The Philippines: New Directions in Domestic Policy and Foreign Relations

David G. Timberman (ed.)

Asia Society

1998

The Filipino American Community: New Roles and Challenges
by Mona Lisa Yuchengco and Rene P. Ciria-Cruz

 

Introduction

 

Visiting Philippine government officials never fail to exhort the Filipino American community to play an active role in shaping U.S.-Philippine relations. They appeal to the expatriates to act as a collective lobby for Philippine economic and political interests, often citing Israel's vibrant community of support in the United States as a model. The officials are not mistaken in detecting considerable potential in the nearly two-million-strong Filipino community, the Philippines' largest expatriate group. Filipino Americans, on the whole, are economically stable and becoming more active in the political and civic affairs of their adopted country.

However, expectations of an immediate political boon to the Philippines must be tempered by an objective appraisal of the challenges to overcome for the community to attain the political capability to influence U.S. public policy. Perhaps the visible protests and sustained lobbying from the 1970s to the mid-1980s by the U.S.-based opposition to Ferdinand Marcos have given rise to much optimism. However, that burst of political activity was a unique phenomenon that can only be used to illustrate the potential.

The U.S.-based opposition movement, after all, was directly initiated by highly motivated exiled dissidents representing the entire breadth of the ideological spectrum. Moreover, Marcos's authoritarian rule created an unprecedented division in the community as well as a general air of controversy that quickly evaporated on his demise. Without such a singular polarizing factor, Filipino Americans have naturally gravitated back to quotidian concerns and are generally impervious to appeals to greater political activity.

"Factionalism," "regionalism," and "lack of collective spirit" are attitudinal and behavioral factors often cited as hindrances to the community's political progress. While these usual suspects do play a negative role in the community's internal dynamics, the uniqueness, if not the impact, of some of them (like "regionalism") is actually overblown. Stressing their significance has as much weight as discovering the obvious. There are far more powerful objective factors that act as restraints to fuller participation in civil society. Ultimately, the emergence of undeniable Filipino American political clout rests on the maturation of the community's sense of entitlement and self-organization, in a process of overcoming cultural and social inhibitors inherent in the immigrant experience.

Exclusion's Historical Impact: Protracted Assimilation

The great demand for workers by the Hawaii sugar industry and large-scale food-crop producers on the mainland created the first wave of Filipino immigration, which meant thousands of able-bodied Filipino men (most of whom were bachelors) came to the United States starting in 1906. A 1930 California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) study counted 31,092 Filipinos admitted to the state alone between 1920 and 1929. There were nearly 50,000 Filipino workers according to the 1940 Census.

The Filipinos, however, were brought here for their labor and were not allowed to integrate into the economic, social, and political fabric. Like the U.S. bracero programs, or overseas contract employment in the Middle East, assimilation was not part of the contract. Filipinos could not bring wives, marry into other races, own property, or vote--they were not allowed to become Americans.

Official and popular racism prevented the mass of itinerant bachelor farm workers from starting families and producing new generations of U.S.-born Filipinos. According to the 1930 California DIR study, the ratio of unmarried Filipino males to females was 23 to 1; there were only 217 females, of whom only 93 were married, among 31,092 Filipinos in 1929. The virtual absence of families precluded the establishment of deeply rooted and enduring communities whose economic, political, and cultural power could grow over time.

The social potential stifled by exclusion could be gauged by the dramatic impact of a policy change that created a small second wave of immigration at the conclusion of World War II. Some 4,000 of the younger second-wave immigrants were allowed access to U.S. citizenship after serving in the military during the war (under the Immigration Act of July 2, 1946). Most of these veterans brought back war brides from the Philippines. The face of the Filipino minority quickly changed, with stable, family-based communities--bolstered by a U.S.-born-baby boom--sprouting up all over the West Coast. After years of exclusion, Filipinos Americanized with a vengeance. This was, however, a limited window of opportunity. Immigration restrictions would not be relaxed again until 1965.

