This is Democracy – Episode 174: Immigration Policy Inside the United States

This is Democracy: Episode 174
===

[00:00:00] This is democracy, a podcast about the people of the United States, a podcast about citizenship, about engaging with politics and the world around you. A podcast, I asked about educating yourself on today’s important issues and how to have a voice in what happens next. Welcome to our new episode of this is democracy.

Today. We’re going to discuss a topic that has been controversial for quite a long time and central to debates about American democracy. At least going back to the early 20th century. And of course much earlier the question of immigration, not only who. Into the United States, but what rights and programs and institutions, those who have immigrated to the United States have access to what are the rights of recent immigrants?

What do they have access to? What, whether or not their rights. [00:01:00] And we’re really fortunate to have this week with us, uh, a leading scholar, uh, policy maker, and thinker on this very topic. Uh, this is Sarah. And, uh, she’s a professor at Texas state university and the author of really a fantastic new book that I’m imposing on all of my students and others, uh, the walls within the politics of immigration in modern America.

Sarah, thank you for joining us today. Thank you so much for having me just to give a little more background on Sarah. Her research focuses on immigration, race and rights in the United States. And when you read her book, you’ll see that she really goes beyond simply the questions, traditional questions, you immigration, uh, issues related to education, social welfare policy, voting rights, and many other related issues.

She’s also a former advisor to president. And she received her PhD from Princeton university. Before we turn to our discussion with Sarah, of course, we [00:02:00] have our scene setting poem from Mr. Zachary Siri. What’s the title of your poem today to the immigrant that waits at the border station? It sounds almost like it’s a letter today.

Let’s hear it to the immigrant that waits at the border state. In your American soul, that weights at the border station lies a little piece of hopefulness that may be there is an old end to the old problems, a solution to be found in our Winchester, Virginia, and our Dearborn Michigan’s that may be, you will wake up one day.

And though blistered and marching, four steps closer to death each morning, you will see a miracle from the window of a bus hold a certain holiness in your hands. Or find a couple hundred dollar bills for a flat screen. I hope you find it, but in this American soul, there is an urge to leave to hold out just long enough to waive it all.

Goodbye. [00:03:00] My grandparents, my great, great grandparents came to find the same truth as you. And here I am like the rest of them disillusion. I refuse to be like my great-grandfather only flying on Tuesdays for the rest of his life because an old man in a bar in Northern Maine told him so a half century ago, I think we have failed, but I imagined that maybe you do too, that when you unpack your bags and look out over Peoria, you will see that we are also broken.

I am hoping I can change it with. I love how you worked in autobiography, Zachary and policy, uh, perceptions into that. You sound a little disillusioned. Is this a disillusioned poem? Yes. I think part of the point I’m trying to make in this poem. A lot of people come to this country, believing that we are this promised land, this place where people can succeed, because that’s what we tell the world.

But when people [00:04:00] arrive here, they see all the many problems that we have. And that doesn’t mean our society is evil, but it means that we need. Make that change and immigrants have to be a part of that shape. Right? Right. Well, that is the perfect place to turn to Sarah Coleman. Uh, Sarah, your book starts with 1965 and the, the heart seller act of 1965, which is in some ways, right?

This incredible opening of American society. Why is this 1965 piece of legislation? Part of Lyndon Johnson’s great society. Why is it so important? It’s really important for. Two main reasons, right? It launches a new era in immigration. And what we see in the wake of the heart seller act of 1965 is sort of a remaking of the nation’s demographic profile over the next four decades.

And it’s important to remember, right? It’s approved by Congress in the same year as the voting rights act. And just after the civil rights act of 64, and it’s sort of passed in this moment, in this ethos of civil rights and fairness. And what it does is it sets a uniform cap on all things. And in an effort [00:05:00] for, and it gets rid of the national origins quotas that had been in place since 1980.

And in this effort to sort of promote this uniformity in this era of the S of sort of the civil rights moment, it actually introduces for the first time a cap on immigration from the Western hemisphere. Right? So while the overall cap of the bill sort of overall cap under the act rises the volume of legal immigration from Mexico, actually, Which sort of leads to a sharp increase in deportation.

