Bridges with Asia: Asian Americans in the United States

Bridges with Asia: Asian Americans in the United States:
Immigration, Asian Americans, and Asia
Plenary Session

May 2–4, 1996

Plenary Session introduced by
	Cao K.O ₁ Executive Director, Asian American Federation of New York

Moderator
	Muzaffar A. Chishti ₂ Director, Immigration Project, UNITE, New York

Presentations
	Exclusion/Inclusion: A Perspective on Asian Immigration Neil Gotanda ₃ Professor of Law, Western State University College of Law, Fullerton, CA
	Asian Pacific Americans and the Future of U.S. Immigration Policy Frank Sharry ₄ Executive Director, National Immigration Forum, Washington, D.C.
	Impact of Southeast Asian Refugee Resettlement on Asian America and Southeast Asia Ngoan Thi Le ₅ Deputy Administrator, Division of Planning and Community Services, Illinois Dept. of Public Aid
	Immigrant Entrepreneurialism and Urban Economic Development Linda J. Wong ₆ General Counsel and Chief Financial Officer, Rebuild L.A.

The panelists discussed the effects that immigration and immigration laws have had on the Asian American population. Also brought to the forefront was the concurrence of Asian Americans in understanding that the immigration issues are not only affecting the domestic situation but that they have broader international implications. Professor Neil Gotanda gave a historical overview of immigration laws with respect to Asians. He proposed that these laws have affected the identity of Asian Americans by perpetuating their “foreignness.” Linda J. Wong demonstrated how recent efforts to stop immigration would damage the American economy. Immigrants, she argued, have not only contributed to the economy but have started entirely new industries, which have provided employment and an infusion of much needed capital into this decade’s stale domestic market. By excluding immigrants, the potential for economic vitality is diminished, ultimately hurting the American people. Ngoan Thi Le addressed the role that Southeast Asian refugees have played in refocusing attention on Asian Americans and reconnecting Asian America to its international roots. She argued that the tragic plight of Southeast Asian refugees has crossed racial and class lines and permeated into the consciousness of all Americans. Since many people from diverse backgrounds have come together to address their plight, these refugees have played a large part in the formation of new bridges among previously isolated groups. She also argued that Southeast Asians’ refugee status forces them to retain strong political and cultural ties to Asia. Frank Sharry presented an encouraging picture for future immigration legislation. He explained that Asian Americans had recently banded together to fight anti-immigrant and anti-immigration measures. From this battle, immigrant advocates gained insight into “strategies” on how to fight for these issues as well as into the methods and advantages of coalition building.

In his introduction, the panel’s moderator, Muzaffar Chishti, suggested that immigration issues affect Asian Americans now more than ever. He said that it is critical for Asian Americans to discuss these issues, especially with regard to specific areas. As a framework for the discussion, he put forth the following:

how Asian Americans are affected by exclusionary immigration laws that specifically target them;
the inexplicability of these restrictions in light of the immeasurable contributions Asian Americans have made to the United States in recent years; and
that Asian Americans are the largest refugee population to enter the United States since World War II.

All these factors make immigration laws and refugee issues vital to Asian Americans.

Neil Gotanda discussed how the concept of the melting pot was not applicable to many immigrants. He argued that the United States has historically excluded Asian immigrants, both legally and culturally. The history of Asian America is a history of exclusion.

The United States started this trend in 1882 when Congress ratified the Chinese Exclusion Act. This legislation was the first to exclude a group of people by nationality, but it was not the last. The 1908 Gentleman’s Agreement between the United States and Japanese governments severely limited Japanese immigration. The 1917 passage of the Barred Zone Act excluded South Asians. And finally, the 1924 National Origins Act effectively eliminated Japanese immigration once and for all. While the Chinese Exclusion Act was the only immigration law to specify a nationality, other legislation used euphemisms in the place of particular national or racial designators. The Barred Zone Act, for instance, discriminated against people on the basis of their geography rather than their nationality. The National Origins Act excluded peoples by narrowing eligibility for citizenship. As a result, only those of the white race were allowed to enter the United States, much less obtain citizenship.

Even the legislation that reversed these discriminatory acts was not so much an attempt at inclusion as it was an act of political expediency. When Congress repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943, it did so to strengthen ties between China and the United States, not to encourage Chinese immigrants. Subsequently, Congress was forced to grant the Chinese the right to naturalize so that the National Origins Act would not nullify their repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Despite these measures, Congress still limited Chinese immigration to 100 people a year.

Immigration continues to shape much of the attitude toward Asian Americans. In recent years, Gotanda observed, the “model minority” designation has been replaced with that of “yellow peril.” Nativists fear an Asian invasion stimulated by the phenomenal increase in Asian immigration since 1965.

