Forum 411 : engaging Arizona's leaders

              F O R U M 4 1 1
Can You Ace This Quiz?
True False
1. One out of three Arizona children has
at least one immigrant parent.
2. Eighty percent of pre- K children of
immigrants are U. S. citizens.
3. Immigrants will account for a bigger
share of new workers in 2020 than
native born citizens.
4. Half of K- 12 students in Arizona are
English Language Learners.
5. Immigrants today are learning English as
quickly as those early in the 20th century.
ow did you do? Surprised? You’re not alone. Few people think of kids when they
think of immigration. The brass- tacks truth, though, is that immigration is as much
about children and parents as it is about workers and employers. In fact – no matter
how you feel about immigration overall – the reality is that the opportunities and
challenges represented by Arizona’s global generations may be as far- reaching as
sanctions and “ sweeps.†What’s going on? This briefing
reviews the basics about immigration in terms of what’s
happening globally, locally, and for kids.
JUNE 2008 EDITION 1 ISSUE 1
Engaging Ar i zona’s Leader s
H
1. True 2. True 3. True 4. False 5. True
IMMIGRATION: FROM GLOBAL TO LOCAL TO KIDS
Forum 411 is a quarterly briefing series
offering policy, business, and community
leaders vital information on Arizona’s
critical issues. Forum 411 refers to
Morrison Institute’s location at the
ASU Downtown Phoenix Campus,
which is located at 411 North Central.
Morrison Institute seeks to be a source
of public policy ideas and provide a
venue for discussion. Morrison Institute
invites everyone to be part of Forum 411.
Migration is at a High Point Worldwide
Demographics, economics, world events, and unintended consequences of past policies have
converged to make immigration, particularly unauthorized immigration, one of Arizonans’
top concerns. 1 But Arizona is not alone in coping with people crossing borders. The Popu-lation
Reference Bureau reports the “ number of international migrants is at an all time high,â€
including more than 3% of the world’s population. Not surprisingly, the U. S. is in the
midst of another historic immigration cycle. “ As the 20th century came to a close,
the United States experienced an extraordinary transformation of its popula-tion.
More immigrants, legal and illegal combined, arrived during the decade
of the 1990s than in any other decade on record.†2 By 2006, 37.5 million
immigrants, including approximately 12 million unauthorized newcomers,
resided in the U. S., comprising 12.5% of the population. This is the highest
number in the nation’s history, but in percentage terms it falls below the almost
15.0% recorded in 1890 and 1910.
During much of the 19th century, the U. S. welcomed newcomers. By the 1880s, however,
Americans worried that the U. S. was simply too open. Congress passed the first major qual-itatively
restrictive immigration measure in 1882. A century later, another landmark statute,
the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act ( IRCA), was put into place.
Immigration increased in the 1990s for some clear reasons:
• A strong economy pulled high- and low- skill workers and entrepreneurs to communi-ties
throughout the U. S., including many which had scant experience with immigration.
• Poor economic conditions and civil unrest pushed people to leave their homelands.
• Workforce pressures encouraged a wide array of employers to look tomigrants as employees.
• Well- established networks, rapid transportation, and instant communication facilitated
movement and keeping in touch across borders.
• The legal capacity to unify families supported migration.
While concerns for the nation’s borders have always been high in some quarters, immigration
tended to be tolerated through the good times of the 1990s. In the 2000s, though, the mood
shifted as high levels, recession, and war created a more fearful attitude, particularly where
change was “ freshest and fastest- paced.†3 Reports on the results of Census 2000 highlighted
the higher proportion of foreign born residents and movement of immigrants to rural and
urban areas beyond such traditional centers as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.
