South Asians in Queens

The growing Southeast Asian community of Queens has many a hurdle to jump through. In Queens alone, the community owns roughly 40% of all immigrant entrepreneurship/businesses, and are considerably higher on the socioeconomic scale than their Caribbean/Latino counterparts.

Despite these significant statistics, the community does face its own struggles. Since the 2008 market meltdown, according to a study by the Chhaya CDC organization, a disproportionate number of Southeast Asian-Americans (immigrant and native) possess college degrees, but are unable to find work. Because of this fait accompli, many are starting their own businesses as an attempt to become self-sufficient, or work in their own family’s businesses. The latter is often looked down upon by the family as well as the community at large, as elder generations do not wish for their children/grandchildren to start from the previous generation’s station (working low-skilled labor for long periods of time).

Queens Triple Play: Willets West, Major League Soccer, and the National Tennis Center

Queens Triple Play: Willets West, Major League Soccer, and the National Tennis Center highlights the major changes that will impact Flushing Meadows Corona Park. Willets West, a 1.4 million square foot mall, is expected to be completed by 2018, which will be constructed in the parking lot of Citi Field’s parking lot. Also Major League Soccer hopes on building a 25000 seat brand new stadium for the new NYC team. The proposed place to build the stadium is the Fountain of the Planets. Lastly, in the West, the National Tennis Center is planning an expansion of 7000 new seats, suites, retail space, and 700 new parking spaces.

The article sums up the effects of these three major proposals – these three projects will change the northern half of Queen’s flagship park into a “car-dependent” and “largely commercialized destination”. The new plans will easily add more than 10,000 parking spaces and the residents are worried about the heavy traffic those cars are going to bring. With these new changes, it would be difficult to implement “green” plan (with new spaces for park being taken away).

Although these changes will bring some positive results, there seems to be major disadvantages too. The biggest concern has to be the massive amount of traffic the projects are going to bring (especially that 7 train line!!). It really is difficult to find the neutral and the fairest method to resolve these problems. Personally, I’m worried about the park. It seems like developments are closing in on the park and the park is losing its chances of expanding because of these proposals (as shown by the statistics in the article – Flushing Meadow Corona Park is labeled in public documents with 1,255 acres of land, including Citifield and its parking lots. However, when non-park spaces are counted out, only 347 acres of the park is open for use )

The Necessity/Usefulness of Community Boards

Whenever issues arise in a community or neighborhood (rezoning, land disputes, infrastructure, etc) which could potentially affect a disproportionate part of the population, there is frequent disagreement as to how these issues should be handled. Often, such issues needn’t be present, as often there is an urge for a sense of organization or unity within a community.

Often, such needs take the form of community boards, which make decisions and influence public policy regarding the going-ons/issues within a neighborhood or a community. However, the actions of these groups are not always effective nor wide-reaching.

As pointed out in Tarry Hum’s essay, despite the good intentions of these boards and their attempted measures to ensure organization and unity within a region on public issues, politics and conflicting interests prevent community boards from reaching solid agreements on key issues within a community. Ultimately, smaller groups, such as church parishes, cultural groups/organizations, businesses and other individually-driven organizations/entities have proven more beneficial to their respective communities. Rather than getting entangled by politics, the members of the communities themselves are the best instigators of change/development, thus they succeed where bureaucratic community boards fail.

From Dump to Glory: The Remaking/Development of Queens

The Northwestern corner of Queens along the shores of Flushing Bay, which comprises of the neighborhoods of Flushing, College Point, Willets Point, Corona and East Elmhurst, has undergone significant development and alteration over the past century. Formerly the site of the mountainous Corona Ash Dump brownfield, the region was cleared and landscaped in the late 1930s to establish the current Flushing Meadows-Corona Park (the second largest public park in New York City) in a campaign led by urban-planning megalomaniac Robert Moses. The purpose of the park’s establishment was, in his own words, to create a more scenic view and atmosphere in the previously deteriorating corner of Queens.

The park is infamous as being the site of the colossal failure that was the 1964-65 New York World’s Fair, as well as its scenic beauty being in close proximity to the polluted, unkempt, neglected brownfield on the Willets Point peninsula.

Various development schemes are planned for the region to further economic gain/attention for the surrounding neighborhoods of Flushing and Corona, and eventually spill-over into neighboring communities such as College Point and Jackson Heights. These plans include a 1.4 million square foot shopping complex in the CitiField parking lot on the Willets Point peninsula, along with a 25,000-seat soccer stadium on the Northeastern-most corner of Flushing Meadows-Corona Park, and an expansion of the National Tennis Center on the other side of the Park. These plans have been met with increasing opposition from business-owners, cultural groups and community leaders in the surrounding neighborhoods, especially Corona, on the grounds that the parklands are public and ought not to be exploited for seasonal use, denying neighboring regions of of their own various uses of the space.

The Enclave, the Citadel, and the Ghetto

Personally speaking, I have some experience living in/traveling through an enclave, a citadel, and a ghetto.

I work/have family in College Point, on the Northwestern-most point of Queens. Anyone who travels to College Point (especially someone from Bayside like me) often travels through Whitestone to get there, via 14th Ave, a long street which stretches a long portion of land facing the Long Island Sound. Driving down 14th Avenue, it is evident where upper-class, suburban Whitestone/Malba citadel ends and industrial, middle-class College Point begins (the intersection of 132nd St and 14th Ave, just behind the College Point Shopping Center). It is there where the stretches of mansions come to an immediate halt, and are replaced by  immigrant-owned stores, tighter streets, and duplexes. Even within the neighborhood of College Point, 14th Ave serves as a divide between a citadel and a (arguable) ghetto. Everything on and north of 14th Ave features large mansions and expensive homes similar to those of neighboring Whitestone/Malba. Everything south of 14th Ave (roughly 80-85% of College Point) is rugged in terms of infrastructure, relatively unkempt and congested with traffic.

Peter Marcuse’s claims regarding the nature of the citadel, enclave and ghetto are, in my opinion, spot-on. While these types of neighborhoods, where stark signals are given regarding disparity/inequality of wealth, social structure and infrastructure, are present in every major metropolitan city, they are not as damaging to a society as they may seem. People who populate citadels, enclaves or ghettos arrive there by circumstance, and rarely by chance. People of similar economic/cultural/social association tend to stick together in their own little areas; it is not an issue of intolerance nor unwillingness to assimilate into another culture/social structure. No individuals were coerced into living in areas where they are surrounded by people just like them; upper-class families tend to stick with upper-class families the same way Eastern-European immigrant families prefer to remain near other Eastern-European immigrants, as with Caribbean immigrants, or middle-class South Asians, etc.

Immigrant Entrepreneurship

Anyone who goes for a stroll anywhere between Union and Main Streets in Flushing will see and know the impact of immigrant entrepreneurship. Flooding the main sea ports of the United States for economic advantage, disproportionate numbers of immigrants take to the labor market, most demanding low-skilled, low-pay jobs, whilst others take serious risks and start their own businesses. In recent years, as the Eastern seaboard sees a considerable influx of Southeast Asian and Latin American immigrants, the numbers of businesses run by these immigrant individuals has skyrocketed, especially in the neighborhoods of Flushing and Corona in Queens.

Jonathan Bowles discusses the statistical impact of immigrant entrepreneurship, noting their extensive integration in “native” society, with immigrant-owned businesses outdoing their native competitors. Their economic flexibility is noted as well, as they don not solely serve members of the immigrant community, but expand to include (and perhaps to integrate with) the native society/culture as well.

Immanuel Ness’ article paints a somewhat more pessimistic view, arguing for the necessity of unions for immigrant businesses (Bowles mentions the necessity for government assistance for immigrant businesses as well). Starting a business, especially as an immigrant to a new country, is a considerable risk. However, as is the case with business/entrepreneurship, success is a rarity and failure is the norm. There is no guarantee that all immigrant-owned businesses will succeed as much as their native-owned counterparts, but the impact of immigrant businesses/labor is still significant, especially here in Queens.

Immigrant Neighborhoods in Global Cities

In the article, “The Enclave, the Citadel, and the Ghetto: What has Changed in the Post-Fordist US City”, Peter Marcuse defines an “enclave”, a “citadel” and “the ghetto”. He introduces implications of the enclave, citadel and ghetto.. Not only but he also discusses differences, specifically ghetto and an outcast ghetto. According to Marcus, a ghetto is a concentrated area used to seperate and to limit a particular population group treated as inferior by society. This article illustrates that the word ghetto has a more significant meaning that certain groups of people who find this term to be “derogatory” or misleading.

Marcuse stated that people do not voluntarily live in ghettos, whereas people voluntarily living in enclaves. However, Black people have a right and the option to live wherever they want, even though they pick the “ghetto” areas.  The reason is because other blacks are concentrated in the “ghetto” areas so they feel comfortable living in that area.

Marcuse did a good job of characterizing ghetto, enclave and citadel by economic condition and the economic relations they play with their surroundings.  Also, we can see the residential segregation that exists among “ghettos”, “enclaves”, and “citadels.” n example of a “citadel” would be the luxurious apartments on Manhattan’s Upper East Side.  Certain areas of Manhattan and Bronx would be the “ghetto”  because of their large Black population whereas Chinatown is considered to be the enclave because with thriving immigrant population.

As a result of Marcuse’s article, I’ve gained knowledge and learned that race as well as ethnicity is very important in creating the “areas” such as the ghetto, citadels, or enclaves, that make up the city for what it is now.

Why Immigrants Organize

Immanuel Ness’s book, Immigrants, Unions, and the New U.S Labor Market discusses why and how immigrants organize. In short, according to Ness, immigrants, regardless of their immigration status are able to organize because they have strong community solidarity. In reverse, non-foreign born Americans do not organize because they lack community solidarity. I wrote a paper on Ness’s (and Hum’s) papers but there is one issue I did not address there that I would like to cover more in depth. This the issue of why native born Americans lack strong community solidarity? There are several answers to this question.

One reason is that immigrants, because they are so dependent on the help they receive from friends, families, and connections in the U.S. are automatically inclined, or even forced to maintain close ties with their network. It is necessary for their acclimation to life in America. Native born Americans, on the other hand, do not require such assistance and are therefore less inclined to maintain and grow their community networks and thus have lower levels of community solidarity.

Another source of communal solidarity for immigrants is with their coworkers. Immigrants often work very long hours with the same people in small businesses. This is an optimal environment for employees to bond. Immigrant employees not only share the common immigrant experience but also share the common experience of long, hard work and the feeling of being exploited. Native born American workers, on the other hand, often work in larger retail outlets, such as Walmart and Target. These businesses which are huge both on the local and national level offer little to no opportunity for employees to bond, especially considering that such workplaces have a tendency to rely on a fluid and often changing labor force, meaning that the same people are often not working together for long.

In addition to facing a constantly changing labor force, native employees in large chains are also less inclined towards community solidarity for another reason: they feel they have more options. So, for example, if the job as a cashier at Walmart doesn’t work out they have no problem with leaving and getting a job as a waitress at Applebees. In other words, they don’t stay at one job long enough to form strong and meaningful bonds with their co-workers. Immigrant workers, on the other hand, weather due to their insecurity about murky immigration statuses or because they feel their skill set limits them to one job for one business, are more likely to stay at one job for as long as possible. When conditions at one job are poor they are much more likely to strive to improve those conditions as opposed to changing jobs. As a result, they are more likely to stay with the same group of workers longer, allowing them to form strong bonds with co-workers and thus the community solidarity that stimulates and allows immigrants t succesfully organize.

South Asians in Queens

Chhaya CDC (community development corporation) is an organization whose goal is the maintenance of stable communities among New Yorkers of South Asian descent. In pursuit of this objective they conducted a needs assessment study of this community.

The current economic downturn has significantly impacted this community. For example, despite the fact that forty seven percent of surveyed individuals possessed college educations, only eight percent worked in professional or technical jobs. The language barrier has played a major part in this particular disparity. Other economic difficulties result from housing. Most of the community lives in rented spaces and many have been exploited. Renting without lease and therefore with risk of displacement and illegal price gouging are just two problems in a much bigger issue. Homeowners haven’t fared much better due to the recent housing crisis and bureaucratic issues.

 

Chhaya also suggested many initiatives to help combat these problems including increasing the number of English language classes, allowing prior certification to apply here and allowing immigrants more access to public programs.

Immigrant Enclaves

Logan and Smith, justify their study with two factors; the continuing trend of globalization and local choices made by individuals in their search for success (41-5). Using these two concepts, they briefly examine the neighborhood and New York City in its entirety before nineteen ninety. They then examine and discuss the nineteen ninety census and subsequently the two thousand one. They recognize the concept of “white flight” where portions of Flushing’s white population leaves for the suburbs, replaced by minorities. In Flushing the Asian and Hispanic populations increase significantly before two thousand. They also discuss in great detail the economic and social draws that made Flushing an attractive choice for these people to live (49-55). After this they consider the racial tension boiling (mostly) beneath the surface. For example many were afraid that the community they grew up in was disappearing, that it would be “Manhattanized.” In general this tension did not lead to physical violence (55-8).

The two thousand census revealed that the Asian population increased dramatically while the Hispanic one stablilized at around twenty percent. In fact, Flushing became the most concentrated Asian population in New York, second only to Manhattan’s Chinatown (59-63). They then examine the Hispanic population and its many smaller enclaves within Flushing. They consider the many factors that encourage these neighborhoods to develop as well as the specific ethnic groups within the community such as Mexican, Puerto Rican etc.

Despite the incredible diversity that they tell us about, Logan and Smith maintain that, for better or worse, these are still societies based on the structure of an enclave. They are not truly integrated, they may coexist but preserve themselves as distinct cultural groups.

Immigrant Labor Markets

In Immigrants, Unions, and the New U.S. Labor Market, Ness explains how most immigrants that enter New York City do so illegally because of the immigration limitations that are put in place.  Most illegal immigrants come up to New York from Latin America, while immigrants from Africa, Asia, and Europe come with a business, student worker, or tourist visa.  In the decade of 1992 to 2002, about a hundred thousand Dominicans came to New York and tens of thousands people came from countries like Russia, Guyana, China, Bangledesh, and Ecuador.  These new residents of New York, illegal or not, of course provided a labor force.  They worked for a lower wage than native residents and worked longer hours because employers knew they could take advantage of their lack of knowledge of American labor markets.  Most immigrants started out in low-waged jobs, like manufacturing factories and the garment industry.  These jobs, of course, did not offer a labor union.  However, immigrants have found a way to overcome this.  As time passed by, the availability of manufacturing jobs was replaced by service jobs.  Immigrants also began starting their own businesses, both formal and informal, around their communities, which gave other immigrants an opportunity to work.  This movement towards independent  job creation gave immigrants a chance to use each other as resources.  They may not have unions to demand better working conditions or better pay to be able to afford a better quality of life, but they did have each other.  Immigrant communities could band together, professionally and socially, to make their work experiences better.  Immigrants of similar race and nationality came together at their jobs and noticed that they had shared experiences and identities and created community solidarity.  As more networks of immigrants were created, the more niches were created for immigrants of the same ethnicity and the more immigrants were able to find jobs.  Immigrants may not be able to initially find higher level jobs with decent wages, but they have found a way to make their work experiences easier for each other.

