 826-874. Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. New York, Verso Books, 224 pp. Andreas, P. (2001) Border Games. Policing the US-Mexico Divide. Cornell, Cornell University Press, 176 pp. Brettell, C. (2000) “Theorizing Migration in Anthropology” in Brettell, C. and J. Hollifield. Migration Theory. Talking Across Disciplines. New York, Routledge, pp 97-136. 33

Brown, S. and F. Bean (2006) Assimilation Models, Old and New: Explaining a Long-Term Process. Migration Information Source. Oct. http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature//display.cfm?id=442

Council of the European Union. (2004) Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Integration Policy in the EU. Available at http://www.iccsi.ie/resources/EU%20Basic%20Principles.pdf Czech Republic (2008) Updated Concept of Immigrant Integration. http://www.cizinci.cz/files/clanky/329/Concept_of_II.pdf DHS (Department of Homeland Security) (2006) Deportable Aliens Located by Program and Border Patrol Sector and Investigations Special Agent in Charge (Sac) Jurisdiction: Fiscal Years 1997 To 2006. Available at http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk06En.shtm . Downs-Karkos, S. (2003) Immigrant Integration in Colorado. The Colorado Trust. http://www.coloradotrust.org/repository/publications/pdfs/ImmigrantIntegrationReport4_04.pdf GCIR (2005) Defining Immigrant Integration. GCIR. www.gcir.org/resources/gcir_publications/toolkit/25-32_imm_integr.pdf Gunnison County Multicultural Resource Office. (2007) Report –Year 2006. Gunnison: MRO. Gunnison County Multicultural Resource Office. (2008) Report –Year 2007. Gunnison: MRO. Haas, K. (2003) “Socialism Democracy and Conservation Class Takes Students to Cuba, Nicaragua and Costa Rica.” Transitions. Prescott College, Fall 2003, pp. 6. Haas, K. (2007) “Humanitarian Aid is Never a Crime” Transitions. Prescott College, Spring 2007, pp. 9. Isaacs, L. (2007) “Meetings at the Edge: Stories from the Borderlands” Transitions. Prescott College, Spring 2007, pp. 8. Kerwin, D. (2007) Immigrant Integration in the United States and Europe. Immigration Daily. Available at http://www.ilw.com/articles/2007,0226-kerwin.shtm Kocchar, R. (2008) Latino Labor Report, 2008: Construction Reverses Job Growth for Latinos. Pew Hispanic Center Report, Washington D.C., Pew Hispanic Center, 29 pp. Koniarski, L. (2003) “Learn English classes help Spanish-speaking people to adapt to U.S.” The Daily Courier. April 15, 2003. Available at http://www.prescott.edu/news/pressrelease/documents/2003_04_15.pdf LeMay, M. (2007) Illegal Immigration. Santa Barbara: ABC –CLIO, Inc. Lewis, M. (2006) “Immigrants protest new laws by staying at home” The Daily Courier. May 2, 2006, pp. 1A. Machia, J. (2003) “Bridging the Gap: Aztlan Center Reconnects a Divided Community”. Transitions. Prescott College, Winter/Spring 2003, pp. 14-15. 34

McKinley, J.(2008) “Arizona Law Takes a Toll on Nonresident Students” The New York Times, Jan. 27, 2008. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/us/27tuition.html?ref=education National Immigration Forum (2004) Arizona’s Proposition 200. Available at http://www.immigrationforum.org/documents/TheDebate/Restrictionists/AZProp200Analysis.pdf Nevins, J. (2002) Operation Gatekeeper: The Rise of the Illegal Alien and the Remaking of the USMexico Boundary. New York: Routledge, 286 pp. Orrenius, P. (2003) "U.S. immigration and economic growth: putting policy on hold," The Southwest Economy, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Nov, pp 1-7. Orrenius, P. & M. Nicholson, (2007) "Regional labor force growth: mix of native, immigrant workers varies," The Southwest Economy, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Jul, pp. 10 Orrenius, P. & M. Zavodny (2008). "The Effect of Minimum Wages on Immigrants," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, ILR Review, ILR School, Cornell University, vol. 61(4), pp. 544-563, July. Papademetriou, D. (2003) Policy Considerations for Immigrant Integration. Migration Information Source. http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/print.cfm?ID=171 Passell, J. and D. Cohn (2008) U.S. Population Projections: 2005–2050. Pew Hispanic Center Social and Demographic Trends, Washington D.C., Pew Hispanic Center, 49 pp. Pew Hispanic Center (2008) Statistical Portrait of Hispanics in the United States, 2006. http://pewhispanic.org/factsheets/factsheet.php?FactsheetID=35 . Accessed 30/7/08. Politzer, M. (2007) Arizona Hosts Groups on Both Sides of the Immigration Debate. Migration Information Source. March. http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=588 Rhoden, P. (2008) “Immigration task force presents ideas to council” The Daily Courier. September 5, 2008, pp. 1a. Available online at http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=58888&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&S=1 Rowland, A. (2008) “Prescott Takes Anti-Immigrant Stance” Raven Review. Vol. 9, N. 6, pp. 1. Schuck, P. (2000) Citizens, Strangers and In-Betweens. Boulder, CO., Westview Press, 496 pp. Umaña-Ledezma, L. and B. Aguilar-González (2008) “Pioneers almost named this area ‘Aztlan’” The Daily Courier. May 10, 2008, pp. 4a. US Census Bureau. (2008a) Estimates of Population Change for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico and Region and State Rankings: July 1, 2006 to July 1, 2007. Available at http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-pop-chg.html. US Census Bureau. (2008b) Cumulative Estimates of Population Change for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico and Region and State Rankings: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007. Available at http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-pop-chg.html. 35

US Census Bureau. (2008c) Interim Projections: Ranking of Census 2000 and Projected 2030 State Population and Change: 2000 to 2030. Available at http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/projectionsagesex.html. US Census Bureau. (2008d) Annual Estimates of the Population for Incorporated Places in Arizona, Listed Alphabetically: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007. Available at http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/ US Census Bureau. (2008e) Annual Estimates of the Population for Incorporated Places in Colorado, Listed Alphabetically: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007. Available at http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/ U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2008) Historical Immigration and Naturalization Legislation. Available at: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=dc60 e1df53b2f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=dc60e1df53b2f010VgnVCM1000000ec d190aRCRD Zubkova, M. (2008) The Cora Indians: The Immigrant Integration of a Minority Culture. Unpublished MA Thesis. Prescott College, Prescott, Arizona, 83 pp.

36