While Gotanda discussed the exclusion of Asian Americans, Linda J. Wong provided evidence as to why such exclusion would only hurt the American economy. Wong pointed out that immigrants have made large contributions to the American economy by starting their own businesses which in some cases have created their own market niches, and some have even become large industries supporting significant numbers of people. Many of the industries that immigrants dominate, however, are not recognized as immigrant businesses because the census bureau has not changed its traditional categories of immigrant economic activity. Since immigrant businesses are subsumed within general traditional categories, it is easy for economists to ignore the contributions that these businesses have made to the U.S. economy. Instead, statistics are construed to support contentions that immigrants have a detrimental effect on the economy. Wong provided commonly overlooked evidence that immigrant businesses actually invigorated the U.S. economy.

Two industries that Wong has studied closely, food and toy production in southern California, demonstrate how immigrant businesses can dominate a field without necessarily being categorized as immigrant or ethnic. The tortilla industry is one example. She noted that while Mexican Americans started this industry, census statistics classify it under the “miscellaneous” rather than the “ethnic” category. As a result, an industry that accounted for $2 billion in sales during fiscal 1994 easily can be overlooked when formulating statistics on immigrant business. Salsa, which outsold ketchup in 1992, provides another example.

In examining the toy industry in Los Angeles, Wong discovered that while in the 1970s Mattel dominated the region, at present Chinese immigrant toy manufacturers have cornered 60 percent of the market-equivalent to $1 billion dollars in sales. This industry has also revitalized a dilapidated area of Los Angeles close to the infamous Skid Row. There are, however, no immigrant-specific classifications of the industry’s activities. This has resulted in yet another overlooked immigrant industry. The present categories of analysis fail to indicate that toy manufacturing and tortilla production are in fact ethnic dominated. Immigrant participation in these industries has been a significant boon to the economy.

While Wong identified a financially successful sector of the Asian American immigrant population, Ngoan Thi Le discussed those who have had difficulty in participating in the mainstream economy. Since that time, over 3 million refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos have journeyed to the United States. In 1990, they made up 13 percent of the Asian American population.

According to Le, the impact that Southeast Asian refugees have had is not limited to demographic statistics. Their presence has shaped the ways in which Asian Americans are perceived by others and themselves. The influx of refugees and the government’s efforts to settle them evenly throughout the United States has increased the visibility of Asian Americans. Consequently, this has exposed the American mainstream to the needs of the refugees and Asian America itself.

Southeast Asians have also changed how Asian Americans interact with each other. A significant segment of the refugee population is undereducated and falls below the poverty line—a reality that runs counter to the way most Asian Americans perceive themselves. Southeast Asians have in fact economically diversified (or polarized) Asian America, making it resemble the rest of the American population more closely. Along with this diversification have come issues of poverty and crime that Asian American leaders did not have to deal with in the past. These new issues, Le said, are opening avenues through which Asian American communities can work with each other and with other people of color.

Southeast Asians are also strengthening ties between Asian America and Asia. Because most of the refugees were forced out of their native land by war, they retain a strong affinity to their homeland and a heightened interest in homeland politics. As a result, Southeast Asians have re-emphasized the multinational characteristics of Asian America.

While the impact of Southeast Asian refugees on America has been great, Le maintained that their impact on the international community has been as well. Of the 3 million refugees who have fled Southeast Asia since 1975, most have found new homes, but some remain stranded in refugee camps or at sea and are known as “boat people.” Because of the numerous difficulties facing the refugees and the intense political upheaval in Southeast Asia, international organizations, such as the United Nations, the Red Cross, and Amnesty International, have had to focus on resolving Southeast Asian issues. Le marveled at how this process has spawned interaction between opposites in the socioeconomic spectrum. International diplomats and dispossessed boat people now sit at the same bargaining table to discuss common problems.

Frank Sharry, while recognizing the anti-immigrant stance of much of the American population, presented an optimistic picture of future immigration legislation. A year ago, Sharry noted, anti-immigrant representatives Lamar Smith (Texas) and Alan Simpson (Montana) held sway over much of Congress. It looked as if their proposed legislation to cut chain, refugee, and work-related immigration would pass. The anti-immigrant sentiment was so powerful that even Representative Barbara Jordan (Texas) and President Bill Clinton acceded to it. Just one year later, however, because of effective organizing and lobbying by Asian American coalitions (among others), the Simpson bill was passed but with many of the immigration restrictions deleted.

The victory for Asian Americans lies not only in the end result, however, but in many of the developments along the way. One of the greatest benefits was the coalition-building that took place between the most disparate blocks of the Asian American community. Coalitions not only included Asian American groups but different ethnic communities and other interested parties. These connections have opened avenues for future coalition-building. The recent battle has also brought forth effective strategies for combating anti-immigration legislation. Knowing how to differentiate between legal and illegal immigration has become the most effective tool in fighting such legislation.