Remaking Queens

“Queens Triple Play: Willets West, Major League Soccer, National Tennis Center” talks about the three new additions that will be built in Flushing Meadows Corona Park. While this project is not immediate, residents and business owners will slowly be displaced over the next twenty years. While the idea of a mall, soccer stadium and tennis stadium sound nice in theory, many other projects come with these three. For example, parking lots must be created for each of the projects. Many residents of Willets Point will find that either their homes are in the way of these plans and therefore must move or that their way of life will be drastically changed. A sudden influx of tourists, sports fans and shoppers will crowd the streets surrounding the area and the residents will have to suffer for it. Suddenly, there half hour commutes turn into a few hours just to make it to the crowded train station on game nights.

The construction of these three projects will almost completely deplete what is left of the park. It is already hard enough to find a small lot of grass in the vast city but after these projects, it will be difficult to even call the space a park. Small patches of grass separated by large stadiums and parking lots offer very little peace and quiet to that resident who just wants to spend their lunch break in nature. Many residents are outraged and have every right to be when their backyard, playground and peace are being disturbed.

Remaking Queens: A Right to Inhabit a Space

Northern Queens has had a rich history in terms of developmental progress in the 20th century. As far back as 1939, Queens has drawn attention from major capitalist investors as a use of space. Originally, the Flushing Meadows-Corona Park was renovated as the location of the World’s Fair of 1939. The same area is drawing contemporary attention in serving as a major center of attraction, housing the largest mall in the city alongside three major sports arenas. Though the same area is being contested, there are significantly different implications in the modern proposal concerning the immigrant populations in the surrounding areas. The mid-20th century saw an influx of Asian and Hispanic immigration, significant numbers of which settled in the county of Queens. However, these groups have been marginalized in the discussion of these proposed projects and their best interests have not been taken into account.

As well articulated in the Pratt Center report, “though the three projects are being proposed separately, their sites are contiguous, and they would collectively transform the under-maintained but heavily-used northern half of Queens flagship park into a car-dependent and largely commercialized ‘destination’ serving a citywide audience.” Effects would include the creation of 13,000 parking spaces, the displacement of over 60 local companies and business and hundreds of workers, increases in traffic and congestion, severe overcrowding on the #7 line, and most of all, the loss of a well-used public space.

Bearing in mind these proposed changes, one must also examine the ongoing ones to evaluate and predict the outcomes of these future projects. Construction has begun on Flushing Commons, which transforms a five-acre municipal parking lot into “235,00 square feet of small-scale retail, 185,000 square feet of office space, about 600 condos, a 62,000-square-foot YMCA, a one-and-a-half-acre park, and, to make up for the lost parking lot, 1,600 underground parking spaces.” Furthermore, the Sky View Center, an 800,000-square-foot mall is located on the Flushing waterfront, already serves as home to several big-box stores and Sky View Parc, the attached luxury condo towers, is severely under populated. With this much commercialization and development in Flushing, the question is raised of why further development is needed in the adjacent Willets Point area, and who these developing areas will serve, as “the local economy is Flushing is very strong.”

Furthermore, Flushing Meadows-Corona Park is already serving the variety of immigrant groups that consider Queens home. As Sarah Goodyear reports, “Flushing Meadows may not be the most beautiful park in New York—it is mostly flat and featureless, surrounded by highways and short of amenities—but it is one of the best used.” It is home to the Queens Museum of Art, the New York Hall of Science, the Billie Jean National Tennis Center, all of which are affordable destinations for local residents. But at its core, Flushing Meadows is “a true people’s park.” In serving Flushing’s increasingly diverse immigrant population, the park is home to cricket matches, soccer rivalries, volleyball games, and barbecues. Although being comprised of 1255 acres of land, only 347 acres are open to the public today. Despite this shortcoming, parks like these are a major component of the immigrant enclave. As Arturo Sanchez says, “Dense immigrant networks are an important reservoir of for accessing scarce economic, psychic, and informal resources that support migrant civic engagement.” Essentially, what he his saying is that something like a Mexican immigrant soccer club can “promote interpersonal contact, mutual assistance, and lubricate migrant civic incorporation.” Park space can act as a social center and information source, and therefore engage residents in community building.

Remaking Queens: Mega-Development

The article “Queens Triple Play: Willets West, Major League Soccer, National Tennis Center” highlights the upcoming plans and changes that are being attempted to made. These plans look to increase the value of Queens and create a mini-city within the area of Citi Field, USTA, as well as part of what they plan to make a MLS stadium. Throughout this expensive, yet promising task, this article addresses the pros and cons for each of the developments.

With the newly created baseball stadium, Citi Field, comes with garage areas where cars can be fixed (Willets Point). However, with the Queens Triple Play, there is going to be the largest mall in Queens, that is aimed to be created South of Citi Field as well as hotels on the north side. Not only, but also there is going to be an expansion in parking. However, with the addition of the mall and hotels and parking, many tenants, workers, and residents will be negatively effected. Residents would be displaced, certain businesses will have to move, and workers will have to look for new jobs since the mall will look for “low-wage” workers.

On the north east side will be the site of the new, 25,000 seat MLS stadium. As a result, 7.5 acres of land will be needed to construct this stadium, which will probably include park land. This will allow professional soccer to expand in the city and also allow MLS to rehabilitate various soccer fields, wetlands, and surrounding park areas. Through previous research, the stadium will have a positive impact on the surrounding areas in which local businesses will benefit. However, for this 3-5 year construction period, soccer fields will not be available for the public. The last development would be the expansion of the USTA tennis center.

In total, 60 companies and hundreds of workers will be displaced and a good amount of money will have to be given in from companies and organizations to support the Queens triple play. Although the idea of these expansions and developments may sound appealing, they also have downsides. That being said, the creation of all these new sites will lead to a large influx of immigrants/people around Queens to observe these new developments and will increase traffic surrounding that area, which is a negative factor to this plan.

Who Really Benefits From Flushing Waterfront Revitalization

In “From Dump to Glory”: Flushing River and Downtown Transformation, Tarry Hum explains the plan Bloomberg has in store for the area around Flushing waterfront. The revitalization plan is to lessen the traffic in the area, clean up polluted lands, and generally beautify the area. Luxury condos, a soccer stadium, tennis courts, and large shopping centers are to be built in these areas and will definitely displace lower-income residences such as those in Bland Houses and small, mostly immigrant-run businesses. Yet, despite taking place near their homes and businesses, nearby residences are largely unaware of this revitalization plan and the opinions of immigrant stakeholders don’t seem be heard by the government.

The question is who exactly will benefit from this plan? Real-estate prices will go up and perhaps it will be better for New York City’s economy, but what about the residents and businesses that may be displaced because of increased rents? People would lose jobs and homes. These people are probably immigrants who flocked to ethnic neighborhoods for jobs. What will happen to them? Will they receive help in finding new jobs and homes? These people are probably working long hours for minimum (or not even) wage. They probably won’t benefit very much from this plan and won’t even be able squeeze the money out for tickets to see games in the stadiums that are to built. As Hum and Sanchez describe in their writings. These are the people who will be most effected by this plan and yet they aren’t even aware of what’s happening and their voices aren’t even heard by the government.

Will the time, money, and efforts invested in this plan really pay off in the end? The area will become extremely commercialized. This will displace many immigrants and businesses. As result of the entering of large nation-wide stores such as Target and the exiting of small immigrant-run businesses, the entire area will lose its ethnic personality and become a generic form of commercialized areas such as Times Square and Roosevelt Field Mall. What exactly can be done to prevent this generalization? Is there anything that can be done? If the area does become commercialized, Queens may tragically lose some of its uniqueness and diversity.

Three Big Projects, One Common Goal

Willets West Shopping Mall, Major League Soccer Stadium, and National Tennis Center expansion all in one area, coincidence? These are three big projects set to take place in the same area, Flushing Meadows Corona Park, over a span of the next twenty years. Imagine walking through Flushing Meadows Corona Park twenty years from now, and it being completely different from the way you once knew it, that’s exactly what is going to happen here. Why Flushing Meadows park of all places? When you look at the numbers, only 28% of the lands 1,255 acres of land is available for public use and to take more of that could prove costly for the people living in the area. And the ones most likely to be affected the most is the residents of Willets Point. The temporary parking needed to replace what Citi Field would be losing with the creation of the Willets West Shopping Mall would cause many of the residents of Willets Point to be displaced many years before the proposed restructuring of Willets Point, which includes new housing and schools, will take place. The biggest tradeoff facing the residents is the prospect of new jobs versus the public space they have grown accustomed too. These issues may not be resolved while Bloomberg is in office, so voters must beware of a mayoral candidate promising to bring new jobs to New York City, because in the end you may just get what you wish for.

The people of this area have legitimate concerns, there is no questioning that. The streets and the 7 line is crowded enough as it is, will even be more so after these projects are introduced. Consequently, this could eventually lead to using more park space or empty land to build more streets or expand subway lines to accomodate the four big attractions that will have now settled in that area. What does the future hold for the park, and the residents of nearby neighborhoods? Will we see a big victory for public opposition, or will we see the biggest land grab ever to occur in Queens?

Corporate Intentions v. Neighborhood Realities

Generally, I am somewhat suspicious of the seemingly good intentions held by large corporations. Even if a corporation honestly means to do good for a community, the leaders are usually out of touch with the needs and demands of the residents. I believe that this is the case with the proposal for an MLS soccer stadium in Flushing Meadows Corona Park.

Officials with the MLS claim that they want to create jobs for the surrounding communities. MLS has also offered aid to help maintain the park and some aspects of the surrounding neighborhoods. In their proposal, they claimed that the presence of a soccer field in FMCP will bring increased business to local shops and restaurants. This is, of course, assuming that those who come to the games will stay around neighborhoods like Corona afterwards. This idea is very top-down, that is, it assumes that placing one economic engine in a neighborhood will somehow revitalize the entire neighborhood.

This way of thinking is incorrect. There is no way that the presence of one business can aid dozens and dozens of others. Besides that, what about other business types that have no sort of association with the demands of soccer fans? What do they have to gain? Also, what about the residents of Corona who work outside of it, but make use of the open space in FMCP as it is?

The lack of resident inclusion in the decision making process here is alarming. A company cannot honestly say that they are looking out for the needs of the people if they aren’t reaching out to the people. What do a few executives at the top know about neighborhood dynamics and the true needs of its residents? Little to nothing, most likely.

Hopefully, one of three things will happen here: the MLS will realize that they are not truly catering to the needs of the public and they will create new proposals that will be more inclusive of the residents, the city will hold them accountable for their claims of improving the surrounding neighborhoods, or the people of the surrounding neighborhoods will raise their voices and let the MLS know what they really want, or that they want to be included in the decision making process. If none of these things happen, the residents of Queens just might remember this year as the year they let themselves get taken advantage of for the financial gains of others.

Remaking Queens

The Pratt Center did a report called Queens Triple Play: Willets West, Major League Soccer, and the National Tennis Center that describes the different proposals for park space in Corona, Queens.  The first plan is a continuation of a project that started in Willets  Point and was supposed to revamp that area.  However, a mall, Willets West, and other commercial buildings are set to be built on the parking lot of Corona’s CitiField.  This disrupt the lives of Corona residents because of the additional amounts of traffic, both vehicles and people, that would develop around that area.  The project does call for demolishing commercial buildings in Willets Point to make space for parking, but that does not compensate for the new commercialization that will surround CitiField.  The second proposal is for a soccer field in the Flushing Meadow Corona Park.  It was originally proposed to be built on Pier 40 in Manhattan, but was rejected because of the community opposition.  On the west side, a tennis center is to be built, as well as more seats for the soccer stadium, retail spaces, suites, and parking space.  Although this proposal has moved locations, the same reservations are prominent in Corona.  The first, and biggest problem that residents of Corona have is the fact that the stadium is going to be built on park land.  It may not be the most maintained area, but it is one of the few park spaces that Queens has and residents are not ready to lose it.  They are also concerned with the amount of traffic that come from adding yet another stadium with commercial properties around it.  If these three projects are finalized, the only people that will benefit are the businesses that are in charge of the projects.  The residents and local businesses would most likely be negatively effected because of the spaces that would not be open to the public and the businesses that would be displaced.

The Fate of Flushing Meadows Corona Park and Willets Point

The article, “Queens Triple Play: Willets West, Major League Soccer, and the National Tennis Center”, gives the readers a glimpse of the fate of Flushing Meadows Corona Park.  As the article points out, there are several pros and cons in regards to the construction of the “largest mall in Queens” on the Citifield parking lot, the Major League Soccer (MLS) stadium and the National Tennis Center. The construction of a large mall and new stadiums will attract more customers and fans to the neighborhood, which in turn will have a positive impact on local businesses such as restaurants and bars. In class, we previously discussed that Willets Point is not much of a residential area and lies on the outskirts of New York City. Also, as Prerana Reddy discussed in our visit to the QMA, Flushing Meadows Corona Park does not have as many employees as Central Park in Manhattan does. Therefore we can see that the Flushing Meadows Corona Park is not as well maintained as Central Park. Such differences occur due to the parks’ location. Central Park is located right in the middle of Manhattan while Flushing Meadows Corona Park lies on the outskirts of the city. In class, we previously discussed that the surrounding neighborhood of Willets Point is not much of a residential area either. So by building a stadium or a large mall in the area, the neighborhoods surrounding Flushing Meadows Corona park will get citywide attention. Local businesses will thrive and the neighborhood aesthetics will improve in order to attract a larger crowd to these huge centers of entertainment.

Although these benefits sound great, the use of public park space to build such huge complexes is detrimental to the lifestyle of the local neighborhoods’ residents. According to the article, the public space in Flushing Meadows Corona Park is the only open space where residents can come to participate and enjoy outside recreational activities. If this space is taken over by malls and sports centers, residents will not have the open park space to enjoy anymore. Also, the surrounding neighborhoods of Flushing, Corona and Elmhurst are already experiencing rapid population growth and the construction of such crowd attracting centers will only make the problem of overcrowding in homes and on the number 7 train line worse. Traffic will also be a huge contributor to the overcrowding issue. Although businesses such as restaurants and bars will thrive, small local businesses will be replaced by huge chain stores in the large shopping mall.

Also, it is interesting to note that the project to create more housing units in Willets Point was pushed back to as far as 2028 while the three projects (which is the construction of a large mall, MLS stadium and the National Tennis Center) will only take about four to five years to complete. It is easy to see that the focus right now is on the completion such extravagant projects (which may cause more harm to the local communities than actually benefitting them). Meanwhile the projects (such as the construction of housing) that will directly benefit the local communities have been put on hold. Although the construction of these major projects is not complete, we can pretty much predict the detrimental impact of these commercialized projects on Flushing Meadows Corona Park and the surrounding neighborhoods.

Queens Triple Play: Willets West, Major League Soccer, National Tennis Center

The reading “Queens Triple Play: Willets West, Major League Soccer, National Tennis Center” provides a detailed description of the upcoming plans for the area near Flushing Meadows Corona Park that are sure to have a major impact on the surrounding communities. After reading this article, I was shocked about the proposals that are currently being discussed. Being a resident of Flushing myself, I have gotten used to the outlook of the Willets Point area of Queens. I remember visiting Shea Stadium all the time with my family and I can’t imagine that area being as commercialized as the article indicates that its going to be.