Arizona Became a Destination and an Immigrant Corridor
Thanks in part to its location and economy and in part to border enforcement in Texas and
California, Arizona became an entry corridor and an immigrant destination. By 2006,
some 929,000 foreign born residents accounted for 15.1% of Arizonans, compared to
2 F O R U M 4 1 1
IMMIGRATION HAS
ITS OWN JARGON
“ Immigrant†is a big umbrella over a mix
of long- time residents and recent newcomers,
including naturalized citizens, lawful perma-nent
residents, refugees, and unauthorized
residents. Immigrants and their children are
often described by generations. Commonly
used terms include:
• FIRST GENERATION Persons who were
born abroad
• SECOND GENERATION Persons born in the
U. S. with at least one foreign born parent
• THIRD GENERATION Persons born in the
U. S. to native born parents
• GEN G Young people who are part of the
global generations, meaning immigrants
or their children
• MIXED STATUS A family with authorized
and unauthorized members
• AUTHORIZED Legal status according to
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
• UNAUTHORIZED Lack of legal approval
to be and work in the U. S. over time.
“ Undocumentedâ€, “ unauthorizedâ€, and
“ illegal†are used synonymously in this paper.
CLICK
7.6% in 1990.4 Metropolitan Phoenix joined such regions as Dallas, Atlanta, Las Vegas,
and Washington, D. C. as new gateways, notable for their immigrant growth over the past
25 years. Indeed despite its border with Mexico, Arizona stands out for the “ newness†of its
immigrant communities. For example among the state’s foreign born population, according
to the Migration Policy Institute:
• 32% came during the 1990s.
• Another 31% entered in 2000 or later.
• Just 30% are naturalized citizens.
• More than 20,000 were refugees who arrived between 1997 and 2006.
The big numbers, rapid changes, and genuine differences of opinion about the consequences
of immigration have combined to create a raucous, and often rancorous, debate in the state. The
discussion has been colored by differences between perceptions and reality. For example, many
Arizonans have assumed that:
NEARLY ALL OF THE STATE’S LATINO RESIDENTS ARE IMMIGRANTS – AND MOSTLY
UNAUTHORIZED AT THAT. Actually, Arizona is home to 1.8 million Latino residents
of whom more than six out of 10 are native born. Two- thirds of Arizona immigrants
are from Mexico. The Pew Hispanic Center has estimated approximately 500,000
unauthorized immigrants live in Arizona with some 260,000- 292,500 of these residents
in the labor force.
IMMIGRANTS – PARTICULARLY UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRANTS – ARE INVOLVED IN MOST
VIOLENT CRIME. National studies have repeatedly concluded that immigrant men have
lower rates of crime and incarceration than native born residents. This is not to say
that crimes are not committed by illegal immigrants. Most high- profile crimes among
these residents have been shown to be related primarily to human smuggling and
drug trafficking.
ROUGHLY TWO OUT
OF THREE ARIZONANS
CAME FROM ANOTHER
STATE OR COUNTRY
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, American
Community Survey, 2006.
Year Statute
1790 Naturalization Rule
1882 Chinese Exclusion Act
1921 Emergency Immigration Act
1965 Immigration and Nationality Act
1980 Refugee Act
1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act
1996 Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act
2007 Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Act or Secure Borders, Economic
Opportunity and Immigration Reform
Act ( Proposed but not enacted.)
U. S. IMMIGRATION POLICY IS A STORY OF QUOTAS, WORKERS, AND FAMILIES
Selected Federal Statutes and Proposals
Selected Features
Set a two- year residency requirement for citizenship.
Banned labor from China and began the modern legislative history of immigration.
Established the national- origin quota system as the U. S.’ first overall immigration policy.
Ended the national- origin quota system. Established policies for family reunification
and skilled workers.
Created a system to treat refugees separately from immigrants.
Set employer restrictions and required verification of legal work status. Provided a process
for unauthorized immigrants to become legal.
Placed restrictions on federal aid to illegal immigrants. Set guidelines for access to benefits
by legal immigrants.
Designed to provide a path to legal residency, resources for border security, and a restructuring
of priorities around skills and economic needs.
Arizona Native
2,200,209
Foreign Born
929,083
Native of Other
U. S. State
2,966,993
8
36% 48%
15%
J U N E 2 0 0 8 3
FALSE

FALSE

CLICK
CLICK
CLICK
TODAY’S IMMIGRANTS ARE NOT LEARNING ENGLISH AS QUICKLY AS IN THE PAST.