So that’s one huge impact of the bill, but more than reshaping admissions policy, you know, the heart seller act is interesting to me for this other element that I actually think, which is that it sets into place sort of, I argue a reshaping of American society and culture, and it’s at this moment that we see these deep debates emerge over the place of the immigrant in American life.

Hmm. Right. So it’s not just a question of what it does to the border, but what does it do about it sort of changes fundamentally this debate about what, what the immigrant is doing in America and what their rights are. [00:06:00] Right. And that’s so important to your book. And it’s really one of the big contributions you’ve made just quickly before we get to that second point to just reflect on the first point for a second.

And I have to, because my, my own father came from India as a consequence of that legislation in 1965, it does open American society to people like my. Coming from India or there were very few Indians in American society would have immigrated before then. And of course, this is true for many other societies, but it’s really interesting your point that it, it has this perverse effect of limiting immigration from Mexico and other parts of the Western hemisphere.

Could you just say more about that? Yeah. So in the 1924 act, we’d had national origins quotas, right. There were put in that limited, the numbers of. Based on the 1890 census, it also, you know, permanent created bars for anyone from the Adriatic zones, right. It had all these sort of negative, uh, restrictions and what the 65 act does is it tries in a positive way to increase immigration.

But in the 1924 act, there’d actually been a cut-out [00:07:00] and the Western hemisphere because of the pressure of agricultural businesses. Alright, Western hemisphere had never been subject to the caps, seen in the 24 act. Right. And sort of, there’s a sort of a free movement of people and goods largely across the border.

They weren’t subject to the same numerical caps. So for the first time, and they sort of in this ethos of, of civil rights and fairness and equality for all, there’s no longer this exemption for the Western hemisphere. And that actually means that the volume of legal immigration from Mexico actually. And I think you give the number in your book of 7%, right?

So it has to be 7% of the total number of immigrants coming to the U S annually. Is that how it works? Largely roughly. Okay. Largely roughly that’s as close as I get to. I don’t think the general, like D I mean, if you really want me to nerd out on the, on the number. It’s okay. Well, at least this is story that I’m, speaking of myself, numbers are not my strength.

So, but, but the real point here is [00:08:00] that it reduces the number of legal immigrants from Mexico. And so you quote in your book, Hubert, Humphrey and others, uh, basically championing the 1965 act as part of the civil rights era, as you’ve already pointed to. And as, as being race neutral, is it really. They try to make it in the effect.

Right. But that doesn’t take into place. I mean, the big argument, right. That may not makes an others, right. It doesn’t take into account the various needs and traditional migration patterns around the world. Right. And that different countries. Okay. You can allow, let’s say for example, like 20,000 people from every country in the world, but for 20,000 percentage of Ireland is much, you know, that’s a huge number for Ireland when you compare it with the population of someplace, like.

Right, right. That makes a lot of sense. Okay. So what we have here is an example that becomes quite common of what looks like race, neutral language that that does have racialized effects. And then your second point, which is really, I think your, your, your [00:09:00] big, huge contribution to our understanding these issues as policy, uh, observers, and as scholars is the way in which the 65 act then changes the debate about what immigrants are allowed to do once they get into the United States.

And how does that debate shift at least initially in the late sixties and early 1970s. So as controlling admissions to the United States across its Southern border proved to be very difficult for policy makers. What we see emerge is a battle to control immigrants. Inside the United States and the battle to control immigrants shifts from these external borders to more internal ones.

And we see an anti-immigrant movement arise that really starts to target the access and rights of immigrants who are already living in the United States. And your book has some wonderful chapters on education, um, and Texas in particular. And so tell us a little more about the debates about whether immigrants have a right to go to school or not.

Yeah, this is one [00:10:00] that has a huge legacy for us today. So beginning in the 1970s, as I mentioned, we see an increasing concern with unauthorized immigration in towns and cities across the nation as this demographic profile. Sort of shift starts to happen in the wake of the 65 act, right? It takes a couple of years.

We start to see that sort of change. It takes over time. And I look at how in Tyler, Texas, which is a sort of a small town or a small municipality in the Eastern part of the state, a local school board announced in 1977 that they wanted to charge unauthorized. Uh, at $1,000 fee in order to attend Tyler public schools and families really struggled with its new policy because today’s dollars.