According to the reading, a 1.4 million square foot acre mall is to be constructed on the parking lot of Citifield. This mall will be the largest in Queens. Furthermore, MLS wants to construct a 25, 000 seat soccer stadium across the #7 subway line. Lastly the National Tennis Center is proposing to add over 7,000 seats and luxurious suites and parking spaces.

There are some benefits to the these proposals. For example, the MLS is promising to rehabilitate existing soccer fields, wetlands and surrounding park areas. They also plan on contributing to the construction of new public soccer fields, cricket fields and volley ball courts. The soccer stadium will cater to the large hispanic communities in the areas which are an integral part of MLS’ fan base.  Also, the Willets Point mall is sure to be one of the largest in Queens. These three proposals are sure to bring new visitors and residents to this area of Queens, and will surely allow Flushing to further prosper. However, in my opinion, despite the fact that I would enjoy having these developments so close to where I live, I believe that the cons to these plans greatly outweigh the cons.

According to the reading, about 1 acre of the Flushing Meadows parkland is to be alientated for the tennis center and about 7.5 acres is to be alienated for the soccer stadium. In my opinion, Flushing is already greatly lacking in parkland. In the past few years, there have been many new developments, especially in the Main Street area of Flushing. All these projects have been either new businesses or new residential developments. Flushing Meadows is one of the only “areas of green” that we Flushing residents have. I think that instead of focusing on commercializing the area, the government should focus on providing this area of Flushing/Corona with the public space and parkland that they supposedly should have (according to the public documents which falsely state that the Flushing Meadows Park should consist of 1225 acres of land – but in reality only about 346 acres are open to the public for public use). Instead of following the Strategic Framework that was discussed for Flushing, that was going to renaturalize water bodies and enhance green spaces, the developments are instead going to further demolish the public spaces available for residents.

Besides doing away with the grassland, these proposed projects are also going to have a detrimental impact on the lives of the residents. Although the new businesses that are going to be opened are going to provide jobs workers in the area, these business workers are going to be displaced for a good few years until the new businesses are actually constructed and opened. Furthermore, who’s to say that the residents in the surrounding communities are even able to afford such luxuries such as going to the tennis or soccer stadium or even to the mall? Instead on focusing on creating such things, I believe developers should focus more on the actual communities of Flushing, Elmhurst and Corona and focus on how to improve its existing conditions. For example, they could put more effort into improving the poor school systems in the those cities that often drives residents to send their children to schools elsewhere. They could also focus on creating more public spaces that would allow the residents to interact and further develop their sense of a community.

The Organization of Immigrant Laborers

Both of these article addressed the differences between the labor patterns of native-born employees and immigrant employees in New York City. The article, “Why New Immigrants Organize,” presented a view that went against my previous understanding about immigrants organizing to fight for better working conditions. Ness presented the view that immigrants are more likely to organize than workers who were born in this country. He gave examples, such as the East Nature grocery incident. Mexican workers had organized so affectively that the store was not allowed to stay open unless it bettered the working conditions and wages. This in turn, caused a whole wave of Mexican workers to organize, as they saw the impact these other workers had. This article talked about the fact that many of the recent immigrants are illegal. Based on our past readings, I was under the impression that illegal immigrants were very weary about complaining over conditions. For example, in the article about immigrant activism and migrant civil society, migrant civil society had to step in, in order for the day laborers to have a voice. It was not the migrant workers organizing themselves because they feared being deported.

One answer the Ness piece has about the reason immigrants are more likely to organize is that they are more likely to live in concentrated ethnic enclaves. Therefore, after they return home from work, they socialize with people who are working jobs in similar conditions and they discuss their hardships, so the workers get the sense that they are not being treated right. On the other hand, people who aren’t immigrants may not be coming home to this community. Also, immigrants in general work longer hours than non-immigrants and therefore are spending more time with their fellow workers, so there is a greater chance of organizing.

I was wondering if the fact that the types of jobs differ for immigrants and native-born people affects the frequency of organizing. In the Hum, article it was established that there is clear divide between the types of jobs immigrant Latinos and Blacks and their non-immigrant counterparts work. In the private sector, a larger percentage of immigrant Latinos work construction, production, and building jobs, while native born Latinos are more likely to work office, administration, and sales jobs. Maybe the jobs the immigrants have just happen to be jobs where people are exploited more, not even due to the fact that it is immigrants working the jobs. On the other hand, maybe it is that employers are more likely to exploit immigrants due to the not true(according to Ness) conception that they will be passive. The exploitation caused by the incorrect assumption leads immigrants to organize.

 

Remaking and Renovating Queens

One of the most recent and visible problems to arise in the past few years is the use of space in Queens, specifically Flushing. Flushing in particular, has seen a giant boom in real estate: as more and more immigrants arrive and settle in Flushing, space becomes limited. Housing and rent prices increase. The need for space becomes a competition.

Some of the few spaces left in Queens that are public and free include Flushing-Meadows Park and the Waterfront. The Waterfront is visually unpleasant; it’s fenced in and surrounded by marshes as well as weeds. Multiple groups are proposing to extend and develop in that area. Retail stores and offices are also planning to move into the area, dubbed “Flushing Commons.” Meanwhile, Flushing-Meadows Park is a place with plenty of open space. Many people: residents and otherwise, report that they spend their free time there, and others report that they’ve seen people, mostly immigrants, playing ball there. The Park is also home to places like the Queens Museum of Art, Shea Stadium, and the New York Hall of Science, as well as other institutions.

This proposal-or rather, these development proposals, have received very mixed reviews. On one hand, for Flushing-Meadows Park, it allows large corporations and big businesses to have a place and a foothold in Queens. On the other hand, these proposals mean less parking and an even more crowded Flushing. Imagine these people, after having shopped or seen a game, wander into Flushing right during rush hour. As for the Waterfront, the area has already started developing. There are very large condos located right there, yet, as Queens College’s Urban Studies report found, it is a huge contrast to the government housing also located on the waterfront.

In attempting to redefine Queens by renovating and remaking two large areas, the city and large businesses are determined to make Queens visually appealing. It would ideally provide plenty of jobs and cash flow into surrounding neighborhoods. What both don’t seem to realize is that the process towards making something “nice” actually harms a lot of small businesses and residents, and the end result? It may or may not be so nice, unfortunately.

Organized Immigrants

Immigrants in post 9/11 America have had a rough time gaining proper treatment from their employers. According to Ness 2005, today’s incoming immigrants are more likely to organize and protest than their native-born counterparts. This remains problematic since they are viewed as “illegals” who are a threat to the nation. These workers are absolutely necessary to the profitability of U.S. businesses because immigrants work in occupations that are not attractive to native-born workers. Yet, they are being paid lower wages despite working harder and longer hours. This is the core of why they feel the need to organize against business owners. However, not all immigrants speak up when they are mistreated by their employers. Most immigrants actually don’t even know the existing wage and hour laws, and they’re afraid that speaking up would cause them their jobs or get them reported to the immigration authorities.

I believe that more needs to be done in order to prevent immigrants from being mistreated. As far as I know, immigrants are human-beings too and they deserved to be treated that way. That means being paid a decent wage that they can actually live off of, and not having to constantly live in fear of being deported. Labor Unions aren’t the solution either, because often times they have their own separate agenda. Post 9/11 America needs to learn to be more open and tolerant of immigrants regardless of where they’re from and I think the author of this reading (Ness 2005) could completely agree that there must be a better solution to all this.

Immigrant Entrepreneurism

Immigrants have greatly contributed to the increase of entrepreneurship and business ventures in New York.  Bowles describes the increase in new businesses as due to the new wave of immigrants in the past two decades.  Immigrant entrepreneurs have grown into a more important part of the city’s economy as they contributed more and more to the economy’s growth.  So much so, that foreign-born entrepreneurs have greatly outnumbered native-born entrepreneurs, creating jobs and opportunities for work for their community members.  It is interesting that more immigrants were helping and providing job opportunities to the people of their community, even though they are not originally from there.  The fact that they contribute more than native-born citizens shows how integral they have become to the culture of New York City.  Although most immigrants may tend to open businesses that appeal to people of their nationality, they do not exclude the needs and assistance of other cultures.  They also provide opportunities to those like themselves as well as natives.  As much as immigrant businesses have helped New York City’s economy, most do not have the chance to advance to the next level.  Bowles proves this by stating that minority owned businesses in New York made less than minority owned businesses in other states.  Hispanic businesses in New York made 37 percent as much as those in Houston, 40 percent of those in Chicago, and 42 percent in Miami.  The city’s Asain-owned businesses made less than their counterparts in 13 cities with the highest amount of Asain-owned businesses.  This shows that even with the contributions immigrant business owners make, they are still affected by the setbacks that come with being an immigrant.  For example, a native born business owner can take their businesses to another level because they learn and understand the rules and procedures of expanding.  However, it may take longer to understand how to do this for immigrants who do no have the level of education needed or suffer from not being able to understand English as well as native-born Americans.

Labor Markets

In Why Immigrants Organize by Immanuel Ness, the author talks about the various strikes that immigrants organized in order to fight for their natural rights that they have been denied. Unlike non-immigrants, many immigrants must endure below minimum wages, poor working conditions and no benefits. Many of these immigrants are too afraid to immediately start fighting for their rights on an individual basis. By coming together however, these immigrants are able to organize themselves and protest in away that their voices are heard. By sharing the same race, religion or story, these immigrants feel less alienated and more inclined to band together and demand their rights.

Having relatives who have recently immigrated, I know that many times immigrants take what they can get. They tend to ignore how they are mistreated in order to make a little money and get started. While often they initially think that when they come here they will start at a lower paid job and eventually make their way up to higher paying jobs, often times we see immigrants settle. They get too comfortable in their routine and forget that if they were willing to put more effort in, they could potentially get a higher paying jobs. It is only when immigrants encounter other people with the same story as them that they realize that they deserve more than what they are receiving. When they find enough people who share their ideas, they are able to protest as one group and try to reason with business owners. While it is a good idea in theory, this protesting does not always work. But it is important that these immigrants do not settle but continue fighting for their rights.

 

 

The Immigrant Labor Market

Tarry Hum’s “Persistent Polarization in the New York Workforce: New Findings of Labor Market Segmentation” clearly articulates and quantifies the large gaps in employment in terms of race, gender, and nativity. Some of the factors mentioned are understandably contributive to success in the job market such as language proficiency and education; however, the variance in terms of race and nativity are striking. African Americans, Latinos, and Asians collectively make up approximately half of both professional and financial services and between 70 and 75% of retail, food, and medical services. Bearing in mind last week’s discussion on immigrant entrepreneurship, this isn’t terribly surprising, but this huge divide between so-called skilled and unskilled labor is alarming, to say the least, especially since New York City is supposed to be a model in rising out of the current economic crisis.

What is perhaps most interesting is within these minority groups, there is a further division between native-borns and immigrants. The most extreme example is in the case of Asians and Asian-Americans. Native-born Asians on average make over $100,000 while their immigrant counterparts are sitting at the poverty line. While language and education can account for this to an extent, there is still clearly and abuse and exploitation of these immigrant workers.

However, Immanuel Ness’s Immigrants, Unions, and the New U.S. Labor Market shows how when these immigrants try to rally together to fight for better wages or conditions, they are met with overwhelming opposition. The example opening the chapter relays an anecdote about a shop that chose to shut down rather than increase its Mexican workers pay. Ness also discussed the strange comparison of the formation of such units to a “cultural propensity” towards militancy. Frankly, that is a bit ridiculous. Unions by native born Americans were formed in response to the influx of blue collar jobs and the ensuing abuse inflicted upon these workers. Although Ness is correct in saying we have increasingly become a service economy, there is still a need for unions, especially amongst immigrant workers.

Immigrant Labor Markets in NYC

Immanuel Ness’s Immigrants, Unions, and the New U.S. Labor Market, sheds light on the relationship between immigrants in New York City and their involvement–or lack thereof–in formal unions. Ness elaborates on the backstory of the slowly declining influence of unions in NYC, honing in on NYC’s shift from a largely manufacturing economy to a service economy.

New York City, prior to the recent wave of immigrants, gleaned capital from the manufacturing sector. Manufacturing jobs were beneficial to immigrants in myriad ways; first and foremost, the manufacturing jobs created a condensed “social geography of work.” Ness defines “social geography of work” as the social networks that immigrants establish as a direct result of where they gather to work. Manufacturing occupations created specialized districts (such as the Meatpacking District) where immigrants could exchange thoughts, sympathize with each other regarding difficult labor conditions, and often, group together to form unions. Manufacturing jobs allowed immigrants to find strength in solidarity.

Ness mentions two major causes of the shift from the manufacturing industry to the service industry–the outsourcing of jobs, and the onset of new technologies that have replaced previously manual tasks, such as been the case with the previously booming printing industry. Jobs within the printing industry, for example, provided a decent income and were, most importantly, regulated by unions so that unfair labor practices were minimized. Occupations within the service industry tend to be more scattered throughout the city, derailing the immigrants prime weapon against unfair labor practices–their strength in concentrated numbers. Thus, with the emergence of a service economy, it became much more difficult for immigrants to assimilate.

Ness briefly mentions the black car limousine industry as an example of the service economy in NYC. The black car industry encompasses, in many ways, all the difficulties immigrants face in the age of the service economy. Black car drivers are essentially self-employed; they purchase the cars they drive with their own money, and pay for maintenance out of pocket, as well. Each driver functions autonomously; there often is no gathering place for drivers to be social with each other and vent frustrations regarding work–it is too easy for each driver to be encapsulated in his/her own bubble. The vast capital raised via the service industry comes at the expense of many immigrants, black car drivers representing just one example.

Immigrant Unions & The New US Labor Market

In the book, Immigrant Unions & The New US Labor Market, Immanuel Ness focuses on the motives that prompt immigrant workers to organize and form organizations such as labor unions in order to improve their working conditions.

The chapter “Why New Immigrants Organize” opens by describing the various labor conflicts that swept through Manhattan in the spring of 2001 between Mexicans working in green sweatshops and their employers. These workers organized various strikes in order to raise their wages, improve their workplace conditions and gain respect. This example demonstrates a pattern that is all too common now-a-days. Young men flee from their home country such as Mexico, because of a decline in living conditions and seek jobs in the United States where there are willing to work for low wages in New York City industries. The book centers on the various ways in which these immigrants organize and disproves the notion that immigrants are complacent and not likely to fight for improved conditions. In fact, according to Ness, immigrants are more likely to organize and protest than their native counterparts. They have an “improbable willingness to take inordinate risks to build worker power, raise wages and improve conditions in disparate work places” ( Ness 2 ). This surprised me, one would expect recently arrived immigrants to do their best to fit into their environment, to prevent attention from being drawn to themselves and to blend into their surroundings both at home and in their workplace. Instead this reading says the opposite. immigrants are willing to take the risks necessary in order to improve work place conditions for themselves and for other immigrants. This implies to me that immigrants manage to form some ties with other fellow immigrants, ties that give them the security and valor necessary to risk their jobs and fight for what they believe in.