In 1965, U.S. immigration laws were relaxed to encourage the entry of professionals and skilled workers, and an unending chain of family reunifications commenced. Largely as a result of this third wave of Filipino immigration, the Filipino American population has grown rapidly over the last thirty years and today totals 1.7 to 2.2 million people. The largest concentrations of Filipinos are in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Washington, Virginia, Texas, Florida, and Maryland. The Census Bureau expects Filipino Americans to spill over the two-million mark by the year 2000 and to be over four million by 2030.

Of the 1.4 million Filipinos officially counted by the 1990 U.S. Census, 71 percent are Philippine-born immigrants who came after the easing of restrictions in the 1960s. Thus, despite a presence in the United States dating back to the second decade of this century and the existence of at least three generations, the Filipino American population is still primarily an immigrant community--and a fairly young one at that.

The demands of assimilation are the Filipino Americans' biggest challenges. With the arrival of more than 40,000 new immigrants each year, the community's immigrant character is constantly reinforced and reproduced, with much help from jet travel and telecommunications. The relatively young roots of the predominantly immigrant community hint at a very particular social dynamic that encourages political detachment. A protracted period of national ambivalence inhibits immigrants from comfortably laying claim to their adopted country. This inhibition is reinforced by the depoliticizing pull of the day-to-day demands of establishing a new life in a different social and cultural environment.

In addition, the largely Eurocentric mainstream culture's resistance to ethnic diversity throws up barriers to smoother assimilation. Racism, which tends to deflate the linguistic and cultural "advantages" the nonwhite Filipinos derive from their American colonial legacy, also frustrates the "complete" or unconditional assimilation of U.S.-born, second-generation Filipino Americans. It is a frustration generally not shared by U.S.-born descendants of Caucasian immigrants.

Had the first wave of immigrants been given full rights to assimilate, the political profile of the Filipino community would look quite different today. Several generations of U.S.-born Filipinos, extensive economic assets, and an accumulation of political experience would have provided a more developed and entrenched foundation, or staging point, for the succeeding third wave of immigration. Filipino American political presence today would perhaps be broadly comparable to that of the Mexican American community. Instead, the third wave came on a small community with foundling institutions and an aging sector of first-wave pioneers.

The chronological length of a community's presence, therefore, is a deceiving indicator of political growth when applied to Filipino Americans. The consequences of the previous official policy of exclusion have negated the potential advantages of a community that has been in this country for a relatively long period of time. Filipino Americans' tendency to blame their community for "achieving so little for so long" should be taken with a dose of skepticism, because effectively the community is only three decades old.

Building Community Pride and Unity

There are no antidotes to the negative political effects of a protracted process of assimilation, only strategies to mitigate them. Strengthening ethnic pride is one of these strategies.

Filipino immigrants generally bring with them a low "national self-esteem"--lingering colonial mentality, self-blame, submissiveness, and passivity--shaped by centuries of colonization and the Philippines' bruising struggle with underdevelopment. It was not so long ago that a "Philippines-U.S. statehood movement" drew a lot of supporters and generated much publicity. In addition, a survey of Filipino children conducted several years ago by Ma. Luisa Doronila, of the University of the Philippines, revealed that the majority preferred to be "reborn" as Americans.

At the same time, Filipinos in the United States are hungry for recognition as Filipinos, a manifestation of collective frustration over the community's relative invisibility in the mainstream. To illustrate, a study conducted by California State University, Hayward found that a majority of Filipinos surveyed admitted they "favor(ed) companies/brands which have shown interest in and appreciation for the Filipino consumer." The second and third highest percentages indicated they were more likely to buy products or services that advertised in Filipino media. ₁

It is important, therefore, that community advocates maximize opportunities and means to build pride in Filipino culture and heritage. Criticisms of poorly organized community events notwithstanding, events like Philippine Independence Day fiestas, award ceremonies for achievers and role models, and so forth, if done well, are effective in raising collective self-esteem. There are favorable trends that can boost such initiatives. Philippine-born immigrants tend to nurse a growing appreciation for "things Filipino"--a function of nostalgia, homesickness, or middle age--and are extremely receptive to cultural information they once took for granted. U.S.-born Filipinos inevitably respond to the racial dynamics in American society by searching for their "roots" or ethnic identity. This social reflex is encouraged today by a growing demand for the celebration of cultural diversity.