It’s about three to $4,000 per. And they were connected with two young civil rights lawyers who worked in the area. And for these families went forward with the case, the Alvarez, Lopez, Hernandez, and roadblocks families. They took the case and other school districts in Texas sort of follow the Tyler model and they begin charging tuition.

[00:11:00] And the case sort of gets consolidated with these other cases in Texas, as it makes its way to the Supreme court. And the case gathers is interesting because it gathers a lot of attention from legal action. On the left, it draws groups like the Mexican American legal defense and education fund, right.

Which is coming out of the civil rights movement, sort of part of this new group of advocacy organizations pushing not only for the rights of Mexican-American authorized immigrants, but also, um, undocumented immigrants, the United state. And MALDEF had been looking actually they’re based in California, but they looking, looking for a case regarding educational rights for undocumented children.

And they believed, you know, looking to the model of brown V board of ed that students write seemed to be a strong vessel through which to challenge restrictive legislation. Right? So they sort of mobilize on the left around this case coming out of the small town in Texas and on the right, the Plyler case is interesting because it draws a whole new.

[00:12:00] Of activists into the anti-immigrant sphere. And one of them is a group called the mountain states legal foundation. Which they see the cases sort of a few of their touching, a few of their areas of concern. And they’re sort of the part of this new conservative public interest, legal movement of the seventies.

And they sort of see the case as a gross expansion of the rights revolution of the sixties. They don’t like the case because they argue it’s a creation of a higher tax burden to pay for the government expansion. And for them, right. It also hits this sort of third trifecta of the conservative public interest legal movement, which is sort of the trampling of the rights of local and state institutions.

Right? So it’s sort of this combination of things that they don’t like. Um, and the case winds its way, um, all the way through the district court level, all the way up to the Supreme court and in a five, four decision in 1982, the court sides with the students and their. And it strikes down the state statue that denies funding for education to [00:13:00] unauthorized children and in the decision, it’s really famous decision justice.

Brennan writes something along the lines, and I’m not going to quote it perfectly because it’s hard to remember off the top of your head, but something along the lines of, it’s hard to understand, uh, what the state hopes to achieve by the creation of quote, a perpetuation of a subclass of illiterate.

Right. And so in backing these students, the Plyler decision seems like a big stepping stone in those sort of late 1970s, early 1980s to expand immigrants rights. Right? So we have this moment, we start to see it post 65, this effort to sort of tramp down on immigrants rights, particularly in the areas of education, along in some other areas.

But we see this first sort of opening salvo this moment with Plyler, where it seems like. This is the first step, right? And that immigrants are going to have expanded rights and other areas. Now it’s going to turn out, it’s going to be a much more rough road for achieving these gains and sort of liberal groups like MALDEF are going to find themselves on the defensive.

So how [00:14:00] did these bitter legal fights and the sort of political controversy surrounding immigration change, the broader cultural and social perception of the immigrant in American system? Yeah. So I think what you see in the 1970s is this anti-immigrant movement that makes a really important sort of pivot right.

In the wake of the civil rights movement. Right. They can’t argue sort of the, sort of more traditional nativist, racist language. Right. And they notice a sort of less socially acceptable. And so what they do is they start to argue this, this sort of anti-immigrant movement that arrives in the seventies and particularly flourishes in the eighties, right.

That immigrants are a burden on state and society. Right. And that there are sort of a concern both in terms of the welfare state and the tax burden. Right. And that’s sort of a different argument than when, what would they, when you think back to the 1920s and things like the immigration restriction league and sort of social Darwinism and eugenesis, you know, that there’s sort of a different [00:15:00] argument that you’re seeing in the seventies and eighties and groups like the mountain states, legal forum really pushed that.

Right. They’re going to argue that what they’re arguing for is it’s not that they’re quote unquote racist. They’re just all about. You know, taxpayer rights, right? The right of the taxpayer, not to pay for the education of immigrant children. Me, this is such a fascinating and relevant part of the story.

The 1970s and eighties, which you describe as a period. When on the one hand, as you just said, the rights and access to American society for immigrants, uh, authorized and unauthorized is growing. But on the other hand, there’s also a backlash against it, right? Both of these things are happening, uh, at the same time.