Researchers have shown that immigrants are acquiring skills as they have in the past.
English mastery is lowest among first generation immigrants – who are currently most
visible in Arizona – and greater among second generation residents, who have generally
gone to school in the U. S. By the third generation, English has become the dominant, if
not the only language, among the vast majority of individuals. 5
IMMIGRANTS ARE ONLY LOW- SKILL WORKERS. Foreign born residents account
for approximately 18% of the state’s 3- million- strong workforce and bring vastly
different levels of human capital to the state. The scientist has skills that are in demand
in Arizona’s knowledge economy, while the landscaper is necessary in the service
economy. Yet some skilled workers have no choice but to take low- skill jobs to get by.
Stories abound of high- skill immigrants who are unable to get jobs in their fields
( think engineers serving fast food) because of the lack of a U. S. credential or insufficient
English. Foreign born Latinos on average have the lowest levels of education among
Arizona’s immigrants. Overall however, low- skill immigrants are often similar to native
born workers. Arizona’s below average educational attainment for 20- and 30- somethings
reflects not just immigrants’ low levels but also the state’s poor record on educating
homegrown students.
Workforce development research has shown there are pathways out of low- wage
jobs, although not all workers can participate in education and training services.
Due to passage of Proposition 300 in 2006, for example Arizona limits access to
state- sponsored adult education, English instruction, and in- state tuition to citizens
and legal residents. Among those who applied for English classes during the last
half of 2007, 6% of potential participants ( 1,149 people) “ were denied instruction
because they failed to provide acceptable evidence of citizenship or legal residence
in the United States.†6 Still, 2,434 people remained on a waiting list.
Considering the looming wave of baby boomer retirement, slow native labor force growth,
and global demands, immigrants and Gen G will be important in all types of jobs.
Now Nearly One in Three Arizona Kids Are Immigrants
or Native Born Sons and Daughters of Immigrants
More Arizona children have foreign born parents than the entire population of Mesa, the
state’s 3rd- largest city. These more than 471,000 kids are 31% of all residents under 18 and
61% of children age six and under. “ Mixed status†families are common, in part because
eight out of 10 children of immigrants are U. S. citizens. 7
4 F O R U M 4 1 1
IMMIGRANTS COME
TO ARIZONA FROM
ALL OVER THE GLOBE
Countries of Origins for
Arizona’s Immigrants
Source: U. S. Census Bureau,
American Community Survey, 2006.
66%
6% 6%
9%
13%
Mexico
608,645
Asia
117,856
Europe
87,807
Other Latin
American Countries
58,218
Other Areas
56,577
Many Work to Integrate Newcomer s
into Ar i zona’s Communi t ies
FRIENDLY HOUSE was established during the last immigration wave to assist with the natural-ization
of new immigrants. Today, their services include youth programs, workforce development,
home care, and general family assistance.
THE ARIZONA REFUGEE COMMUNITY CENTER helps refugees integrate into their new
communities and achieve self- sufficiency. They provide ESL and citizenship courses, employment
assistance, and help with housing.
GROWTH IN THE FOREIGN
BORN POPULATION HAS
MARKED THE PAST 25 YEARS
IN METRO PHOENIX
Source: Twenty- First Century Gateways: Immigration
Incorporation in Suburban America, The Brookings
Institution, 2008.