The Filipino American media can greatly assist in bolstering pride by highlighting important historical events, projecting role models, and showcasing the best of Filipino culture and traditions. Unlike many of the other Asian American communities, the generally English-proficient Filipino immigrants do not have to rely on community media to translate news and information from the mainstream. Imada Wong Communications Group's Asian Pacific American Media Guide, 1996 counted two Filipino American radio shows, five television programs, four magazines, and twenty-three newspapers. Filipino American media mainly fill the demand for community news and for homeland news and entertainment. As such, they already function as active connectors to the homeland, channels that Philippine institutions and interests can use for access to the Filipino American community and market.

Mainstream American media and political circles use (though not frequently enough) Filipino American media as references and "sources." (Indeed, mainstream media that are serious about providing comprehensive coverage would do well to consistently monitor the community's periodicals and block-time television and radio shows.) In other words, Filipino American media indirectly project the collective profile to the mainstream. Shoddy publications and productions, however, undermine credibility and impart a distorted image of the community's tastes and values. It is important, therefore, for community media to help the cause of collective empowerment by upgrading their standards and improving their quality. Increased professionalism is also the prerequisite for serving as effective interpreters of U.S. affairs for Philippine interests. Similarly, professionalism will enable Filipino American media to act as credible analysts of Philippine socioeconomic and political trends for American observers.

"Lack of unity" is often raised in criticism of the proliferation of sometimes competing and redundant community organizations. Indeed, there are legions of community, professional, business, and hometown organizations--Filipino American Political Association, National Filipino American Council, Filipino Civil Rights Advocates, Association of Philippine Physicians in America, Philippine Nurses Association, Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce, Inc., University of the Philippines Alumni Association in America, Bicolandia Association, and the Congress of Visayan Organizations, to name only some. It is better to accept this proliferation as a natural state, rather than continually wish for a pie-in-the-sky single federation of Filipino associations. Regional associations, professional groups, religious circles, and so forth will always be around and should be expected to promote their own agendas.

What is more important is for organizations and leaders to develop the ability to band together in coalitions on important issues. The community's record in this regard cannot be dismissed. In the past 30 years, single-issue campaigns and coalitions with limited lifetimes have emerged in many parts of the country, dealing with a variety of issues, from local cases of police brutality to issues that drew national attention, for example, the Narciso/Perez case involving the wrongful prosecution of two Filipino nurses for murder, the threat of deportation faced by Filipino nurses who failed their licensure exams (both in the 1970s), and (more recently) the denial of benefits for Filipino World War II veterans. Repeated experiences in cooperative action are building blocks for political unity and maturity.

Economic Progress Through Immigration

Despite the political disadvantages of being a relatively young, largely immigrant community in a racially conscious society, Filipino Americans do not occupy the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. Filipinos rank fourth in per capita income ($13,616 or 9 percent lower than white per capita income) among ten Asian groups. They have the second-highest median family income at $46,698 in the United States (the median family income for the United States is only $35,225). Filipinos have the highest rate of labor participation, at 75.4 percent, among all Asian groups. As a result, the poverty level of Filipinos is the lowest in the nation at only 6.4 percent.

Because of Filipinos' relative proficiency in English and familiarity with American popular culture, even recent immigrants can integrate into the mainstream job market in a relatively short period of time. Fifty years ago, half the total number of Filipinos in the labor force held physically strenuous jobs in agriculture, forestry, and the fishing industry. Today only 1.6 percent of Filipinos in the labor force can be found in those sectors. Up to 64 percent of the 751,000 Filipinos in the labor force hold white collar jobs: 27 percent are in the professions and 37 percent are in technical, sales, or administrative support positions. Filipinos on the whole do not depend on independent entrepreneurship for livelihood. The median education level has also risen, from 9.7 years in 1960 to 13 years in 1990. Up to 39 percent of Filipinos over 25 have bachelor's degrees or higher.