And it seems to me, and I wonder if you agree with this, that it’s, it’s really running parallel and of course, connected to the debates over integration of schools and. Right. Where on the one hand, traditionally segregated populations are gaining access to schools, but on the other hand, there’s a backlash and [00:16:00] white families pulling their kids out of the public schools that the new kids are entering into.

Right. Is it’s a similar kind of dialectic or contradiction that you’re describing. Is that a fair assessment? That’s a fair assessment. I think what you see during the 1970s with one small caveat, and I’ll go into that bit a bit more, but. What do you see in the 1970s? And I think you see this as right.

Many working and middle-class Americans, right. Are entering this new era where there’s a new service oriented, low wage economy. Right. And they’re feeling economically insecure and they’re struggling with the de-industrialization in cities, right. They’re disclosing, they’re struggling with like a change in status in terms of economic ability.

And I think they’re looking for someone to blame. Right? And so part of that blame goes to this question of busing and segregation. Right and desegregation and part of them. Right? So for some middle and working class white, and, and this is my caveat and black citizens. Cause we’ll talk about this in a little, I can go into this more depth, right?

They’ve viewed the massive [00:17:00] growth of the Latino and unauthorized populations, which right. Which are all too often seen as one in the same group of people as the cause of that inequality. And they sort of associate them with these and sort of the displacement that’s occurring to them. Due to these larger economic structural issues, they sort of associate with the, the short of shifting immigration and the rise in immigrant population, even though they’re not necessarily tied to each other.

Does that make sense? And I, I did want to follow up on precisely the point you hinted at there, the ways in which. Fractures, I think that’s the word you use, uh, the civil rights coalition where some African-Americans will see the arrival of large numbers of Latino immigrants, for example, or Asian immigrants, right.

As threatening their status. Uh, how does that play out? Right. So that, that sort of it’s interesting to me is, you know, oftentimes today we think of this United civil rights coalition behind immigration and sort of, we think of the. Today’s world, [00:18:00] right? The there’s two very distinct, you know, sides on the immigration issue.

And oftentimes. Particularly today, right. It’s pretty closely tied to political party. And that wasn’t the case in the sixties and seventies. Right. So in the sixties and seventies, those who are pushing immigration restrictions are groups like the AFL CIO or the urban league. Right. And other sort of. And NAACP at various points, certain, you know, the UFW United food workers, right?

So it’s not necessarily a question on this sort of, there’s not this United civil rights coalition mobilizing sort of to unite communities sort of in. Addressing this nativism and racism, right? It’s, it’s very fractured coalition. And so on the people who are actually pushing immigration right on the left is this diverse group of everything from the AFL CIO to more traditional nativists to the urban league, to others.

Right. Who view them as competition for jobs? I mean, so that’s sort of unique. Where there’s this unusual [00:19:00] or as one political scientist calls it. Right. Strange bedfellows. It’s sort of behind that, that, and they’re strange bedfellows on the other side, right? I mean, there actually are Republicans, some people around Ronald Reagan, for example, right.

Who think that immigrant rights are a good thing, right? Yeah. And they think, right. There’s a there’s coalition on the right that there are some right. The coalition on the right and often includes agribusiness. Right. People who, and also interestingly to me, right. The, you know, there are many people in the Reagan administration who just do not believe in the sort of overarching federal Leviathan, right.

Or sort of federal regulation and that kind of stuff. And so they don’t believe in. The regulation that would come with a strict immigration regime, right? They don’t want employment verification. They don’t want sort of the federal government in their minds really like getting into the nitty-gritty of how we live our lives in terms of regulating employment.

And this is a really fascinating subtext in your book, which is the federalism subtext that. [00:20:00] Uh, for that reason, right. More authority is devolved to the states. Um, and, and it’s, it’s fascinating. A state like Texas is fascinating, right? Where you actually, I think to this day, right, an unauthorized immigrant can still attend the university of Texas and pay in state.

Right. Uh, and that’s, that’s an outgrowth of, of actually more state authority or more state initiative around these issues. Right? Yeah. And I think what’s really interesting is so many people, I think if you ask the average listener or kind of thing, many people sort of think of Arizona’s SB 10 70 and sheriff, Joe Arpaio as sort of this beginning, right?