Other sections of the readings proved to me that they do in fact gain a sense of unity from other immigrants in the area.  One of the main reasons for a strong presence of economic immigrants in the United States is the country’s need for people to fill in jobs and industry services, particularly those that no longer attract native born workers. The immigrants that tend to accept these jobs generally have fewer social networking  ties outside the workplace than inside. Furthermore, the long hours of work that are typical of such poorly-paid jobs enable these workers to form bonds with each other that are strengthened day by day as they work together. Because of their common experiences, they tend to manifest a common resentment towards their employer “on the basis of common exploitation”, resulting in workplace militancy, or in other words: a sense of immigrant solidarity.

I found this very interesting because by the employers mistreating their immigrant employees there are actually fueling and contributing to a stronger formation of a labor union that will try to bring down the regulations that they so desperately try to maintain. Instead of mistreating employees of common ethnicities and social status, employees should be aware that their actions can lead to future labor movements against their businesses.

Organizing to Prevent Exploitation

Why Immigrants Organize, by Immanuel Ness explains how immigrant workers are exploited and without the “exit” plan that native-born workers have, have no choice but to fight back by establishing their own organized strikes. Ness explains how because of the U.S. economy has begun to lean more towards neoliberalism there is less government regulation therefore businesses and corporation are more inclined pay immigrant workers below minimum-wage and exploit them because of their lack of status and ignorance. The article furthers examines the relationship between established native-born unions and immigrant-formed work organizations. The author encourages unions to support these groups while leaving them enough room to remain autonomous. Ness also explains how these immigrants are more inclined to act because of the identity niches that the immigrants have worked and lived in. They may share a common ethnicity, religion, and experience the same things and are therefore more sympathetic  and willing to work for a common cause.

In Tarry Hum’s article, Persistent Polarization in the New York Workforce: New Findings of Labor Market Segmentation, the data and statistics clearly demonstrates why immigrants are discontent about their working conditions and wages. The data shows how immigrants work the most menial and insecure jobs such as construction and transportation. Many are much more qualified for other jobs yet because of the language barrier and prejudices they face, they may be forced to work in these jobs. Some of these jobs are high-risk and yet many immigrants are paid below average wages. The businesses and corporations that hire these immigrants are blatantly exploitive. Given the few options immigrants have, as Ness explains, they will attempt to change their work situation instead once they realize how they are exploited and treated so disrespectfully.

The forming of immigrant work groups should be encouraged. With numbers comes power and greater influence over these exploitive businesses. The government should step in as well and provide support for these people. Specifically, laws should be enforced and immigrants made more aware of their rights as transnational workers. Whether or not they are documented workers, they should still have basic rights as human beings.

Korean Immigrant Entrepreneurship

My Korean immigrant neighbors have been in the United States longer than I’ve been alive. I grew up having them as both my neighbors and as my neighborhood grocers. When I saw the topic of this seminar’s discussion, I decided to talk with them about their experience of starting their own business in Elmhurst.

 Mr. and Mrs. Kim arrived here in the early 90s. They came here hoping to establish their own business because of what they had heard about Elmhurst from their American family members. They recounted to me the network of family and friends that helped to get them started in America. Within a year, they established a town grocery and delicatessen in an already existent retail space on the corner of my block.
This deli served a great number of people in my immediate community. It out-competed another close business in terms of cleanliness and variety, so much so that  the other business eventually shut its doors. Another factor in the Kim’s success was that they served both American commercial items as well as ethnic based goods. These ethnic based items appealed not only to Koreans, but also to Chinese, Hispanic and Indian customers. This well demonstrates the notion of the middleman minority.
Funny enough, though they eventually left because of rent disputes, the grocery was taken up by another Korean family. What are the Kim’s doing now, you might ask? They’re running a dry cleaners out of Forest Hills, and their teenage son wants to work in finance. Though this is just a case study, I was interested in just how parallel their lives run to the descriptions of Korean immigrants given in our readings.

Immigrant Entreprenuership

Dae Young Kim’s Beyond Co-ethnic Solidarity: Mexican and Ecuadorean Employment in Korean-Owned Businesses in New York City explains the relationship of co-ethnic employer and co-ethnic employees and how gradually, the employment by independent self-employed Korean businesses started to change.  Kim explains that since the 1970s, there has been an increase in self-employment rate. According to the reading, the 1990 US Census data showed the self-employment rate for Koreans to be estimated at 35 percent. Koreans were forced to turn to self-employment mainly because of language barrier. To find workers and employers who were trustworthy, the Korean immigrants had to turn to other Koreans for help.

I could relate my dad and the company he works for to this reading. Similarly, my dad and his brother in law are also engaged in co-ethnic employment. My uncle already settled in the United States and established his own ATM business (self-employment) and because he was looking for co-ethnic labor, my dad was able to get the job pretty easily.

This ethnic solidarity had both its ups and downs. At first, co-ethnic employers and employees were both benefitting from this trade. The employers found cheap labor that was willing to over-work. However, soon, these employees established their own businesses that soon turned into competition. For Koreans, working for these independent Korean companies was just a temporary measure. They also soon wanted to establish their own store after the “business training” from other companies.

Since the 1980s, with more independent businesses and less Korean immigrants, co-ethnic labor was scarce along with the increase in cost. This resulted in search for another type of labor force for the Korean employers. According to one of the interviews in the reading, Holiday Cleaners’ owner mentions, “Mexicans were employed because it became a big burden to employ Koreans”. Korean employees expected special treatment just because they were Koreans while the Mexicans were willing to work for smaller amount of money. Because the employers could hire two or three decent Mexican workers for the price of a Korean worker, they couldn’t resist but hire them for certain types of jobs. Kim also predicts that Mexican and Ecuadorean employment is going to continue to increase.

Immigrant Entrepreneurship

In Jonathan Bowles  Immigrant Entrepreneurism: An Engine for Economic Recovery, he discusses the impact that immigrants have had on the US businesses. Bowles argues that immigrants (who are 30% more likely to start up a new business as compared to non-immigrants) are the key to boosting the New York City economy. RIght now, these immigrant run businesses have more capability than they are reaching. Many different factors hinder these businesses to reach the amount of income they can truly reach. In such a diverse area such as New York City, if a business is run in a language other than English, they attract people of their own race but they are not able to reach many other nationalities. Bowles argues that the government should work towards encouraging these small immigrant businesses to thrive so that the city in itself can generate more income.

These immigrant owned businesses can easily be seen in a drive down Hillside Avenue in Queens, New York. There are Indian food markets, restaurants and beauty salons on every corner. Everywhere you look there are businesses made up of people who have recently come to this country and with the little money they had, have created a flourishing business. Many times, people tend to avoid “American” grocery stores in order to support their fellow Asians in their business.

The Evolution of Immigrant Entrepreneurship

Jonathan Bowles’ article, entitled “Immigrant Entrepreneurship: An Engine for Economic Recovery,” gives a good introduction as to both the pros and cons regarding immigrant entrepreneurship. Bowles’ article could arguably be a bit biased since it was published so soon after the economic downturn that took place in 2008, but regardless, many points are still valid. He notes that immigrant businesses over the past ten to twenty years have become “a powerful engine of economic growth,” immigrants being 30% more likely to start their own business. Immigrant-founded businesses have superseded the stereotypical food establishments or bodegas and have delved into health care or Silicon Valley-esque technology firms. This is evidence that immigrants are very much capable of “making it” in today’s economy.

However, the struggle lies in the lack of a support system. Being recent immigrants, these business owners often know little of American business practices, have a credit history, or know the right sources to go to for financial advice, and these factors are what lead to the failure of the business. Bowles makes an extremely valid point that the success stories needed little support in their start-ups, so if perhaps, the bureaucracy could dedicate just some attention to the needs of these recent immigrants, an economy that claims to be built off small businesses can be restored to its former glory.

Bearing in mind Bowles’ analysis, Chapter 4 of Min’s book, “Korean Immigrants’ Economic Segregation,” describes a textbook example of the economic advantages of an immigrant enclave. Min breaks down the businesses of Koreatown, documenting importers and wholesalers, professional firms, as well as more everyday businesses such as food markets and nail salons. He articulates that Koreans have the highest rate of starting a business amongst other minorities, often times because that is their intention in coming to this country and they have properly prepared themselves via language classes and vocational school. A notable observation of Min’s notes the Korean business owners’ tendency to cater towards African-American communities. Though they are by no means more concentrated in these neighborhoods, their clientele often is. Min argues that perhaps in gearing business practices towards this group, Korean businesses aren’t actually catering to African-American customers, but rather to lower-income ones.

This can then be directly linked to Kim’s study “Beyond co-ethnic solidarity: Mexican and Ecuadorian employment in Korean-owned businesses in New York City.” Kim outlines how Korean businesses are increasingly abandoning the practice of co-ethnic employment in favor of hiring lower-wage seeking Latinos. Of course there are multiple factors for this shift: a decrease in Korean immigration, the high benefit costs of Korean employees, etc., but it could be argued that the Korean business practiced geared towards lower-income customers could thereby be extended to employees, and thus such a shift occurs.

Immigrant Entrepreneurship

During recent times of economic downturn, the search for potential wells of economic hope has consumed the nation and its cities. One source that’s had significant impact is the most recent wave of immigration and its affect on enterprise. Jonathan Bowles reasons in his article Immigrant Entrepreneurism: An Engine for Economic Recovery that although the inherent benefits of immigrant entrepreneurism have begun to take effect, their maximum potential has not been achieved due to several debilitating factors, at least in New York.

Statistics such immigrants being 30% more likely to start a new business than native-born citizens and a dramatic, 53%, increase in self employed immigrants undeniably demonstrate their economic power. He continues to bring numbers that demonstrate this one fact.

On the other hand disadvantages that include a lack of financial literacy, the language barrier and overzealous regulations have inhibited the potential of these immigrants. They are less likely to expand their businesses and those already open have lower average receipts than their counterparts in other cities.

Fortunately there is cause for optimism. Several new initiatives have been proposed to increase trust and assist non-governmental and community organizations with the growth of the immigrant economy. Hopefully this growth can revitalize the economy as a whole as well.

Immigrant Entrepreneurship

Immigrants play a huge role in creating businesses in the United States. In a study done nationwide, in November 2008, it was found that immigrants are nearly 30 percent more likely to start a business than non-immigrants (Bowles 2009). A study done by Jonathan Bowles reveals that immigrants drove all the growth in New York City’s self-employed population between 1990 and 2000. Interestingly enough, the number of foreign-born self-employed individuals totaled 64,001 while the number of native-born self-employed individuals totaled 15,657. Flushing and Sunset Park had a big jump in the increase of new businesses, 55% and 47% respectively, and the first thing that comes to find when you think about those two neighborhoods is the outstanding Asian population in those two neighborhoods.

Asians have generally played an important role, the past few decades, in the creation of businesses in the United States, primarily in California and New York. More Specifically, Korean immigrants have been known to be self-employed primarily in Los Angeles, and New York City. Korean immigrants, in the 1990 census, actually had the highest self-employment rate among all minority and immigrant groups in Los Angeles, exceeding even the native-born Whites of Russian ancestry (Min 1996). The question to ask to understand this phenomenon is: “Why has starting a business become ‘a cultural fashion’ among Koreans?” And the answer is based upon two key factors: culture and disadvantage. The culture theory (Kim 1999) examines the rationale of some immigrants to bring some of their home country into their new society. While the disadvantage theory analyzes the disadvantages Korean immigrants face such as: poor English, licensing requirements, American credentials, discrimination, etc. (Kim 1999).

Immigrant Entrepreneurs

In an earlier reading about Urban Enclaves, one of the authors discussed how many Latinos were the labor force driving the Asian restaurants and businesses, working in the kitchens and such in neighborhoods such as Flushing. This week’s reading went further in depth about immigrant labor. Two of the articles discussed the growing trend of Latino immigrants working in Korean immigrants’ businesses.

The trend is due to a number of factors. It starts out with the Korean immigrants. Korean immigrants arrive in America, and they encounter many struggles; one of the examples Kim gave was that their credentials earned in Korea don’t necessarily transfer over. Hence, they turn to other Koreans who have set up their own businesses. The problem, though, is that these Koreans only stay to learn the basic information. As Kim explains, most leave after mere months of working there. That led to the drive by Korean business owners to hire Latinos.  Kim also discusses the trend which is that Koreans will not hire blacks as much as they hire Latinos. The main reason that Kim gives is that there are negative ideas about them, and that Latinos are attractive workers because they are often undocumented and the wages they earn are higher when they are exchanged for the currency at home.

In Bowles’s article, Bowles describes a multitude of problems surrounding immigrant entrepreneurship. For example, many immigrants experience “unfamiliarity with how business is done…lack of awareness about local regulations, limited financial literacy…little to no credit history” along with language problems. As seen in Kim’s article, some of the Latino immigrants reported that they couldn’t talk to fellow employees that weren’t Hispanic because they couldn’t speak Korean. The chef, the owner, everyone spoke Korean.

In Min’s article, Min describes the nature of Korean immigration to the United States: the numbers have gradually decreased over time as South Korea has become politically and economically stable. Koreans are very different from other Asian immigrants, however, as they are educated and many of the immigrants have been middle-class Christians. Unlike the Koreans, many of the immigrants that have emigrated have been from rural, working-class or peasant class backgrounds, and unlike their fellow Asian, Chines and Japanese immigrants are largely not Christians. Interestingly, Min uses the term ‘ghetto’ to describe the new Seoul located in Flushing. Why does she describe it as a ghetto, though, as it should and would be more accurately called an enclave? Min also stated that she searched for the new Korean community in New York by searching up the last name “Kim” which she claims is the most popular last name-why did she not choose to search up other   popular last names? I found it a questionable method. Based on a series of tables in the article, Koreans have opened a large number of grocery stores as well as nail salons (which is evident), yet business was not something that many of these Koreans chose to pursue when they came to the U.S.

Immigrant Businesses

In Immigrant Entrepreneurism: an Engine for Economic Recovery, Jonathan Bowles makes the argument that immigrant entrepreneurs are the solution New York City’s economic downturn. As a result of the recent immigration influx, there are more immigrant-run businesses appearing throughout the city. Bowles suggests that the city consider immigrant entrepreneurs as a solution to revitalizing New York City’s economy. He explains how there is not enough support for these businesses and since immigrants naturally face language barriers and other difficulties when establishing themselves in a new country, it is difficult for their businesses to reach full potential. He encourages the city to implement new laws and policies that would help immigrants expand their businesses. Particularly in New York City it is harder to startup new businesses as a result of competition and higher living standards and real estate prices.

Bowles’ argument that immigrant businesses will help revitalize the economy is something that should be considered. In Min’s article, Korean Communities: New York and Los Angeles, he mentions that Korean immigrants only start their own businesses because they believe they cannot find jobs in the general labor market and that native-born Korean Americans don’t even want to consider starting up their own businesses. Yet, as Bowles mentions, new enterprises created in immigrant neighborhoods surpassed business created city-wide. Despite the unwillingness of these immigrants to be self-employed and the lack of support from the city, immigrant enterprises are doing surprisingly well. Imagine what would happen if these immigrants did receive the support they need for their businesses. However one thing that should be considered is whether or not the expansion of these businesses is really the best the option. As both Min and Kims’ articles mention, the immigrant self-employment usually occurs in enclaves or coethnic neighborhoods where their businesses caters to the needs of immigrants of shared ethnicity. Would their services and goods that immigrants need and like, be able to sell as well in areas where there may be no immigrants or people of similar ethnicities? Would prejudice or just plain lack of interest prevent immigrant businesses from profiting if they expanded? I agree that immigrant entrepreneurship may help New York City’s economy and that with support, they may thrive, but it may depend on the type of support they receive.