Before "growth of political muscle" can be deduced from this impressive shift in occupational status and relatively high level of educational attainment, it must be underscored that these gains did not result from the accumulation of power by earlier immigrants. Much of the evident progress in the Filipino community has been brought about by the immigration of professionals and skilled workers after 1965. Up to 85 percent of Filipinos who came between 1965 and 1977 were professionals, for example, part of what former Philippine foreign affairs secretary Raul Manglapus sardonically described as "Philippine foreign aid to the United States."

Filipino Americans have not tended to congregate in self-- contained economic enclaves, like Chinatowns, which also serve as permanent cultural points of reference for the mainstream public. The enclave is a survival mechanism for many other Asian minorities which cannot integrate easily into the mainstream labor force due to more formidable language or cultural barriers. It is a social necessity that has become a political virtue as it underscores the numerical strength of a community and the concentration of economic means--factors that count considerably in the political arena. Most Filipino concentrations are residential, based on accessible real estate and rental prices in bedroom communities or neighborhoods. There has been much talk in the community of replicating the enclave, but capital-intensive, artificial "Manilatown" projects are rare, and success is quite uncertain.

Filipino Americans' aggregate purchasing power has been estimated at $13 billion a year, ₂ and remittances from the United States account for 70 percent of remittances to the Philippines. Filipinos in 1987 owned 40,412 enterprises with gross revenues of $1.9 billion, ranking fifth in business holdings after the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, and Indians. However, the Filipino community does not project economic power and, as a result, tends not to be a magnet for politicians.

Filipino Americans' economic power will probably remain understated owing to their high level of integration into the workforce as wage earners or skilled professionals. But there is a case to be made for strengthening the independent entrepreneurial sectors. There is spontaneous reliance in the community on Filipino-oriented services or products. Filipino chambers of commerce and similar groups can conduct standing "buy Filipino" campaigns to firm up this market and bolster internal support even for Filipino enterprises (car dealerships, real estate firms, and so forth) that cater to the mainstream market. Experience in actively supporting community-based enterprises, combined with the previously cited preference for "companies/brands which have shown interest in and appreciation for the Filipino consumer," should eventually provide the basis for future acts of negative consumership, e.g., boycotts of companies or brands that commit acts that are discriminatory or damaging to Filipino American interests.

The Visibility Problem

The concentration of occupational skills, educational achievement, a relatively comfortable economic status, and a historical presence in the United States only highlight the empowerment puzzle: Why are Filipino Americans, the second-largest Asian minority, still an invisible community?

A rupture in historical continuity between the first pioneering wave of immigrants and the present, largely third-wave community provides part of the answer. Official U.S. exclusionary policies earlier in the century stunted the all-sided development of the first-wave community. The lack of a substantial foundation has undermined the advantages that should have come with the combination of a long-standing Filipino presence in the United States and the community's rapid numerical growth today.

Another drawback that contributes to the Filipino minority's "invisibility" is the fact that the Philippines is dwarfed by more ancient Asian cultures. The Philippines is a very young nation, originally a collection of archipelagic settlements administratively consolidated by Spanish colonialism. The republic that emerged in the revolution against Spain will be only a hundred years old in 1998, and the dominant mestizo culture shaped by "400 years in the convent" was easily diluted by "50 years in Hollywood" under American colonization.

The more "exotic" and ancient cultures of China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam have tended to be more intriguing to American public taste. For example, a cursory inspection of index information will reveal that coverage of Japan by both the San Francisco Chronicle and the Examiner from 1919 to 1934 greatly exceeded coverage of Philippine affairs--at a time when the Philippines was a direct colony of the United States and the San Francisco Bay Area had a growing settlement of Filipino immigrant farm workers. A 1990 study (by researcher Augusto Espiritu) of Filipino source materials at the University of California in Los Angeles found that only an average 2.7 works a year were published on Filipino Americans between 1920 and 1990. Whether by design or plain neglect, the academy, media, and popular entertainment have served the American public very few enduring memories of historical ties with the Philippines. For a country that served as the United States' first experiment in imperialism--at the cost of some 4,000 American and several hundred thousand Filipino lives during the American conquest and subjugation of the Philippines between 1898 and 1906--the Philippines hardly figures in the American imagination.