In like late, late 20 2009, 2010, as sort of this beginning of the new era of states shaping immigrate. But one of the things I really emphasize in my book is it states have had a much longer history of shaping immigration policy and immigrants rights, right. And nearly two decades before sheriff, Joe and Arizona, you know, states like Ima like Iowa, as I point to are shifting the nation’s immigration policy.

[00:21:00] And in my book, I look at how a murder in a small town in Iowa. Right. And the sort of the Heartland. Sort of changing immigration patterns were used by politicians to spur the creation of a program called 2 87 G in 1996, which allows the federal government for the first time to deputize state and local law enforcement to assist in federal immigration enforcement.

And that’s like a whole new world in 1996, because previous to 19 previous to that point to 2 87 G basically we’ve had, we had almost a century of exclusive. Legal federal control over immigration enforcement. But what happens is states like Iowa and the nineties begin to move, and then we start to see that come all the way forward.

Right. And so local and state action right. Has started to really shift immigration policy. And then sometimes it’s towards restriction. Right. But there are also places like California where states are pushing increasingly for immigrant integration and include. What kind of [00:22:00] effect does that have on the immigrant experience in the United States?

Does it make it more difficult to survive as an immigrant in United States? Or does it make it much more uneven, much more uneven? I think a lot of the, um, if you were to ask part of the greatest challenge that many. And if you look at sort of what the debate going on right now, around the build back better bill, right.

Is this sort of limbo state, right. And sort of what that means when you are here and you’re part of a community, but you’re not legally part of the state, you know, that, that sort of like limbo moment, like how do you really. Always one foot in one foot out right before we get to the 1990s. And then the current moment and, and the 1990s, you, you flag as a turning point.

Uh, and the beginning of our current, uh, situation, uh, I do want to bring up prop 180 7 in California, which is so important in its time. You have a wonderful analysis of it, and it also might [00:23:00] surprise some people. What is prop 180 7. And how does it fit into your now. Yeah. So I think probably what might surprise most listeners is that between 1935 and 1971, No federal laws, barred non-citizens even unauthorized immigrants from major parts of the social safety net, social security benefits, unemployment insurance, OAA, or ADC, which later becomes aid to families with dependent children.

And when new programs are created during this time period, right between the thirties and the seventies, um, like the food stamp program or Medicaid, the same rules are applied, right? So non unauthorized immigrants have access to these. And beginning in the 1970s, what I was just going to say, Sarah, just as an aside, I, I just want to make this personal for some of our listeners.

Most of us have family members. If they were immigrants who benefited from these programs when they were not citizens. So I Jewish Russian great grandmother who never learned to speak English benefited from social security, even though she was never a citizen. [00:24:00] And so this is something all of our families actually benefit.

Yeah. So basically if you immigrated right prior to 19 in the mid 1970s, and you had access regardless of your immigration status to the social safety net in the United States and under federal law, both authorized and unauthorized immigrants were eligible for these programs on the same basis as citizen.

And what we see is with this new wave of anti-immigrant sentiment in the seventies, you start to see the targeting of unauthorized immigrants, access to these programs. And by the end of the 1970s, unauthorized immigrants are prohibited from receiving many of these federal programs. But that really changes even more in the 1990s in the wake of proposition 180 7.

So proposition 180 7 is a ballot initiative that was passed in California in 1994, which sought to prohibit unauthorized immigrants from accessing public benefits, things like health care, education, and social work. And so it’s really interesting to me is it’s past, right? And you think about these things, [00:25:00] but it’s actually going to end up being invalidated, uh, by the federal courts.

But that actually doesn’t really matter in the longterm for national politics because the measures popularity ends up shifting now. Policy. So in the wake of proposition, 180 7, we see the Clinton administration and Republicans on the hill sort of try and recalibrate, right? The new politics of immigration at this moment.

And they realize in the sort of, they’re looking at the 94 midterms Gingrich has come in as part of this contract with America and both Gingrich and his contract with America and the Clinton white house sort of look to California, right? It’s going to be an important state in the 1996 election. Clinton needs it for reelection and both the left and the right sort of look to proposition 180 7 and they started to pivot their position.

And the Clinton administration in particular is working on welfare reform and they shift their policy on authorized immigrants, access to the social [00:26:00] safety net and the welfare forum. And they ended up reducing that access to the point where the savings from that fund. 40% of Clinton’s welfare reform plan.