Immigrant Entrepreneurship: An Engine for Economic Recovery

With the economy down, many businesses have been declining. Despite this downturn, there has been a rise of immigrants who are providing economic support, leading a strong fight for economic growth. It is no surprise that “foreign-born entrepreneurs have been starting a greater share of new businesses than native-born residents.” Coming to America, immigrants have a certain, specific goal: to be successful. One of the solutions to that, is getting involved in their own business and making a living out of it.  So, small business and entrepreneurship remain the engines of job growth and economic recovery.

Immigrants are 30% more likely to being a business than non-immigrants. That is a shocking high stat because you would expect non-immigrants, who have the resources and are familiar with the American economy to begin a business. That being said, immigrants do have more of a strive and motivation to begin a business despite various factors that come along their path.

Perhaps what’s most surprising is that this growth is not just driven by immigrants with  degrees and high education. In other words, lack of education doesn’t stop these highly motivated immigrants from starting new businesses. That being said, immigrant dominated communities in the city area have shown to have an explosion in new enterprises. Also, stats show that even an increase in job growth among these communities have prevailed. There has been a 34% in Washington Heights and 28% in Jackson Heights.

A question that comes up is what can the nation do to bring more Americans – native-born and immigrant alike – to create their own businesses? That as well as the growth of businesses by immigrants, the overall economy can grow with the growth of entrepreneurs.   Since there is a shift of job growth as well as enterprises, the city must come up with a way to pick itself up from this economic downturn. Whether it is to support these immigrant businesses, or join these businesses and create big companies, action should be taken to solve this economic conflict that immigrants may have an answer to.

The Changing Dynamics of Co-ethnic Entrepreneurship

In “Beyond Co-ethnic Solidarity: Mexican and Ecuadorean Employment in Korean-owned businesses in New York City”, the author, Dae Young Kim, examines the changing dynamics in the co-ethnic nature of Korean owned businesses and applies these findings to critique the traditional scholarly approach to immigrant entrepreneurship

In the past, scholars have put forward the Ethnic Enclave Thesis, asserting that in ethnic enclaves co-ethnic employees and employers form a mutually beneficial relationship. In other words, both sides benefit from an economic relationship. Employees provide employers with a large and cost-efficient labor force while employers provide training and the chance for promotion or independent entrepreneurship.

How did this co-ethnic economic model come to be? With the drastic increase in the reate of immigration in the nineteen sixties came rising discrimination. Immigrants succeeded in overcoming this discrimination and building new economies and communities for themselves by collaborating and cooperating with their co-ethnic community to help build businesses and become economically self sufficient.

In the past, scholarly literature has almost exclusively painted a positive picture of co-ethnic economic partnership and as a result has failed to properly note the internal conflicts and views within ethnic communities. These conflicts, perceptions, and the resulting economic shift have contradicted the fully positive model of co-ethnic entrepreneurship and economic solidarity. To address these issues, Kim uses the events behind the changing dynamics within Korean-owned business to illustrate the costs and following downfall of co-ethnic economic solidarity.

In short, what happened in the Korean immigrant economic community was as follows: In the beginning, Korean businesses followed the Ethnic Enclave Thesis perfectly. They hired many of their co-ethnics who provided them with abundant, cheap, and reliable labor. In return they provided job training and also provided an established business infrastructure and community from which new immigrant could eventually mold their own businesses. And in this lies the problem. Eventually, the population that would have been employed cheaply by business owners became business owners themselves or advanced themselves economically using other paths.  As Korean business owners saw their own labor pool dry up they were forced to turn to other more reliable and cost-efficient sources, namely, recent Latino immigrants.

Immigrant entrepreneurism: the cost and benefits

In his article, Immigrant Entrepreneurism: An Engine for Economic Recovery, Bowles places special emphasis on the immigrant owned businesses in New York City. Previously, we discussed that immigrants flock to areas where there are high concentrations of other immigrants just like them. Bowles mentions that in The Center’s 2007 study, neighborhoods with a high concentration of immigrants have experienced a significant increase in small immigrant owned businesses. For example, Flushing, a thriving immigrant enclave, has had a 55% increase between 1994 and 2004 (followed by neighborhoods like sunset park, Jackson Heights, Washington Heights etc.). Compared to the foreign born entrepreneurs in New York City, natives are less likely to open up their own businesses. These immigrant businesses not only help the economy by creating jobs, but they also stimulate growth in various sectors of the economy (such as food manufacturing, healthcare etc.)

Although small businesses are an integral part of the country’s economy, immigrant owners have to face various obstacles that prevent them from expanding their small businesses. As Bowles points out, these small businesses not only lack support from city policymakers but their owners also usually are less aware of rules and regulations when it comes to running a business in the United States. Language barriers also hinder these owners from expanding into the American market. Therefore, it helps them to cluster in and cater to their own ethnic community (for example, Flushing). Also, immigrant owners have to deal with expensive real estate and often; these owners are struggling to keep up with the rising rent. For example, whenever I take a trip to Jackson Heights, I always notice how some businesses are completely replaced by other new businesses. Many factors (discussed above) contribute to the foreclosure of these old businesses. Although I see many businesses shutting down, it is remarkable to see that there is always another immigrant owner willing to utilize that space. Because of this large growth in the small business sector, Bowles encourages the local government and agencies to support these businesses so that they can expand and make a significant contribution to the growth of the city’s economy.

Young Entrepreneurialism

The main point of Jonathan Bowles’ piece Immigrant Entrepreneurism: An Engine for Economic Recovery is that immigrant entrepreneurs are the ones who can, and most likely will, help kick start the city’s economic recovery. Using statistics, historical background, and neighborhood studies, Bowles develops this idea, showing how immigrants have successfully contributed through starting up their own businesses, which have positively impacted their local communities and the general economy. As a result of these new businesses, a variety of jobs in different sectors have popped up and employment has consequently been on the rise. In heavily immigrant communities there has been a tremendous growth in businesses, while in the city the increase has been nominal. Bowles goes on to explain how and why immigrants, who are 30 percent more likely than non-immigrants to start businesses, have not achieved their entrepreneurial potential in New York. Because of limited financial literacy, little credit history, and language barriers, they struggle to expand their businesses, let alone keep them stay afloat. There are ways to help them, Bowles suggests, such as developing a new framework for small businesses in immigrant communities and ensuring that city economic development officials help these immigrants expand their businesses outside of the five boroughs.

While I found this article compelling, I found a major flaw in it. Since the Great Recession in 2007, our economy has been very vulnerable and still needs a great deal of help to return back to its prime in the mid 2000’s. I believe that entrepreneurs would help boost our economy, but not in the immigrant sector specifically, as Bowles points out. We should not limit the focus on immigrant entrepreneurialism, but rather we should broaden the idea to young entrepreneurs in general. Since it is difficult to find a job nowadays, it would behoove both young people and the economy if people fresh out of college were to be creative and start their own businesses: they would not be unemployed but rather self employed, and consequently there would have more employed people contributing to the growth of the economy. The important point is not that immigrants should be the ones who are the entrepreneurs. Rather, if younger people are the ones who are starting new companies, there would be fresh ideas and the market would develop at a faster pace. I am not saying immigrants should not contribute, but instead perhaps the focus should be on young immigrants. Since the market has a chance to start anew after its unfortunate crash in 2007, we must find a way to ensure that the youngest people are entrepreneurs so that there will be a fresh vibrancy in the market that will last for a long time.

Immigrants v. Immigrants

America is and always has been a country of immigrants. Every single resident of the United States, besides the Native Americans, is either an immigrant or a descendant of immigrants. This fact makes it hard to understand why new groups of immigrants are typically greeted with anxiety, suspicion, discrimination, and even hate.

The first major wave of immigration came mainly from Europe from approximately 1880 to 1920. This group included many Irish, Polish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants among many other groups. The established white American population reacted very harshly to this new group of immigrants; they called these immigrants hateful names and prohibited them from working and living in certain areas. This is the climate into which my two Irish great-grandparents arrived in the late 1800s.

My grandmother was the youngest of nine children (all of whom were raised in New York among many other immigrant children), she herself was victim to several instances of discrimination by the WASP population. When she first moved to Elmhurst in 1935 or so, the neighborhood was overwhelmingly white and full of the aforementioned immigrant groups. Within her lifetime, the group of immigrants that her parents came to the U.S. with became more or less incorporated into mainstream society.

She lived in Elmhurst as the second wave of immigrants began to come into the U.S.: Chinese, Hispanics (from many different countries), Indians, Middle Easterners, etc. As the people she grew up with left and passed away and as white Elmhurst began its shift into becoming one of the most diverse neighborhoods in the world, my grandmother experienced anxiety over change. As she grew older, she grew bitter, and as a young child I could not understand what the fuss was about.

This is still a question that I deal with years after my grandmother’s passing. How could a child of immigrants be so scared of other immigrants? She herself was even discriminated against for similar reasons. One answer that I have considered is that it’s an ongoing process of new Americans trying to claim a piece of their own here in the U.S. When the first wave of immigrants came in, the established white population was scared that they’d lose their power, their jobs, or their values. Now we see the ostracized doing the ostracizing.

People naturally fear change and the unknown. Until we stop being so terrified of our fellow Americans, we cannot fully embrace the skills and vitality that they can deliver once they are accepted and incorporated. Those who understand this can tap into the energy and potential of these immigrant groups in ways that can better the society as a whole. For those who do not, it may already be too late for them to see.

Old and New “New Immigrants”

The Political Incorporation of Immigrants, Then and Now by Gary Gerstle and John Mollenkopf mainly discusses about two major waves of “new immigrants”. They discuss significant similarities and differences of these two waves of immigrants. The first wave of 27.6 millions of “new immigrants” was mainly composed of eastern, central, and southern Europeans. They arrived during the recovery time of the Civil War when the economy of the United States had started to develop and stabilize through steam, rail, electricity, and numerous other industries.

After World Ward II and Great Depression, the new “new immigrants” arrived. Unlike the previous wave, this group of people was mainly composed of Asians, Latin Americans, and the Caribbean (fewer Europeans). Since 1965, 20 million immigrants have arrived in the United States and a huge portion of them settled gateway cities like New York, San Francisco, Chicago, and etc. This new generation of immigrants also arrived at the time of economic prosperity and development. Also numerous immigrants with professional skills were present since the standard for the jobs has been raised.

The crucial difference between the old and new “new immigrants” are the problems they face.  The newer immigrants face the wall of education. The requirements for jobs have been getting stricter and stricter. Although the immigrants at the beginning of the 20th century were fairly uneducated, the society did not require for them to have high degree of education. Finally, the later immigrants enter “a more culturally relaxed, multicultural, and perhaps less prejudiced society”. Although there have been anti-immigrant acts, the immigrants weren’t greatly affected by it and eventually, the practice of holding dual-citizenship became popular.

What’s really distinct about the second wave of “new immigrants” is the diversity of race. The older immigrants were able to assimilate to the American society eventually. After a certain point, they were considered “white”. The newer wave will have harder time assimilating into the mainstream society because of the color of their skin.

Gerstle and Mollenkopf 2005, Similarities and Differences between Immigration Waves

Gerstle and Mollenkopf discuss the two great waves of immigration to the United States; namely the great European immigration of the late 19th to early 20th century, and the more recent influx of immigrants from Latin America and Asia from the mid 20th century through the present. They discuss the fact that there is currently a great disparity between studies of the first wave and the second. They propose that to truly understand these movements, lessons from both eras must be applied.

In terms of similarities, in both cases certain “gateway” cities became hubs for immigrants. New groups formed by ethnic similarities appeared in within the older system of division of labor. Immigrants from both eras faced discrimination, from groups that feared their presence but paradoxically exploited them for political and economic reasons.

There were also stark differences, mostly in their respective historical contexts. The first wave of immigration was sustained by the final fruits of the industrial revolution. New technologies developed heavy industry and manufacturing as a major part of the economy. The resulting economic growth created plenty of opportunity for advancement. The second wave on the other hand arrived in a period of economic flux and uncertainty. The lack of education, relative to natives, amongst many of these immigrants makes it difficult for advancement similar to that of the previous wave.

The Political Incorporation of Immigrants, Then and Now

The readings The Political Incorporation of Immigrants, Then and Now  by Gary Gerstle and John Mollenkopf focuses on the similarities and difference between the two immigrant waves that have arrived in the United States during the last two centuries. The reading makes sure to highlight the struggles and impact of the arrival of immigrants during the years 1881 to 1930 and at the beginning of the 21st century. According to the article, between the years of 1881 to 1920 about 27.6 million immigrants arrived in America, most of them from eastern, central and southern Europe, boosting the population up by 10.4%. After the liberalization of immigrant laws in 1965, about 20 million immigrants arrived from Latin America, Carribean and Asia. The majority of these immigrants settled in “gateway cities” such as New York, Los Angeles, Miami and San Francisco. Because of the declining birth rates among the native born residents, this wave of new immigrants began to make up more than 30% of the population.

There are some apparent differences between the wave of immigrants that arrived in the late 1800’s and the wave if immigrants that arrived later on in the 1900’s. For example, the wave of immigrants that arrived in the 1880’s arrived at a time that the United States was experiencing economic growth because of the rapid industrialized caused by the factories railroads, automobiles, and air travel This wave of immigrants was also more poorly educated than the current wave of immigrants. Furthermore, racial division was the central divider among the immigrants of that era. By contrast, the recent wave of immigrants have arrived at a time in which the level of discrimination has greatly diminished due to the blacks struggle to gain equality. Gerstle and Mollenkopf state that, “…today’s immigrants enter a more culturally relaxed, multicultural and perhaps less prejudiced society. In which the blacks struggle for justice has ended many aspects of instituitionalized discrimination agains non whites”( Gerstle and Mollenkopf 8) .

However, there are some similarities between the two waves of immigrants. Both waves settled in certain cities, giving themselves a distinct ethnic character. The journies of both groups reflected both the opportunities and resources provided by their destination of choice. Furthermore,  they both arrived at a time of economic transformation and wealth inequality and faced religious and racial discrimination.

What shocked me the most about this reading was in the beginning where the author stated that there has not been much research concerning the similarities and differences between the two waves of immigrants. While I was in high school, I took the Advanced Placement United States History course. I recognized many of the material that i learned included in this specific reading. What I most remember from the course was the repetitiveness of patterns that occur after immigrants settle in a new area. These patterns, such as immigrants settling in a place because of economic change and then facing discrimination from the the already established residents, have repeated themselves throughout history. So when the article stated that there has not been much research into the comparison of the two waves of immigrants, and instead researches have relied on stereotypes, it interested me. Shouldn’t we focus on the negative aspects of these repeating patterns so maybe we can look ahead into the future and prevent discrimination and conflicts from occurring? Also, another thing this reading reminded me of was the Community Board meeting I attended last night. What stuck out the most about the readings was when this man stood up to speak to the committee. He briefly stated his background, explaining that he was an Ecuadorian immigrant from the Andes. He stated that he wished to join the committee to reduce the hate crime in his area between Italians and Ecuadorians. When I heard that, I was astounded. It made me feel like a lot of the material that I have learned in this class, even it concerned immigrants from decades ago, is still prevalent today. I believe that we should continue to study these repeating patterns indepthly so we can prevent and fight such kinds of discrimination that has been going on for so long.