Filipino American writers, scholars, artists, journalists, and performers will be crucial in correcting cultural marginalization by projecting the Filipino image and experience. Successful Filipino American writers, artists, and entertainers will serve as highly visible representatives and, for the general public, as "cultural reference points." In this light, Philippine and Filipino American studies programs, community theater groups, writers workshops, and so forth deserve collective support.

The Philippines itself will play a major role in ending Filipino American invisibility. The United States is living proof that what a young nation lacks in cultural stature can be more than compensated for by economic power. What further deflates the Philippines' international standing is its economic underdevelopment. Filipino Americans have a real stake in the Philippines' ambition to be a newly industrialized country, besides seeing the cycle of poverty end in their homeland. As long as the U.S. media project mainly images of poverty and backwardness in the Philippines, the collective prestige of Filipino Americans will be undermined. Filipino Americans, therefore, must include on their agenda programs to assist Philippine economic development, by way of direct investments, technical and educational assistance, and ultimately, lobbying the appropriate U.S. institutions.

Issues Facing Filipino Americans

The more assimilated sectors must take the lead in confronting political issues that affect the community. The backlash against immigrants that has developed in the U.S. in recent years hurts Filipino Americans in a number of concrete ways. In addition to the expected rise in local instances of hate crimes and workplace "English-only" language discrimination, new federal and state policies will have a negative impact on Filipinos across the country. While it is not yet clear how many will be directly affected by the new welfare reform law's exclusion of legal immigrants from public assistance such as Aid for Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid, and food stamps, federal statistics show that exclusion from Supplemental Security Income will hit 26,485 aged or disabled legal Filipino immigrants in California alone.

Filipinos must wrestle with more restrictions in the new Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. The reforms give immigration authorities greater, more arbitrary powers to exclude even legal immigrants from entering the United States. Up to 500,000 Filipinos are waiting to rejoin their families here, but the new act, along with provisions in the new welfare law, weakens the ability of immigrants and U.S. citizens to petition for family members. For Filipino Americans with limited incomes, particularly recently naturalized elderly veterans of World War II, petitioning and sponsoring family members is virtually impossible. The veterans themselves are also still campaigning to get the full benefits given to all former members of the U.S. military, which is another issue confronting the community in a political climate heavy with the rhetoric of budget downsizing. California's anti–affirmative action mood is expected to spread to other states and spawn Proposition 209 clones. The blow against minorities in education, hiring, and government contracts will be felt by Filipinos too.

Community leaders and advocates must be alert to issues that will affect the future of the U.S.-born, such as affirmative action, education issues, youth violence, drug abuse, and so forth. Community advocates must also grasp the significance not only of a generation gap, but also of a cultural divide between immigrants and the American-born. Many immigrants tend to resent the Americanization of U.S.-born Filipinos, their apparent lack of concern for the homeland, their seeming disrespect for elders and traditional Filipino values, and their businesslike, if not brash, attitude toward community concerns. U.S.-born Filipinos, on the other hand, tend to be disdainful of the immigrants' rowdy political culture, their attachment to homeland affairs (even its popular culture), their apparent lack of American savvy, and even their thickly accented English. U.S.-born Filipinos tend to be alienated from initiatives dominated by immigrants.

Two culturally divided camps can emerge within an older ethnic minority, where the schism between immigrants and American-born painfully reveals itself in conflicting positions on issues facing the community. (For example, Mexican immigrants' active participation in their homeland's election campaigns has been bitterly criticized by some American-born leaders as disempowering because it purportedly reinforces the "foreign" image of the Mexican American community.) For now, immigrants and U.S.-born alike still respond to "Filipino identity" and take pride in the achievements of all Filipinos. This communitarian spirit, however, will be challenged, if not undermined, by the community's continuing numerical growth, social stratification and generational differentiation. A conscious effort to build internal coalitions between immigrants and U.S.-born Filipinos around political issues and civic needs could prevent or offset the negative impact of a spontaneous cultural schism.