86,593
1980
Foreign Born
2005
Foreign Born
612,850
608%
Percent
Change
FALSE

FALSE

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Less Than
HS Graduate
High School
Graduate
Some
College
College
Graduate
Advanced
Degree
14.8
36.8
58.8
50.6
25.7
20.6
16.8
18.2
35.3
23.6
12.5
16.6 15.7
11.0
6.6
8.3 8.5 8.0
5.4
6.3
Native Born Naturalized Citizens Non Citizens Foreign Born
NATIVE BORN AND NATURALIZED CITIZENS
LEAD IN EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Percent of Immigrants in Arizona by Educational Attainment Categories
0 10 20 30 40 50
Agriculture & Forestry
Construction
Manufacturing
Leisure & Hospitality
Other Services
Wholesale Trade
Services to Businesses & Professions
ARIZONA TOTAL
Retail Trade
Transportation & Warehousing
Health & Education Services
Finance & Real Estate
Information Services
Mining
Government/ Public Administration
Utilities
Active Duty Military
8.7
4.4
7.0
4.5
5.8
5.2
4.1
4.6
4.2
4.1
4.5
4.0
3.0
3.2
3.6
2.9
2.3
35.2
18.6
13.3
14.9
13.0
11.4
12.4
10.1
7.3
6.3
5.6
4.3
4.9
3.8
2.9
2.1
2.3
Naturalized Citizen Non Citizen
AMONG FOREIGN BORN WORKERS, NON CITIZENS
OUTNUMBER NATURALIZED CITIZENS
Percent of Immigrant Workforce for Various Industry Groups in Arizona
J U N E 2 0 0 8 5
Source: 2000 U. S. Census.
Source: 2000 U. S. Census.
Like children throughout the U. S., the bulk of
first and second generation children in Arizona
face greater obstacles than the children of
native born parents. Gen G children are more
likely, among other characteristics, to:
• Have parents with limited educations –
a factor closely associated with lags in
many facets of child development
• Grow up in poverty – another risk factor
for falling behind peers
• Lack health insurance – when poor health
can affect school achievement
• Tend not to use public health and benefit
programs – even when they are eligible
Current research puts a fine point on the bar-riers
facing immigrant children. For example,
University of Texas sociologist Robert Crosnoe
recently studied Mexican first and second
generation students as they transitioned to
elementary school. The circumstances faced
by the Mexican immigrant families as their
children started school included:
• “ A lower level of the entry- level
cognitive skills valued by U. S. schools
• Fewer socio- economic resources
in the family
• Lower rates of parent- child activities
at home as valued by U. S. schools
• Poorer physical health
• Lower rates of pre- school enrollment
• School segregation†8
Arizona’s Next Workers
Are in School Now
Surveys over time have shown that speaking
English has a high priority among immi-grants
and native born citizens alike. U. S.
schools have been charged with providing
services for English language acquisition since
Lau v. Nichols Supreme Court decision in the
early 1970s. Among Arizona’s 1.1 million
K- 12 students, approximately 140,000 are
“ English Language Learners†( ELL). Since there
is no way to count the number of immigrant
CLICK
students in school, this number is often used as a proxy, although it underestimates the
number since not every immigrant student fits in this category. In addition, some children may
speak a Native American language as their first language. The number of students targeted for
language acquisition assistance escalated rapidly in recent years in Arizona and throughout
the U. S. Among the 50 states and D. C., 32 saw the number of English learners rise by 50%
or more between 1995 and 2005.
ELL students face disadvantages as they strive to master English and academic subjects,
particularly if they come from a family with less educational achievement. They tend to:
• Score lower on standardized tests than other students. On all three major monitors of
educational achievement used in Arizona – National Assessment of Educational Progress,
AIMS, and Terra Nova – ELL students performed at the lowest levels at 4th grade and
at 8th grade. 9
• Share the lowest graduation rate ( 59%) with Native American students, in comparison
to 70% for all students in 2006.10
• Attend postsecondary education at lower rates than other students.
But disadvantage is also in the eye of the beholder. Kent Paredes Scribner, superintendent of
the mostly immigrant Isaac School District in central Phoenix ( and soon moving to the Phoenix
Union district), has noted that first and second generation students have much to offer. “ For
many of them, English is not the only language they speak and their cultural experiences
differ from those of mainstream America. They must overcome great obstacles in order to
attend school regularly and be ready to learn. We have repeatedly been told that companies
competing globally actively recruit employees who are bilingual, bicultural, and resilient…
students attending schools in Arizona’s inner- city neighborhoods have many ‘ disadvantages
of success’ that can provide them a competitive edge in the global economy.†11 Schools in
the Isaac district are just some throughout Arizona that have shown success in raising
achievement levels among immigrant students.