Right? And so in 1996, under federal under welfare reform, that between and deal worked out between the Clinton white house and congressional Republicans. The federal government ends up barring states from using federal funds to provide Medicaid, food assistance, and other key social safety programs for the majority of recent legal immigrants, right?

Regardless of this debt, these are people who have green cards. I have legal residency in the United States. Sarah, I just want to underline this point because it’s so crucial that under Ronald Reagan under a Republican president, there was very little push from the white house to deny benefits to an authorized immigrants, but under a democratic president because of these shifts, in opinion, all of a sudden there’s a push from the white house.

To deny these benefits done authorized immigrants. That’s, that’s an accurate read. That’s accurate, right? I mean, congressional Republicans have been [00:27:00] pushing it and then he sort of looks in and sort of shifts after the 94 midterms at. And is that why the nineties are a turning point for you? I think the nineties are really important because it’s a restrictive era in which citizenship, rather than resident status becomes this new boundary for access to rights.

Right. So it’s no longer. It’s are you a citizen or not? It’s not a question of sort of residency status. Like, are you part of our society or not? Right. It’s really do you have citizenship rights? And what are the implications of that? I think the implications of why it’s really important is I think we, we spend so much time thinking of ourselves as a nation of immigrants.

Right. But really now it’s sort of, are we a nation of citizens and nonsense? Right. And I think that’s a fundamental shift in sort of how we think about what it means to be inclusive. Right. And I think you think back to Zachary’s poem at the start, right? What does it mean. To be working at something together.

What does the American mean dream mean? Right. If you’re coming here, [00:28:00] you’re providing labor, you’re a key part of your community, but you’re not considered part of the nation. Right. And it’s interesting, right? Because still to this day, you can join the military as a non-citizen as a resident, but your.

You’re denied benefits as a consequence of these decisions that were made. Do you see, and I, I think you do, as you argue in the book that this shift to an emphasis on citizenship, rather than residents, you see that as significant to understanding the movement, to build a wall and a lot of the, uh, anti-immigrant policies surrounding Donald Trump and the Republican party.

Uh, what’s the connection. I think what you see, and I think this is important is that. What I try and make it clear in the book. And I think this is true, is that oftentimes right. This flashy thing on the front page of the times, right? Is what’s going to be the Southwest border, right. Or border and admissions numbers, or this number of refugees, you know, refugee policy and, you know, in terms of admissions, but it is, there [00:29:00] are, you know, 12 million undocumented people in the United States.

Roughly there are another 12. 14 million who are here as legal, permanent residents. That’s 24 million people in the United States, right. Who are in this other category. Um, and I think it’s really important to think about, you know, not just what’s happening at the border, but also immigration policy as like acknowledging what that means for a huge population in the United States, 24 million people.

And some of these are the dreamers, right. Yep. So we always talk about two ends. I mean, it’s a little bit rough, but. Dreamers are about 2 million, 2 million of the, of the 24 million and the 24th. So Sarah, we always like to close on a positive, optimistic note, really seeing how, um, greater historical awareness can help us to see, uh, alternative pathways forward.

What do you think are [00:30:00] some positive and, uh, possibilities for us in thinking about. Immigration policy, particularly on the domestic side, internal immigration policy going forward. What are some things we can do as citizens who are aware of these issues as residents who are aware of where around all of these issues?

I think history is important and it reminds us that it’s possible to do things in a way that’s different from today. And I think it’s important because it reminds us that many, for many of us who are not first-generation right. It reminds us that our. Our relatives and ancestors, right. Had a huge access to state and society that helped us get to where we are today.

Right. And that we should and can do things differently. We can go back to a more expansive welfare state for instance. We can sort of provide access to the American dream. I think the other thing that I think is really uplift sort of, if you want to take a positive note from this story, right? We’ve seen this 40 year assault [00:31:00] on immigrants rights.

You’ve seen some holdouts, right? The Plyler case still stands today as a, as a important piece of policy. But I also think, you know, we’ve seen how the right has used. State legislatures and state level policy to push more restriction. And I think in certain states we’ve seen how immigrant inclusion has happened at a state level.