To ease the pressures of assimilation, more stable and active immigrants must orient many of their activities toward assisting recent arrivals. Advocacy for publicly or privately funded programs that facilitate adjustment, acculturation, job searches, and so forth, is a practical means of pursuing this goal. Filipinos for Affirmative Action in Oakland, California and Search to Involve Filipino Americans in Los Angeles are just two of the community groups committed to such programs.

The aforementioned issues, while worrisome, provide opportunities for involving the community in collective political action. They are openings for building coalitions among community groups, between the assimilated and the new arrivals, and between the foreign-born and the U.S.-born Filipinos. The issues also provide the basis for coalescing with other negatively affected ethnic minorities and sectors. Broader contacts and experiences with other communities and with mainstream institutions will help break isolation and minimize parochialism in the Filipino community. Filipino American activists have inevitably sought greater strength by interacting with the broader "Asian American community." (Although the "Asian American community" is not a culturally homogeneous entity, it does stand for a community of interests on the basis of which Americans of various Asian origins can initiate joint, mainly political, action.) It is a positive impulse that contributes to the overall political maturation of Filipinos.

Bolstering the Community's Political Presence

It takes a while for first-generation immigrants to unconditionally embrace the United States as their country. It takes a longer stay to significantly erode the immigrant syndrome typified by guest mentality and compliant behavior. For example, when young activists in the 1970s began launching nationwide campaigns against the discrimination of foreign medical graduates and nurses, they had to overcome the usual recent-immigrant admonition, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you," in reference to U.S. authorities. With assimilation comes the erosion of debilitating immigrant syndromes among the foreign-born and a greater understanding that claiming one's place, self-organization, and advocating for group interests are as American as apple pie. It is an understanding that comes more naturally to the U.S.-born as they grow inside a veritable hothouse of ethnic survivalism.

According to the Census Information Center, there are 491,646 Filipinos who are naturalized U.S. citizens. When this figure is added to the 505,988 U.S.-born Filipino Americans, it means that as much as 60 percent of the community are citizens, many of whom can already vote. (The Immigration and Naturalization Service acknowledges that Filipinos are ahead of other ethnic groups in naturalization.) However, there are no reliable studies on Filipino voter registration and turnout. There is a going assumption that most Filipinos are registered Democrats, but this is usually countered by arguments that Filipinos are conservatives at heart, that immigrant aspirations tend to buy into the values of dominant establishment groups, and therefore Filipinos could easily be attracted to the Republican Party.

More Filipino Americans are seeking appointments to political office or participating in local elections. These are both valuable sources of experience, support networks, alliances, and accumulated political savvy. Politically active Filipinos must devote time and effort to studying the trends in the community's political behavior in order to take appropriate measures for influencing it. Any serious political empowerment agenda must include definitive studies of Filipino American electoral behavior. Indeed strategizing for empowerment must be based on objective studies of the community's history, present realities, and prospects. This underscores the importance of developing academic research, Filipino studies courses, and Filipino scholars as an indispensable sector of the Filipino American intelligentsia.

Still, the availability of expendable funds earmarked for lobbying or political contributions will remain limited, and very few Filipino Americans, for example, will be able to afford the prohibitive costs of high-powered fund-raising dinners. Filipino Americans, therefore, must find ways to compensate for modest political kitties. Although the decisive role money plays in U.S. politics will remain unchanged, marginalization resulting from lack of it can be alleviated by the active, high-profile presence of Filipino American experts and organizers in political and social advocacies, the media, trade unions, and political parties and their campaigns.

Since "politics is addition," building coalitions with other minorities and bridges to mainstream institutions is crucial in offsetting the community's modest size and financial means and lack of political experience. In fact, successful politicians like Governor Benjamin Cayetano of Hawaii, Councilor Mike Guingona of Daly City, California, Mayors Henry Manayan and Pete Fajardo of Milpitas and Carson City, California, respectively, won their offices by not relying solely on the Filipino American electorate.