Advocates must fight anti-immigration legislation on many different levels. Asian Americans cannot escape dealing with the future inclusion or exclusion of their fellow immigrants. This issue is integral to their self-perception as well as how they are seen by others.

Discussion

Most of the questions focused on how to disseminate information gleaned from this talk and on alternative solutions to those presented here. Wong proposed a strategy that followed a model she had already implemented. She first leaked news to the media about the vitality of urban Los Angeles. She then linked that vitality to immigrant businesses. Gradually, this process opened many eyes.

Frank Sharry addressed an international dimension of the immigration issue—the possibility of stemming immigration not through legislation, but through foreign aid aimed at modernizing “target” countries. While admitting that the United States has involved itself in endeavors like these, Sharry maintained that the United States cannot involve itself in the third-world economy on a large scale. He did suggest heightened monitoring of third-world economies and migration patterns. Immigration experts need to explore global trends wherein regions are changed from migrant producers to receivers, a phenomena he sees imminent in Asia. By predicting migration patterns, the United States can better prepare itself for the changes brought by new immigrants.

Finally, Ngoan Thi Le addressed issues facing Southeast Asian women. She agreed that Southeast Asian women have more barriers to overcome than do others, such as their refugee status and sexism. But she said that much has already been done to overcome these obstacles.

Endnotes

Note 1: Cao K. O is Executive Director of the Asian American Federation of New York. Prior to joining the Federation in 1990, he worked as a consultant to the Asian American Initiative of the United Way of New York City, to assist in exploring approaches to meet the increasing human service needs of the Asian American community in New York. As Assistant Director of the Refugee Unit of the New York State Office of Mental Health from 1987 to 1988, he participated in the development of state planning initiatives to improve mental health care for New York state’s culturally diverse refugee population. Mr. O has also served as Director of Development at Hamilton-Madison House, a multi-service settlement house with a budget of over $3.5 million. He is currently on the boards of a number of organizations, including the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Chinatown Voter Education Alliance, Hamilton-Madison House, Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics, Inc. (LEAP), and the Private Industry Council. Back.

Note 2: Muzaffar A. Chishti is a lawyer and Director of the Immigration Project of the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE). The Project provides immigration legal services to the members of the union and their families. He is active in a number of immigration issues organizations, including serving as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the National Immigration Forum; Treasurer of the US Committee for Refugees and a member of the Board of Directors of the New York Immigration Coalition. Mr. Chishti has testified extensively on immigration and refugee legislation before various Congressional committees and is a frequent speaker on immigration, labor and related issues. In 1994, he received the New York State Governor’s Award for Outstanding Asian Americans. Back.

Note 3: Neil Gotanda is Professor of Law at Western State University College of Law in Fullerton, California. He has been active in writing on issues of race and was an organizer of the Workshop on Critical Race Theory. He is co-editor of Critical Race Theory: Key Writings that Formed the Movement (New Press, 1995). His Asian American interests and activities date to the 1960s and include community work in San Francisco’s Japantown and teaching one of the earliest classes in Asian American studies at San Francisco State University in 1970. Mr. Gotanda resides in Los Angeles and continues to teach, research and write on questions concerning Asian Americans and the law. Back.

Note 4: Frank Sharry is the Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum, one of the nation’s leading organizations working to preserve America’s tradition as a nation of immigrants. Mr. Sharry is a national spokesman on behalf of fair, generous, and orderly immigration policies in the United States. He is often cited by major news publications, regularly speaks to audiences throughout the country and has appeared on CNN’s “Crossfire,” “The McLaughlin Group,” a two-hour nationally-televised “Firing Line” debate on immigration which aired on PBS, “Tom Brokaw Reports,” “The McNeil-Lehrer News Hour,” and “Donahue,” among others. Back.

Note 5: Ngoan Thi Le is currently the Deputy Administrator of the Division of Planning and Community Services of the Illinois Department of Public Aid. She is a founder of the Asian American Institute in Chicago and Chair of its Public Policy Committee. She also serves on the boards of a number of organizations including the National Immigration Forum, Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics, Inc. (LEAP), and the United Way of Chicago. Back.

Note 6: Linda J. Wong is General Counsel and Chief Financial Officer for Rebuild LA, a nonprofit economic development organization established after the 1992 Los Angeles civil unrest. She is responsible for the development and implementation of industry-specific approaches to workforce development, as well as the formation of industry networks of small manufacturing firms. Amongst her other activities, Ms. Wong chairs the Pacific Telesis Telecommunications Consumer Advisory Panel and serves on the executive committee for the Los Angeles Annenberg Metropolitan Project, which received a $53 million challenge grant from the Annenberg Foundation to facilitate school reform initiatives in LA County. Back.