Political Incorporation

In The Political Incorporation of Immigrant, Then and Now, Gary Gerstle and John Mollenkopf talk about the development of immigrant participation in politics and the two waves of immigrants that came to the United States of America.  The first wave, which lasted from the 1880s to the 1930s, consisted of mainly Europeans.  Most immigrants came from countries of Eastern Europe, like Italy, Germany, and Ireland.  The second wave consisted of Latinos, Asians and Caribbeans during the 1900s to present day.  With the new wave of immigrants coming to the United States came the inevitable rise in immigrants in blue collar jobs.  With the lack of skill and knowledge of how the job market worked in America, immigrants were a great source of cheap labor for manufacturers and other low-skilled jobs.  Both waves of immigrants also settled in city areas with other immigrants, like New York City.  Since immigrants seemed to gravitate towards other cultures similar to theirs, the authors point out how the first wave of European immigrants became more assimilated into American culture, or “white” culture.  As time passed by, Europeans became accepted as part of the American culture.   Because the earlier wave of immigrants related more to “white”culture, it makes sense that immigrant participation in politics has declined.  The newer wave of immigrants do not feel as assimilated as the earlier wave, so they are not as inclined to participate in political activities.  Of course, there are the few immigrants who are interested in politics and making themselves heard.  The issues of immigrants are being made more and more known, even though participation is lower than it should be.

Political Incorporation

The Political Incorporation of Immigrants, Then and Now by Gary Gerstle and John Mollenkopf discuss two different time periods in U.S. history that immigration was especially prevalent. The first of which dates from 1880-1930. This first wave was made up of Europeans (England, Ireland, German, etc.) who migrated to the United States. Upon arriving these immigrants immediately took to blue collared jobs and created their lives around these jobs. The second wave was made up of Latin Americans and other “non whites” (Latino, Asians, Caribbean). Few of these new immigrants started in blue collared jobs. We still see second wave immigration to this day with a large number of Asian and Latino immigrants.

The authors point out some of the differences between the first wave and the second wave of immigrants. One of these differences is the first wave had a greater opportunity to slowly assimilate with the other whites around them. For the second wave, it is increasingly more difficult to assimilate into “white” culture because with such a high concentration of diversity, it is clear that immigrants tend to stick with people of similar backgrounds.

As time has passed, immigrants are taking less and less of a role in politics. The first wave of immigrants seemed to take a more active approach to politics in voicing their opinions and willing to fight. The second wave of immigrants typically takes a backseat in politics. I know from experience that my parents, who are both immigrants, often question whether there is any point in voting. They constantly speak about how “this is a white man’s world” and despite arguing with them, they have already made up their minds. To them, the country will run with or without them so they believe there is no real need for them to voice their opinions because they believe that as a minority immigrant, there opinions will not be heard.

Migrant Civil Soceity

Over many years, there has been a great rise of immigrants. From various countries, these immigrants have looked to settle around many popular, specific cities, cities that they hope will let them settle and adapt and become successful. A city like that can be called port-of-entry immigrant neighborhood. However, many of these cities face transformation, specifically within the population. Some reasons are due to economical and social conditions. As a result, Nik Theodore and Nina Martin look to determine the role of non-profit , community and social movement organizations, and how they address the concerns of what those immigrants are facing in the port-of-entry neighborhood.

One city that was taken to example was Albany Park. For decades, it has “been a stepping stone for recent arrivals who have settled in the neighborhood before moving to outlying suburbs.” That being said, Albany Park has also experienced a great transformation. Great transformation of the blow of people, money and goods. Being a transnational community, it is strict in enforcing immigration laws, and that has lead to migration of these immigrants. A common issue facing these immigrants was the housing. With a decline historically, in the population in Albany Park, the neighborhood planned for “Urban Renewal,” however various community organizations emerged and thwarted this so that there could not be any “displacement” within the people. Despite housing concerns, stressing the cause of change and and community-based organizations mobilize to fight the gentrification  by partnering with non-profit organizations, that has provided and alternative way of development that results in balanced growth, equality, and less population displacement. It is fascinating to see different organization be formed and allied to have a spark in a certain issue. Such as the Albany Park Neighborhood Council, who partnered with the Logan Square Neighborhood Association to keep the Chicago neighborhoods affordable. That being said, these small organization and associations make way to become bigger groups, such as coalitions and organizations that have a big impact on city issues.

Non-profit organizations are important for each city, they allow for a resident body to have an impact on the neighborhood they live in. Such as the organizations in Albany Park, such organizations exist that allow the migrant immigrants to be halted and to keep a stable state of living in their own neighborhood.

Integrating Immigrants

In Gary Gerstle and John Mollenkopf’s work, The Political Incorporation of Immigrants, Then and Now, Gerstle and Mollenkopf give a detailed history before delving into the current political inability to incorporate recent immigrants into politics and voting. Gerstle and Mollenkopf’s article uses several words that were unusual and disconcerting, namely the word ‘pervasive’: “Although these new ‘new immigrants make up a smaller share of a much larger national population…they, too are having a pervasive impact on America” (1). The connotation of ‘pervasive’ implies that something is sneaky and parasitic: the concern here is that this word is not the best in trying to understand why immigrants are not as involved in politics like those before them. It’s eerily similar to the stereotypes that the majority of America gave immigrants.

The key argument in this article is that immigrants have been increasingly uninterested in politics. Gerstle and Mollenkopf depict it as something that started in the 1950s, as old immigrants were very much involved in politics in their time. They give an example of how the Irish and the Germans were willing soldiers and participants in the Civil War. That the Irish were willing is not completely true: in fact, many of the Irish were against abolition and rioted when they learned they had to go fight a war. The two solutions offered to combat this apathy towards politics is: 1) labor unions and organizations and 2) the current progress made by these recent immigrants. Labor unions and other organizations may be able to spark activism and interest again in immigrants and based on the recent growth and progress that immigrants have made in terms of their political influence, there may be hope yet for the entire political process, along with everything that goes along with it.

Finally, Gerstle and Mollenkopf make an interesting point in stating that “many of the immigrant children are Asian…they must create a new racial identity for themselves” (23). The authors also argue that “they must…negotiate their place in the racial hierarchy”, which  seems to be a struggle that other races and ethnicities have faced. Yet the Asians seemed to be a unique group because they’ve already had their places decided (unwillingly or willingly): they’re the model minority. The uneasy conclusion is that the racial struggle has now entered the public education system, where there is already an increasing divide as publicized by the media over the years: the lower income poor students are in failing schools, the wealthy students are in flourishing/private schools.

Immigrant Integration

Political Incorporation of Immigrants, Then and Now, by Gary Gerstle and John Mollenkopf, addresses the issue of immigrants coming to terms with American society. They propose that instead of the traditional method of studying waves of immigration separately, to utilize information and data from both immigration movements mentioned in order to create a more accurate and fluent representation of immigration in the United States. He explains how the approaches used by social scientists and historians should be incorporated, as in both perspectives should be considered when looking at this subject.

The writing introduces and compares the immigration during the turn of the 20th century and from 1965 onwards. The turn of the century migration saw immigrants of mostly English, Scottish, Irish, German, and Scandinavian origins whereas the immigrants of present day are of mostly Caribbean, Latino, and Asian origins. Both immigrants lived in concentrated neighborhoods of their ethnicity in urban settings. The one of the main differences between the two waves of immigration was that the earlier wave saw slow integration overtime into white American society whereas the immigrants today don’t really have that option. It goes on to explain the works of other researchers who examined the role of the state and the effect of transnationalism and education on immigrant integration.

I agree with the authors’ arguments that both immigration periods should be compared together and not separately and that the approaches used by social scientists and historians should both be considered when doing this type of research. Social scientists looks at data and statistics, but in order to understand the numbers and patterns, historical context must be considered.

On the topic of transnationalism, in present day communication and global networking is much more efficient and accessible than it was at the beginning of the 20th century. Therefore, immigrants are more inclined to embrace both American culture and the culture of their country of origin. I also believe that the accessibility of international communication and globalization also contributed to another issue. The authors mention the argument that schools nowadays taught only English and a hidden social hierarchy instead of conveying the values of liberty, independence, order, individual rights and duties, and patriotism. Perhaps this argument is wrong. English is taught merely as a way for immigrants to communicate with one another and this social hierarchy seems to resemble the ethnically concentrated neighborhoods immigrants tend to reside in. Perhaps this is just another way for children of immigrants to feel a sense of belonging. The U.S. is much more connected with the rest of the world today as a result of globalization. What was taught to students in the past may be considered outdated in terms of the situation America is in and meeting the needs of the students today. 

Non-Profits in Migrant Societies

Nik Theodore and Nina Martin share several important ideas in “Migrant Civil Society: New Voices in the Struggle Over Community Development.” The one thing that stood out to me is the role played my nonprofit organizations to fill the void left by the US Government post 9/11 in policies regarding immigrants in the United States. Theodore and Martin mention how September 11 terrorist attacks, the 2001 recession, the fiscal crisis in state government, and the alleged challenge to state sovereignty that has been brought on by large-scale undocumented migration, has led to the withdrawal of many public services that migrants need in the US. This is why nonprofit organizations have stepped in to fill the void, to allow migrants to get the help they need to live a proper life. In a survey done on 182 different nonprofits showed that 133 organizations reported to have 30% or more of their clients be foreign born migrants. These migrants came  from various backgrounds such as: Mexicans, Koreans, Chinese, Russians, Poles, Indians, and Central American migrants. Interestingly enough the greatest problem migrant families face (56%) is the language barrier and substandard employment issues, as discussed numerous times in class. [Need for health and social services (36%), immigration-related issues (33%) such as family reunification and gaining citizenship, and access to quality affordable housing (16%) (Figure 1). Virtually every organization interviewed is engaged in raising awareness of one or more of these social problems. In Chicago, these advocacy efforts center on the following issues: immigrant rights (29%), access to health and social services (21%), access to quality affordable housing (14%), and access to education (14%)]

It is truly interesting to see the various obstacles immigrants in America faces, and it’s hard to envision where they would be without the lobbying of nonprofit organization looking out for their well-being.

“The Political Incorporation of Immigrants, Then and Now”

I found this article to be very interesting because it made some claims that seem to go against what I had believed before reading it. Sometimes I wished Gerstle and Mollenkopf would give more reasoning to their claims or to the claims of the authors they discuss.

One idea that baffled me was Gleason’s idea of the American civic culture before the civil rights movement in his book “Sea Chnage in the Civic Culture of the 1960s”. This culture seems like the American Dream, but I don’t think people lost the American dream after the civil rights movement. If people no longer had dreams of equality, liberty, and individual opportunity when in America after the civil rights movement began, why would people bother coming to America? Also, during the time that this civic culture existed, the 1925 quotas were in place. I would think that these quotas would detract from this civic culture that Gleason talks about because it does not seem that the United States was very welcoming to immigrants before the Hart-Cellar Act. I wish Gerstle and Mollenkopf dove further into Gleason’s argument, so his argument made sense considering the laws that were in place.

Another interesting idea that I wish had been explained further is idea that Tyack discusses of schools emphasizing different ideas during different time periods in America. The first few time periods discussed make perfect sense. When the country was first born, teachers tried to get students to accept a republican form of government. Then when more ethnicities were introduced to the country, teachers tried to create a common culture and then when there were huge surges of immigrants teachers tried to Americanize the immigrant children. In the fourth wave there were progressive teachers who taught about different types of tolerance. I am confused on why Tyack believes that now teachers use school as “a form of human capital”, so students are taught more, so they can make money. What is specific about this current time period that is causing teachers to focus more on money rather than on creating good American citizens? Is it because immigration has been occurring for so long?

Distinguishing between the new immigrants and the new “new immigrants”

In the article, The Political Incorporation of Immigrants, Then and Now, Gary Gerstle and John Mollenkopf focus on two waves of immigration: one in from late 1880s to early 1930s and the second one, from mid 1900s to present day. In the earlier wave of immigration, most immigrants originated from Europe (mostly from Italy, Russia, Poland, Austria Hungary, Germany) and were basically “swept into” the blue-collar jobs (such as manufacturing) in America. According to the article, these immigrants’ children, who were born in the United States, overcame the economic crises of the Great Depression and the shaky political environment and eventually benefitted from the post World War II boom. The authors make a very interesting point by saying that the “line” between white protestants and the white Jewish or Catholics was blurred. And therefore, they were all now considered to be “white”.

The new “new immigrants” (as the authors call them) were part of the second wave of immigration and were labeled as “non whites”. Both the immigrants from the late 1880s and the new “new immigrants” settled in major cities like New York and gave that ethnic character to neighborhoods where a certain ethnic group was dominant. But the authors make the distinction that these new “new immigrants” were also highly professional and they did not enter the blue-collar job market unlike their predecessors. Instead, the more recent immigrants today are similar to the immigrants of the late 1880s and early 1900s due to their lack of English language skills and their lack of involvement in highly professional fields.

Also, according to the authors, the new “new immigrants” entered a more relaxed and multi-cultural society when compared to the new immigrants of the late 1800s and early 1900s. This relaxed and accepting environment was established partly due to the struggles of blacks against institutionalized discrimination. They also point out that America is more open to dual citizenship and the incoming of professional immigrants today than it was back in the early 1900s. A few weeks ago, in Michael Maly’s work, we read about the “Action Jackson” campaign and how it had an anti-immigrant agenda because they mostly targeted immigrant businesses in Jackson Heights. The authors even mention that the political environment did become very hostile towards immigrants in the mid-1990s. So although it is true that today’s society is a lot more diverse, this does not necessarily mean that the natives were “relaxed” about the non-white immigration into their neighborhood and easily accepted these new “new” immigrants into their society.

The Political Incorporation of Immigrants: How do we define ourselves?

Gary Gerstle and John Mollenkopf’s “The Political Incorporation of Immigrants, Then and Now” studies the similarities and differences between two waves of immigration (1880-1930 and post-1965 to present), and how, in turn, each wave has interacted with civil society and the political sphere.

What most caught my attention was Gerstle and Mollenkopf’s commentary on Laurie Olsen’s essay, which honed in on the role of the education system in the U.S., and how, as a formal government institution, schools influence how and to what extent immigrant children, or the U.S.-born children of immigrants, are accepted by society. Olsen based her study on students in a California high school in the 1990s, and aimed to get the most accurate account of the students experience by approaching the students themselves. Olsen made some interesting observations, the most prominent being that “civic education” has, according to student experience, “become synonymous with learning English.” Taking this into consideration, it appears that assimilation to American society, is, first and foremost, based on the ability to speak English.

Other aspects of “civic education, [which include] learning about democracy, opportunity, or civic rights or duties” are put on the back-burner, if taught at all. Instead, students, both consciously and unconsciously, are subject to racial tensions that fill the halls, galvanizing students into aligning themselves with a specific racial category. This discourages unity and assimilation and, instead, gives students the impression that they can only relate to those with the same racial background as them.