The current climate is quite favorable for coalitions that are not purely based on electoral campaigns but can eventually be translated into electoral capital. Among the lessons that many Chinese American leaders are learning from the campaign-donations scandal is how vulnerable their community is to stigmatization despite--or because of--their ability to raise substantial amounts of campaign funds. Many Asian political advocates are warning their communities not to rely solely on huge campaign donations to gain political access and presence, and to begin investing more energy in grassroots efforts to change policies and legislation.

The Filipino American Community and the Philippines

If Filipino American's ability to advocate on behalf of Philippine national interests is intimately bound up with their collective political maturation, the Philippine government must provide concrete means of placing those interests on the community's agenda. Rhetorical appeals to patriotism will not suffice.

Political advocacy on behalf of the Philippines by Filipino Americans is best guaranteed by the establishment of real economic stakes in the homeland. Development plans must include the utilization of the Filipino American community as a strategic reserve, not just as an immediate source of tourism, dollar remittances, and trade revenues. Philippine authorities must also reinforce their appeals to Filipino American investments with attractive incentives and streamlined visa, permit, and licensing processes.

Concrete programs with long-range orientations must be put in place. For example, the current "Lakbay-Aral" summer exchange/tour program for U.S.-born, second-generation Filipino American youth has excellent potential for developing deep and lasting ties with future community leaders. Filipino-community-based "trade missions" must be encouraged and designed not just for immediate economic results, but also for immediate and long-range impact on the local, state, and national levels of U.S. political leadership. In the same spirit, mobilizing active Filipino American involvement in initiating and sustaining official sister-cities relationships must be given high priority.

The expected granting of voting rights to Filipino citizens overseas should increase the participation and stakes in Philippine political affairs of Filipino nationals residing in the United States. Ultimately, however, the readiness of Filipino Americans to advocate for the national interests of the Philippines will increase in proportion to the eradication of official corruption, entrenched bureaucratic inefficiency, and gaping social divisions in their homeland. Pride in the seriousness, unassailability, and effectiveness of their homeland's political leadership is one of the best antidotes to skepticism and apathy. The all-too-brief moment of elation after the 1986 "people power" revolution provided a glimpse into the greater potential of the Filipino American civic spirit, when "helping the homeland" went hand-in-hand with agitation for "political empowerment" in the United States.

 

Conclusion: Looking to the Future

Whether the entry of new Filipino immigrants continues at its current high rate, or, as predicted, the restriction of immigration as a whole becomes inevitable, the emergence of greater Filipino American political power ultimately depends on the growth of the assimilated sector of the community and on the coming of age of the U.S.-born. First-generation foreign-born immigrants are an aging sector, their median age being 38.7 years. In contrast to this, 35 percent of the community is made up of U.S.-born Filipino Americans with a median age of 14.1 years. With the United States as their principal reference point, U.S.-born Filipinos tend to more naturally identify with this country's political affairs. They have a natural sense of entitlement and do not have the same ambivalence about their claim on the United States that tends to politically inhibit recent immigrants.

Community advocates--and those who wish to guarantee a place for Philippine national interests on the Filipino American agenda--must pay careful attention to the strengthening of Filipino American identity, the development of communitarian spirit, and the accumulation of political experiences among the American-born. Ultimately, the U.S.-born Filipino Americans will bear the primary responsibility for attaining greater political power and boosting the community's visibility and cultural impact on American society. The Filipino American community's political presence will become more pronounced when this generation of U.S.-born Filipinos comes into its own to add complexity and firmer moorings to the relatively young community.

 

Endnotes

Note 1: A Study of Filipino American Consumer Behavior: Media Habits, Ownership and Consumption Patterns, Values, Attitudes and Lifestyles, researched by Christina Marie Macabenta (Hayward, Calif.: California State University, 1995), p. 117. Back.

Note 2: A Study of Filipino American Consumer Behavior, p. 21. Back.