The long- running ( since 1992) Flores v. Arizona lawsuit has sought to improve English
acquisition among students. The subject of numerous court rulings and studies over the years
on methods and costs, Flores has continued to keep the spotlight on Arizona’s English learners.
In 2006, the technique of English immersion was adopted by the Arizona Legislature. On
April 14, 2008, Governor Janet Napolitano allowed a measure providing $ 40 million in
additional funding to become law without her signature to avoid millions of dollars in fines,
saying “ the legislature has more to do.â€
Arizona has been in the forefront of states’ responses to unauthorized immigration in recent
years. In 2007, Arizona was the first to pass an “ employer sanctions†bill, requiring Arizona
businesses to use a federal verification program to ensure they do not hire unauthorized
individuals. Violators of the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007 are subject to a suspension or
revocation of their business licenses if they do not comply. A quantitative analysis of the effects
of the law has not been done yet, but observers in Arizona businesses, housing complexes,
and school districts report that workers and families are leaving the state. With fewer jobs in
this economic downturn and this new atmosphere, no one can predict what the next stage
of the immigration story will be and what life will be like for Gen G.
ARIZONA’S IMMIGRANT
FAMILIES COME
IN SEVERAL FORMS
Status of Children of
Arizona’s Immigrant Families
Native Born
Total Children Children
Parental Nativity in Family in Family
Both parents
foreign born 238,996 176,734
One native,
one foreign born* 112,829 112,829
Single foreign
born parent 119,591 96,601
TOTALS 471,416 386,164
* Children with one native born parent are
considered native born.
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community
Survey, 2006.
MINORITY STUDENTS
ARE THE MAJORITY OF
K- 12 LEARNERS IN ARIZONA
Race and Ethnicity, 2005- 2006
Source: Arizona Department of Education.
6% 3
47% 39%
White 5%
516,582
African American
56,912
Latino
426,837
Asian American
27,361
American Indian
67,856
6 F O R U M 4 1 1
Is Arizona Ready to Make the Most of Gen G?
Reason Magazine editor Nick Gillespie has noted: “ This nation of immigrants has never
been particularly comfortable with new arrivals.†In this era of rapid immigration, Arizona and
the nation are falling back on the familiar policies of exclusion, security, and rapid assimila-tion.
The stresses and costs of large numbers of unauthorized residents cannot be ignored but
Arizona should also be working to integrate newcomers of all ages, particularly Gen G. Does
the state have the civic, education, and workforce policies to do so? Will failure to work well
with Gen G put the state at still another competitive disadvantage or will individuals and
businesses step up to support and mentor these young Arizonans? National experts offer
some suggestions for not just immigration policy, but also an immigrant policy.
Labor market expert and former Secretary of Labor Ray Marshall says the future depends on
how the nation relates immigration to economic and social policy. He suggests the nation
“ make immigration an integral component of economic and social policies to promote broadly
shared prosperity in the United States, Mexico, and other countries.â€
Manhattan Institute scholar Tamar Jacoby suggests the “ challenge for American immigration
policy today is not so much to keep out billions we don’t want, but rather to create a legal,
orderly path for the smaller number we need.†Michael Fix and colleagues at the Migration
Policy Institute recommend focusing on integration for stronger communities, including civic
education, workforce development, and support for English language learning.
Superintendent Kent Scribner suggests learning environments to help inner- city youth achieve
high academic standards and leverage their “ disadvantages of success.â€
THE PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WITH LIMITED ENGLISH HAS
RISEN FASTER THAN TOTAL ENROLLMENT SINCE 1994- 1995
Limited English Proficient in Arizona, 1994- 2005
J U N E 2 0 0 8 7
- 40%
- 20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
LEP ENROLLMENT
TOTAL ENROLLMENT
94- 95 96- 97 98- 99 00- 01 02- 03 04- 05
- 26.4
- 4.7
14.7
42.3
27.7
37.8
52.2
46.9
58.8
34.2
32.0
27.5
17.8
14.2
8.6 9.7 10.9
5.2
6.4
38.1
Source: U. S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement,
and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students, August 2006.