This case study of a Californian high school reminded me much of my own experience in high school. One question that would frequently surface within the first few minutes of meeting a person would be: “Where are you from?” Some people might address this question with “Oh, I’m from Astoria,” assuming that the person was inquiring to the area in which they reside. However, I could always make the safe assumption that the inquiry was to my background–which country am I from? To which, if I ever answered “American,” I would be met with scoffs and further pressed for where I’m really from. I found it interesting that, as the child of two immigrants who attended a high school also largely composed of first generation Americans, my experience was similar to that of students in California over twenty years ago. Though born in America–I made the choice to define myself by my parent’s country of origin–whether or not this is favorable is uncertain.

Immigrants

From the beginning, America has been a country of immigrants. Gary Gerstle and John Mollenkopf, in their article The Political Incorporation of Immigrants, Then and Now, critically analyze the transformation of immigrants as well as their involvement in politics. The authors note two specific eras of immigrants that share similar characteristics but are also different on some basic levels. The changes over the past century have lead to a transformation as to how immigrants and their progeny contribute to their community and their political involvement.

Gerstle and Mollenkopf describe what they call old immigrants and new immigrants, the former being mostly from Eastern Europe while the latter being mostly from Latin American countries. They bear many similarities, among them antagonism from native people and in the labor force. An interesting point the authors make was regarding the respective career paths of the two types of immigrants. Old immigrants became involved in specific work that, as a result, became ethnically distinctive, while new immigrants pursued jobs that involved unskilled labor. The two types of immigrants did not interact because of the obvious time gap and also because by the time new Latino immigrants came, the old immigrants already appeared less distinctive in society. As later noted, they had sacrificed their ethnic distinctiveness; they gained more acceptance into society but lost claims to their uniqueness. Immigrants may have felt that sending their children to public schools would smoothly incorporate them into society, but in reality they still had to deal with the reality of having a unique identity. Gerstle and Mollenkopf assert that now that Americans are more liberal, they are less hostile to new immigrants than they were to old ones. I disagree with this claim because there is still native-immigrant fighting, the only difference being that there is more government involvement toward promoting tolerance.

The immigrants themselves are not the ones who mostly take a role in politics and advocate for equality rights, but rather it is the second generation that feels responsible for doing this. They are involved in American politics, but some new immigrants are as involved in US events as they are in their native country. Those from the Dominican Republic, for example, have dual citizenship and can vote in both America and in the Dominican Republic. Such a powerful involvement with their homeland, Gerstle and Mollenkopf note, is actually more common in new immigrants than old immigrants. Upon reading this, I assumed that the connection must surely have been facilitated by the advent of technology, and not because of a deeper connection with their homeland. A question that popped into my head was: if email existed a century ago, would America’s economic relationship with various Eastern European countries be much stronger?

Effectiveness of Neighborhood Organizations Verses Local Community Boards

Roger Sanjek’s article begins with a summary of the overall demographics of the United States and projects the shift in demographics that would occur by 2080. He then delves into the specific neighborhood of Corona in Queens, New York and lays out the demographics in that area. Overall, there is a clear and consistent decrease in the white population while other ethnic group populations are increasing. The article presented the argument that the community board failed to meet the needs of the people in the neighborhood. However, organizations within the community, such as religious groups, succeeded where the community board had failed in providing for the residents of the neighborhood.  Tarry Hum’s article is much more specific in that it focuses on specifically two issues that arose in the neighborhoods Flushing in Queens, New York and Sunset Park in Brooklyn, New York. The article discusses the misperception of Asian immigrants as illegal immigrants and criminals in Flushing and zoning issues in Sunset Park. Hum presents an argument that is similar to Sanjek’s in that the community board fails to meet the needs of the residents in the neighborhood and organizations stepped in and was able to do what the community board could not.

The community board fails to meet the needs of the residents in the neighborhood because the demographics of the members on the board do not reflect the demographics of the overall neighborhood. As a result, the interests of the community board are not aligned with the interests of the neighborhood. This disparity in demographics prevents the community board from being able to fully understand the residents and their interests and needs may be misinterpreted or ignored. Organizations succeed in meeting the needs of the residents because they are a more accurate reflection of the demographics in the area. The members in the organization share similar values and problems as the people they serve. They know the interests the residents and also typically share similar interests. The effectiveness at which the community boards and neighborhood organizations meet the needs of the neighborhood residents depend on whether or not the interests of these groups are aligned with those of the residents.

Community Boards: Useful or Useless?

In Roger Sanjek’s article, Color-Full before Color Blind: The emergence of Multiracial Neighborhood Politics in Queens, New York CIty, Sanjek starts by examining how the United States are both changing dramatically. These two regions will no longer be comprised of primarily whites; there is a shift in the majority minority: African, Asian and Latino-Americans altogether make up a larger population than just whites. Sanjek then references Jane Jacobs and her vision that there would be “district-level political power…’big and powerful enough to fight City Hall’ ” a vision which seems to represent an ideal democracy. Sanjek did his research on the local level by studying and researching the Queens neighborhood of Elmhurst-Corona, specifically examining Community Board 4.

One of the first interactions for this community board was when the residents of Elmhurst-Corona met with the residents of Lefrak City, and from there, the community board came to represent the community. Indeed, reflected in its minutes, the community and the board expressed a negative attitude towards “‘welfare cases'” and “‘illegal aliens'”, general terms that were given African-Americans and Latino-Americans. Overall, Sanjek’s article takes on a positive view towards community boards, stating that “without a community board there would have been no public forum at which white, black, Latin American, and Asian leaders had a place to interact.”  Sanjek truly believes that it is through community boards that neighborhood and community issues can be resolved. In fact, community boards are essential because it brings together all the different ethnicities and viewpoints.

In Tarry Hum’s article, Planning in Neighborhoods with Multiple Publics: Opportunities and Challenges for Community-Based Nonprofit Organizations, Hum disagrees with Sanjek’s view on community boards, stating that they “often lack autonomy…and fail to promote the inclusion of disenfranchised community members such as immigrants.” Unlike Sanjek, Hum conducts her research in the neighborhoods of Sunset Park and Flushing, with Community Board 7.

Hum found that community boards, while perhaps a nice idea, “are constrained in their ability to act independently”. She gives several examples of board members that were removed because of their opposition: nine were removed for opposing Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz. Hence, community boards are not there to serve the people, but rather, one person, or a small group of people in a community. Most importantly, she undercuts Sanjek’s argument that community boards were able to unite white, black, Latino and Asians by providing evidence that “community boards proved to be ineffective venues in mediating conflicts about race, capital, and neighborhood planning [in Flushing and Sunset Park]”.

While Sanjek argues that a community board has helped to unite the Elmhurst-Corona community in addressing several issues, Hum finds that such a situation never occurred, or has yet to occur in neighborhoods such as Sunset Park or Flushing.

Community Boards

Color-Full before Color Blind: The Emergence of Multiracial Neighborhood Politics in Queens, New York City by Roger Sanjek dissects how far diversity has come in the Elmhurst- Corona neighborhood. Sanjek refers Jacobs idea of the three levels of urban existence. The first being “the city as a whole,” the second being “the street neighborhood” and the last being “the district.” The article discusses the “majority minority” transition seen in many New York cities over the last 50 years. For Elmhurst- Corona, the threshold was broken in the 1970s when a previously 98% white population in 1960 turned into a 34% in 1980 and dropped to 18% in 1990.

Sanjek focused his fieldwork on Community Board 4. He attended 123 meetings and public hearings. In order to get a better sense of the community as a whole, Sanjek attended protest rallies, park openings, church services, as well as walking around the local parks. In the 1960s, the purpose of community boards was for “city budget recommendations, land use review and for monitoring the municipal service delivery.” Although the claim was for improvement, the community board in practice began with racist roots. In the Lefrak City Tennant Association, the blacks were referred to as “welfare cases” and immigrants as “people’s pollution.”

The board was unable to develop any ideas that could be implemented into the community. With no improvement and change, the community faced a decreased quality of life which came with an increased level of violence. It was clear that something must be done in order to combat violence. The community board decided it was finally time to work as one to decide what the community needed. Over time, the board began to represent most ethnic groups that made up the population and were able to meet the needs of the community.

Community Boards and Urban Governance in Immigrant Neighborhoods

In “Color-Full before Colorblind: The Emergence of Multiracial Neighborhood Politics in Queens, New York City”, Roger Sanjek follows Elmhurst-Corona on its transition to a “majority-minority” area.  Elmhurst-Corona underwent this transition in the 1970s, when the white population dropped from 98% to 67% and Latin Americans.  By 1990, 45% were Latin American, 26% were Asian, and 10% were black.  Many different ethnicities were mixed into the Elmhurst-Corona area that was once predominantly European.  With the increase of minorities in this district, there was an increase in minority participation in community boards and the issues that were brought up.  One issue that grabbed most residents’ attention was the removal of the police station on their block.  Lucy Schilero, an Italian born resident, went around her neighborhood to gather support to stop it from happening.  As Schilero describes who she gathered and wants to gather to go to the board meetings, it is clear that there is a variety of ethnicities that live in Elmhurst-Corona and that they have become so prevalent that they should be informed about community issues.  While the native European residents are more involved in community boards and issues, their support needs to be assisted with that of minorities.  Sanjek also found that it is the women of the community that usually formed an network of cross-racial ties in Elmhurst-Corona.  Chodorow finds that this is related to earlier ideas of socialization where women were identified as “relational” and men were identified as “positional”.  This means that women were more likely to form connections with other people, while men worked and sought hierarchal positions.  The fact that most female leaders that formed cross-racial groups were housewives who worked from home supports this theory.  They were more likely to go out and become involved with other people and seek others to become involved in the community than men were.

Solutions Outside of Community Boards

The Hum article discussed how community organizations have tried to fill the holes not filled by community boards. According to the article, even though Sunset Park is not a majority white, white people are the majority in community board 7. The article did not state whether this was the case in Flushing, but since the two community boards were grouped into the same paper maybe it is. The community boards do not create perfect space for talks about race relations and solutions to the issues between races are not created by some community boards. If one group that isn’t even the majority is too dominating, it must be very  difficult to complain about that group.

I found the KACF’s solution to race issues in Flushing to be such a smart and responsible first step. I admire the initiative that the KACF took after it saw all the racial tension, shown by the complaints written to the city council, that had been created after the building of the Korean spa. The KACF had already worked on solving race issues, when there was conflict between Koreans and blacks, so it made sense to lead a meeting involving problem solving with multiple ethnicities during this unstable time. In the meeting, community leaders from all different ethnicities present in Flushing could openly discuss what each group wanted. Some issues brought to the meeting were that businesses were not speaking enough English, law enforcement was not strong enough, and immigrants experienced discrimination. The community leaders were supposed to think of steps that could be made, so these issues were lessened.

According to the essay, meetings like this one could not be a one time thing, if they were going to have any positive affects. At the end of the meeting, participants did seem hopeful for future race relations in Flushing. I am interested in knowing what the actual results were after months or years of meeting. Even after the first meeting, with everybody’s complaints out in the open, tensions between these community leaders were probably lessened, but what about the general population that was not present at this meeting? Did community leaders report back to the communities? Also, were the issues discussed and solutions brainstormed brought to the community board meetings, so that the solutions could actually happen?

The Community Board: Color-Full before Color Blind?

Roger Sanjek’s article, “Color-Full before Colorblind: The Emergence of Multiracial Neighborhood Politics in Queens, New York City,” created a timeline of Queens Community Boards, particularly in the Elmhurst-Corona neighborhood. Originally a overwhelmingly white area known as Lefrak City, Elmhurst-Corona began to see an increase in minority residents during the 1970s, following the ban on restrictive covenants. Sanjek makes several interesting points to explain how the local politics shifted with the ethnographic populations.

A notable point is that this time period is also characterized by the city’s fiscal crisis, which really left Queens at a disadvantage; Sanjek even says that Manhattan was the “favored son.” WIth so many cuts to public services such as sanitation, libraries, schools, and fire departments, Queens citizens took it upon themselves to fight back, so to speak. Originally there were wardens who relayed grievances to the respective department or institution. Eventually, community boards grew out of this, and Sanjek timelines how these went from being solely white enterprises, but through gradual additions of Asians, Latinos, and African-Americans, community boards became as multiethnic, or “color-full,” as the community itself.

Another interesting point is how the shift to being more diverse coincided with a shift in gender as well. Sanjek relays how more women contributed to creating a “network of cross-racial ties in Elmhurst-Corona” and how this is attributed to socialization and gender characterization (this reminded me to Gilligan’s In a Different Voice-different moralities between genders). However, I find that Lucy Schilero put it best by saying, “…we have to live with one another or we won’t survive.” This statement rings true for all neighborhoods and perhaps Elmhurst-Corona can be a model for a well-functioning, multiracial community engaged in local politics.

Contrastingly, the Hum article, “Planning in Neighborhoods with Multiple Publics: Opportunities and Challenges for Community-Based Nonprofit Organizations,” exposes the downfalls of community boards, in particular their inability to reconcile class and racial differences. Often community board members aren’t representative of the community because it requires a generous portion of time to partake in such an activity. Many lower-class and immigrant citizens have to work, often long hours, to support their families, so they do not have the luxury to give up ample amounts of time to sit on a community board. Therefore, many community boards consist of privileged white folks who do not necessarily have the interests of minorities or the poor in mind.

The Importance of the Community Board

In his article Color-Full before Color Blind: The Emergence of Multiracial Neighborhood Politics in Queens, New York City, Roger Sanjek analyzes the development of Elmhurst-Corona over the years, specifically highlighting the immense diversity that has played a key role in the interracial political collaboration on the community board level. Known for its significant “majority-minority” shift, Elmhurst-Corona today bears no resemblance to its previous state of exclusive whiteness. It is no longer homogenous, as is evident by the progress that the community board has experienced. In fact, Sanjek develops the idea that the community board is essentially a microcosm for the state of Elmhurst-Corona and of the minority groups that live there.

Initially those from Lefrak City Tennant Association, who were mostly white, were invited to the Community Board. During one of the meetings, they referred to blacks as “welfare cases”. While this offensive reference was highly inaccurate, it was not the sole instance of derogatory slander toward minorities; the white chairman referred to immigrants as “people’s pollution”.

The community board, with its racist and myopic outlook, did not solve any problems, and with the onset of financial problems in the area, the situation in Elmhurst-Corona deteriorated. The quality of life worsened dramatically as crime skyrocketed. This violence was thus the impetus that the community board required to facilitate camaraderie by working together and putting their differences aside- or rather, bringing their differences to the table and embracing the cultural diversity. Both literally and figuratively, the community board was beginning to shape up. For example, Lucy Schilero, an Italian, began interacting with and befriending those of different nationalities, eventually forming a coalition. This played a vital role in the development of the community board because there were now ways of establishing change through petitions as well as focusing on important topics at the meetings. Over time, the Community Board more accurately reflected the diversity within Elmhurst-Corona; churches, Koreans and Latin Americans also joined in order to have a say. Women particularly played an important role in the community board because they created a pathway for all different peoples to join in. As leadership members, the women also decided on what projects to focus on, such as education.

In one sentence, Sanjek essentially summarizes the entire argument of the article: “Without a community board there would have been no public forum at which white, black, Latin American, and Asian leaders had a place to interact (769)”. The community board functioned as a means of bringing a variety of people together who otherwise would have remained separate, or worse, combative. Elmhurst-Corona was not always intended to be the heterogeneous area that it is today. Yet the community board transformed Elmhurst-Corona’s diversity into a boon and thus helped shape the area into the unique place it is today.