And I think for the average person listening, right, small changes at a local level can actually drive national policy is one of the things I show, right. That’s something that goes on in Iowa or something that goes on in Tyler, right? Could it, it can be a shift for the negative. It can also be a shift for the policy.

Right. You can see how something, how it changed in policy to local level can really shift a national conversation. And so Sarah, to especially our younger listeners, um, what should they be arguing for at the local level? What should they put, should they focus on? I think, you know, the [00:32:00] more we can focus on providing access to opportunity, right?

Whether that be an education, whether that be. Sort of access to sort of things like driver’s licenses and other ways to create, um, access to healthcare. Right. I think in the wake of the pandemic, you see that, you know, all of these things are sort of things that you can that cities, various cities like New York and others have modeled.

Right. And we’ve seen that, that works. And I think at a local level we can push for more inclusive. You know, I was thinking the other day, Sarah, that we actually do have a model of this in front of us, as, as controversial as vaccinations have become in our society. What has been almost universally true is pretty much every community in the United States has offered.

Vaccines to those who want them, even if they can’t afford to pay for them, regardless of whether they’re a citizen or not. And understanding, I think this pandemic perhaps reminds us all that we’re all in this together. Right? And if one person is sick that, you know, [00:33:00] the large impact, but it, you know, it runs against all the efforts to restrict healthcare access to immigrants.

Now, with, with the vaccines, the restriction is a self-imposed one, but immigrants who want access. Um, even if they’re not citizens, they’ve been able to get access to the vaccine. So that’s, that may be as a model for us going forward. Exactly. What do you think you go to a school that’s filled with the children of immigrants and immigrants themselves.

You’re surrounded by these. These issues. Uh, how do you think about how our society can move forward? How we can improve the way we think about and include immigrants and create opportunity for them? I think that across the board, young people are very supportive of immigrants and immigration, but I think that that, that we are not aware.

Of this history. We need to be more aware of the history of federal government aid to immigrants and not just federal government aid, but community support provided to these immigrants. And [00:34:00] I think part of what this story tells us is that we can’t expect immigrants to simply be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

And that’s not what our parents and grandparents and great great grandparents had to do. And we shouldn’t expect it from others. Right. Last question, Sarah. And as a reminder, right, immigrants, we all know the data, but immigrants pay in far, much more to the system than they will ever take out. Right.

There’s a. Th that’s exactly where I was going to go with the last question, Sarah is what Zachary is describing and what you’re advocating for more of the traditional benefits and expanding on those for, for immigrants. Is that financially sustainable? Yeah. I mean, I think we know that immigrants not only pay far more into the system than they will ever take out and they also.

I don’t often access it at the same rates that others do. And we also know, right. For example, so an interesting side fact in 19. I talk about this inclusion [00:35:00] in my book, and I actually don’t have it in front of me, or I could pull up the actual figure. Um, in 1986, the social security administration starts something called the earning suspense file, which takes all the money.

When you submit right. A tax, all the withholdings for those who, whose social security numbers don’t match their names. Right? So whose whose papers are falsified. And so all those tax withholdings that are being withheld for undocumented immigrants, right? From their paychecks that actually really sustains a fair amount of the social security trust fund.

I want to say, it’s like 10%. And if you give me a minute, I could look it up, but it’s an incredibly high rate and right. And so I think. Not only are they paying in more than they take out. They’re also paying in enough to really support the general welfare of the unit. Wow. Wow. So that really underlines the point about are the benefits that immigrants provide to our society.

Actually cash benefits to our national pension system, which is quite extraordinary. [00:36:00] Sarah, thank you so much for sharing your research and your insights. Uh, and, and, uh, really what you bring is not only the depth of a historian around these issues, but your knowledge of policy to. And, uh, that’s what we seek to find each week on our podcast, a way of bringing history and policy together as you’ve done.

So, so thank you so much for joining us. Thank you so much for having me and Zachary. Thank you for your poem as always and your questions and thank you. Most of all, to our listeners for joining us for this episode of this is democracy.

This podcast is produced by the liberal arts its development. Yep. And the college of liberal arts at the university of Texas at Austin. The music in this episode was written and recorded by Harris. Codine stay tuned for a new episode every week. You can find this is democracy on apple podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

See you next time.[00:37:00]