Many other observers recommend a clear-eyed
approach that starts with seeing Gen G
kids as assets, not as liabilities. If as the saying
goes, the pessimist complains about the wind,
the optimist expects it to change, and the
realist adjusts the sails, it’s time for Arizona to
get cranking. Gen G is here to stay. Arizona
will see them grow up, get educations, and,
one should expect, great jobs. The numbers
are too big and the stakes too high to ignore.
How will you help to treat Gen G – like native
born kids – as our future?
Forum 411 is a quarterly briefing series offering policy, business, and community leaders vital
information on Arizona’s critical issues. Forum 411 refers to Morrison Institute’s location at the
ASU Downtown Phoenix Campus, which is located at 411 North Central. Morrison Institute seeks
to be a source of public policy ideas and provide a venue for discussion. Morrison Institute invites
everyone to be part of Forum 411.
Morrison Institute for Public Policy conducts research that informs, assists and advises Arizona
leaders and residents who shape public policy. Morrison Institute was established in 1982
through a grant from Marvin and June Morrison of Gilbert, Arizona.
  2008 by the Arizona Board of Regents for and on behalf of Arizona State University
and its Morrison Institute for Public Policy.
MORRISON INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY
School of Public Affairs / College of Public Programs / Arizona State University
Mail Code: 4220, 411 N Central Ave, Ste 900, Phoenix, AZ 85004- 0692
Phone 602- 496- 0900 / Fax 602- 496- 0964
Visit www. morrisoninstitute. org for more Forum 411 topics.
F O R U M 4 1 1
Engaging Ar i zona’s Leader s
ARIZONA IS ACTIVE IN IMMIGRATION MEASURES
Because of federal inaction, many states have crafted their own responses to immigration.
Between ballot measures and legislative actions, Arizona has been among the most active.
Recent actions include:
PROPOSITION 200 ( 2004) Voters approved this statewide ballot initiative to require proof of
citizenship before registering to vote or applying for public benefits.
IMMIGRANT SMUGGLING LAW ( 2005) Makes human smuggling a state- level felony.
PROPOSITION 100 ( 2006) Denies bail to unauthorized immigrants charged with felonies.
PROPOSITION 102 ( 2006) Prohibits unauthorized immigrants from being awarded punitive
damages in any civil lawsuit filed in the state.
PROPOSITION 103 ( 2006) Declares English the official language of Arizona.
PROPOSITION 300 ( 2006) Prohibits unauthorized immigrants from receiving in- state tuition,
financial assistance, or access to state- subsidized childcare, adult education, and family
literacy programs.
1 Cronkite- Eight ( KAET) Poll November 2007, www. azpbs. org/ horizon/ poll/.
2 Audrey Singer, Susan W. Hardwick, Caroline B. Brettell, editors, 21st Century Gateways: Immigrant Incorporation in Suburban America,
The Brookings Institution, 2008, p. 3.
3 21st Century Gateways: Immigrant Incorporation in Suburban America, p. 4.
4 Fact Sheet on the Foreign Born, MPI Data Hub, Migration Policy Institute, www. migrationinformation. org.
5 Immigration Now, Immigration Tomorrow, Immigration Forever, Reason Foundation, September 2006.
6 Proposition 300 Semiannual Report to the Arizona Legislature from Adult Education Services, December 20, 2007.
7 ACS 2006.
8 Vivienne Baumfield, Review of Mexican Roots, American Schools: Helping Mexican Immigrant Children Succeed, Robert S. Crosnoe, 2006,
EBSCO Host EJS Content Distribution, March 2008.
9 Educating Arizona, Arizona Community Foundation, January 2008, p. 27 and 29.
10 Arizona Department of Education, 2007.
11 Sustainability for Arizona: The Issue of Our Age, Morrison Institute for Public Policy, November 2007, p. 48.
JUNE 2008 EDITION 1 ISSUE 1
FORUM 411 IS PRESENTED BY
THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS PROJECT
IS ACKNOWLEDGED GRATEFULLY.