Community Boards of New York: Political Placebos?

In both the articles by Sanjek and Hum, the focus was on the histories, roles, and realities of some of New York City’s community boards. What struck me the most about both articles was how seemingly powerless and therefore ineffective the community boards were. In principle, these groups give power to the communities that they represent by providing a public forum where residents can voice their concerns. In practice, they hold no real leverage over the city or even over their respective borough presidents. There have been cases where if appointed community board members were outspoken against the agenda of their borough president, those board members were removed. Effectively, they are subject to the whims of those who appoint them, and there is nothing in place to protect them from being removed. Since their suggestions for funding or legislation are just that – merely suggestions – they do not hold any real political power.

The power has always and will always rest in the hands of the people. Yes, legislators are really the ones with power, but they are elected by the people. Also, the residents of a neighborhood will always know best what that neighborhood needs, so it is best that the change in that neighborhood is facilitated by its residents. This is a commonality between both articles – where the community boards failed to initiate change, local nonprofit organizations succeeded, or at least did better than the community boards in their efforts.

It is possible for these organizations to do this because they are not appointed and cannot be silenced or defunded in any simple way by the city. They raise the money on their own terms. This is just speculation, but there is also a feeling that since these organizations revolve around community and philanthropy instead of politics, they are more inviting and approachable to the public. Another benefit of these community based nonprofits is that there are many, each based on a different constituency or issue. Even though some of these organizations are centered around a particular constituency, they often work to change neighborhoods for the better, not just for that group but for all residents. The whole of these groups together better reflects the demographics of the communities they represent compared to the community boards. In dynamic and diverse neighborhoods such as Elmhurst-Corona and Flushing, new groups will continue to form even as older ones diminish in power, with each new group bringing its own support and resources to the community. This process of renewal and inclusion is what members of the community boards can only wish to have.

Color-Full before Color Blind

In his paper Color-Full before Color Blind: The Emergence of Multiracial Neighborhood Politics in Queens, New York City, Roger Sanjek provides a multi-faceted account of the multi-racial demographic development and political and communal integration of Elmhurst-Corono between 1983 and 1996. Sanjek starts out with a general explanation of the the “demographic transition” that has stimulated much of the racial dynamics in Elmhurst-Corona and then proceeds to discuss some of the inter-racial tensions and misconceptions that plagued the early diverse communities. Sanjek has discovered a general pattern to the conflicts: prejudice fueled misinformation is propagated by local media outlets.  The misinformation is then corrected and addressed by local (usually minority) community representatives who then involve the community in practically addressing any problems.

Sanjek gives a wide perspective on the work and influence of individuals on communal life, both within and outside a political framework. These notable individuals step outside racial, cultural, and ethnic lines and act as community “wardens”. Sanjek notes the efficiency of these wardens in influencing the community from a intra-residential unit level to a communal wide scope, transversing perceived cultural and linguistic boundaries. Activities of these sometimes self-appointed or communally elected “wardens” range from providing translation services to mediating disputes between land lords a tenants.

In general, Sanjek’s paper can be divided into four sections according to explicitly or implicitly delineated advantages of inter-racial community and political partnership. The first of these advantages is most obviously, political. Most obviously, because there is strength in numbers; but also, because politics seem to function more efficiently when irrational prejudices and conflict are thrown aside. The second benefit is personal. In a nutshell: people’s personal lives are enriched when they live an environment that enables and encourages flourishing inter-racial friendships. Sanjek lists a number of instances in which people’s political and communal alliances led to deep personal friendships further down the line. The benefit of these inter-racial friendships cannot be measured in terms of political power or fiscal growth, and yet, their value, implied by Sanjek, is immeasurably high. The third benefit of inter-racial partnership is economic growth. Long time residents help recent immigrants establish, maintain, and grow new businesses. The fourth advantage is that of religious institutions. For those religious institutions willing to adapt and welcome new immigrants, there was a vast pool of opportunity for congregational growth.

In short, Sanjek provides a detailed and orderly account of the development and growth of the Elmhurst-Corona community  from it’s mono-ethnic Western-European origins, to it’s diverse (“color full”) yet segregated ( not “color blind”) community, to it’s state today as a richly diverse and integrated community that harnesses it’s racial diversity to grow politically, communally, economically, and personally.

Disproving misconceptions, Increasing immigrant political involvement

In his article, Color-full before Color Blind: The Emergence of Multiracial Neighborhood Politics in Queens, New York City, Roger Sanjek talks about the “majority minority” transition in Elmhurst-Corona during the 1970s. A part of his study, which began in 1982, documents the political involvement of Latino and Asian immigrants in Elmhurst-corona. Previously, we read about the various immigrants vs. whites conflicts. Sanjek not only focuses on these conflicts but he also disproves some of the negative misconceptions about immigrants and Blacks. For example, many white residents of Corona thought that Lefrak City was full of “welfare cases” and therefore, it automatically became an undesirable place to live in. However, Sanjek uses data that proves that this is not true mainly because the blacks that lived in Lefrak city actually earned more than their white neighbors in Corona. Also, many white residents considered immigrants to be “people pollution” and “illegal aliens”. However, by conducting a survey, Sanjek found that many of these immigrants were visa holders, permanent residents or naturalized citizens.

In his talk at the Asian American Center at Queens College, Professor Vattamala talked about how districts sometimes get divided in an uneven way. Some of the ethnically saturated areas get split up and therefore; these ethnic groups are not accurately represented and their needs are not met. However, this situation did not occur in Elmhurst-Corona during the mid 1980s. As we have read and discussed in class before, new immigrants are not usually active in politics due to several reasons (such as discrimination based on race or ethnicity). Looking at the examples presented by Sanjek, it is important to notice that in order to bring attention to issues that matter to immigrants, a representative (usually from the same race that he or she is representing) is needed to encourage immigrants to get involved in politics. For example, Haydee Zambrana, a Puerto Rican, worked to provide services for non-English speakers from Latin America. It was remarkable to see that when Zambrana joined community board 4 in 1984, Latin American membership also doubled. The Korean American Association of Mid-Queens also increased Korean involvement in politics by successfully registering 6000 Korean voters in 1996. By looking at this increase in political involvement, it was interesting to see how such activism can help uplift immigrants by prompting them to voice their opinion in places and be a part of the decision making processes regarding their communities.

Women in the Political Sphere: Pioneers of Community in Elmhurst-Corona

In Roger Sanjek’s Color-full before Color Blind: The Emergence of Multiracial Neighborhood Politics in Queens, New York City, there are a number of changes in Elmhurst-Corona, Queens, that are documented over time. Sanjek emphasizes the importance of citizen involvement in “district level political power.” The “district” is typified as an administration that mediates between the “politically powerless street neighborhoods and inherently powerful city as a whole.” Groups that represent a wide variety of interests within Elmhurst-Corona, according to Sanjek, must organize under one umbrella in an effort to achieve a common goal: to serve the public good.

Sanjek calls attention to issues stemming the efficacy of the district in representing the views of the disparate peoples of Elmhurst-Corona. First, he examines the demonization of blacks and the immigrant population by whites. Issues of crime, overpopulation, and the scaling back of government funding for public programs (all decreasing the “quality of life”) were attributed to the influx of blacks and immigrants–consequently discouraging civic engagement when it was still dominated by whites. Second, he mentions the fragmentation of religious and cultural interests into pocketed groups. Often, the religious and cultural groups were reflective of Corona’s demographic, since these pockets directly served the interests of its largely homogenous members. However, these groups weren’t necessarily based in Elmhurst-Corona; direct, widespread civic engagement encompassing the diversity of the region, however, was nearly nonexistent in the period following white flight in the mid-1900’s.

These issues bring us to a vital question Sanjek posed: how much progress has Elmhurst-Corona made in forming a political body in which all perspectives are represented and the people work together in unison to consolidate policies that draw from a common ground/perspective? Much of the progress that Elmhurst-Corona has made can be accredited to women, who often served as pioneers of civic involvement. I noticed a distinction between the types of women who spearheaded change in Elmhurst-Corona: there was the case of the Italian woman (Lucy Shilero) who eased the minority community into political activity, and the case of women who are direct immigrants but act as wardens and quickly overcome barriers to become directly involved in improving the community (Haydee Zambrana).

Lucy Shilero, a woman of Italian descent, was at an advantage compared to immediate immigrants, simply because she was a part of one of the first waves of immigrants to come into NYC–therefore, the assimilation of her peoples had already precipitated by the time she became involved in the political sphere as a warden. At the same time, however, she had to be innovative to reach out to the minorities in the community–she largely utilized grassroots movement techniques by building contacts with the gatekeepers, or leaders of various cultural groups, who would then relate information back to their own groups. Haydee Zambrana, on the other hand, was an immigrant from Puerto Rico that arrived in the 1970’s that used her position as an insider in the hispanic community to her advantage. She started with a base of internal volunteers, and eventually used the power she gained with their help to tap into external government assistance for the funding of an organization she founded, Concerned Citizens of Queens  (CCQ). I found this division between technique used to draw citizens into political participation unique to areas that have a large amount of diversity.

Caribbeans

Discussing the transnational sociocultural system that has resulted in New York due to the influx of Caribbeans, Suttons organizes his analysis into five parts: The Caribbeanization of New York City, New York City as a Caribbean Crossroad, Caribbean Transnational cultural System, Caribbeans in New York City’s Race/Ethnic Hierarchy and Sociocultural Dimensions of Caribbean Life in New York City: Toward a Comparative Analysis. The Caribbeans are a unique immigrant group in New York City; one of their biggest claims to fame is that those from the Dominican Republic comprise the largest number of immigrants living in New York. An interesting contrast that Suttons points out is that European immigrants attempt to hide their culture and assimilate. Caribbean immigrants on the other hand, are very much public about their roots and do not attempt [as much] to blend in with their surrounding society. In fact, it would be difficult to put their past behind them and to forget their heritage because so many Caribbeans are constantly moving to New York. These fresh immigrants keep the “old” immigrants involved with and aware of the current culture of their native homeland.

It is also in their best interest to promote themselves as Caribbeans. Suttons notes that they are either characterized as Black or Hispanic. Yet both financially and hierarchically, they are doing better than the Black Americans and Puerto Ricans.

The most fascinating part of this reading for me was the description of the Caribbean women’s work. Most found themselves to be caretakers for middle class white mothers, who could then work professionally. By engaging in the informal economy, these immigrant Caribbean women are in fact facilitating the white woman’s ability to a higher paying, better job. The main point of immigrating to the United States and achieving the American dream is for them to secure these good jobs. Yet they are quite willing to work in lower paying jobs. In fact, Sutton states something that shocked me and made me feel that the Caribbeans in New York live a sad existence: “Although most of the women work dead end jobs, the majority of those interviewed regard themselves as middle class rather than working class.” I find it depressing that they are content with this way of life when they could be achieving something so much better for themselves and their families.

Black and Afro-Caribbean Queens

The Afro-Caribbean community of Queens has steadily become a prominent minority group over the past few decades. The group is, in a way, a minority within a minority, as members of the group choose not to identify as “Latino” or “African-American”. As with any influx of immigration, the Afro-Caribbean community has contributed to economic and cultural growth within Queens. Afro-Caribbean cultures are rhythmic and vivacious, in Constance Sutton’s own words, and bring a very lively, distinct atmosphere to the neighborhoods of Queens they inhabit. The influx of new immigrants from the Caribbean has also led to a steep rise in employment of these immigrants in demanding labor markets, namely care-providers in hospitals and other medical institutions.

A Transnational Sociocultural System

I found Constance R. Sutton’s “The Caribbeanization of New York City and the Emergence of a Transnational Sociocultural System to be almost a culmination of several topics and issues we’ve discussed thus far, almost like transnationalizing our class discussions. Firstly, there is then notion that Afro-Caribbean is not a represented ethnicity, therefore those who identify as such are forced to categorize themselves as either Black or Hispanic on the census. Similarly, West Indians and Indo-Caribbeans, those who were part of the “second migration,” also do not have census recognition and have to identify as Asians, as we learned at the Jerry Vattamala talk. Secondly, in reference to transnationalism, as opposed to some of the other groups we’ve studied, Caribbean embrace this pan-Caribbean pluralism to advance their own agendas and preserve their culture (in true enclave fashion), going so far as to call the city a “Caribbean crossroad.” There were a few other notable points I noticed, especially in the context of current events. In the opening, Sutton briefly touches upon the migration from the Caribbean islands to New York and the ties between colonies and their mother countries and I thought of the crisis going on in Mali right now. France is stepping in to try and appease the situation, which begs the question of whether a colony can ever truly break free from its mother country. (We had a whole war with England, yet today it is one of our greatest allies.) Also, in discussing how many Caribbean immigrants work menial jobs, I was reminded of an article explaining how the fastest growing job in America is the home health care aid, often an underpaid, overworked, immigrant woman. (This could arguable be linked to the rise in foreclosures outlines in the NEDAP report.)

What was perhaps the most interesting point Sutton brings up is why these Caribbean immigrants do not want to identify as either black or Hispanic, or Americanize in the traditional sense at all. These groups have “experienced over time more downward than upward economic mobility.” (20) (This also again lends itself to the race-foreclosure correlation.) With the lowest high school graduation rates and highest unemployment rates, it is quite understandable that Caribbeans do not want to self-identify as such: “there are few incentives to become Americanized.” Essentially, the notion of shedding a cultural heritage with no socioeconomic gain contradicts the whole idea of assimilation at its core.

Caribbeanization of New York

Constance S. Suttons, piece “The Caribbeanization of New York” introduces several questions regarding New York’s largest third world immigrant group, Caribbean Islanders. The transnational trend which we have been discussing this semester is again reiterated here.

The Caribbean has possesses a unique element that lends itself well to transnationalism; the Islands’ prior relationship with the United States. During the age of imperialism, the United States established economic and military footholds on many of these islands. The dependence many of these countries developed towards the United States gave their populations a degree of familiarity with its culture.  But what effect does this actually have on the experience of new immigrants?

Economically speaking, most Caribbean immigrants find work in low-income jobs, both in manufacturing and service professions. The low wages many of these workers are willing to accept has made the city an attractive place to invest again. Despite the disparity in incomes, immigrants still receive more than what they would have made in their home countries.

Unfortunately, rather than being sorted by their nationality or religion like most European immigrants, Islanders are generally sorted by their race/ethnicity. This relegates them to either Hispanic or black social status, forcing them into an inferior situation. As a result, many Islanders strive to preserve their identity in a very public way to differentiate themselves from these groups. Ties with their home countries are therefore often very strong resulting in transnational cultural exchange. Ironically, not only do the immigrants worry about becoming “Americanized” but their home countries do as well.

New York City: A Crossroad for Immigrants

Constance R. Sutton’s writing, “The Carribeanization of New York City and the Emergence of a Transnational Sociocultural System” and the New York Times article, “Black Incomes Surpass Whites in Queens”, by Sam Roberts gives a strong example of how one can’t generalize a person’s identity based solely by race. This is evidently the case with Caribbean and other island immigrants.

Also color and physical appearances are not the only factors the Carribeanese and islanders use to identify themselves. They also have their own island identities. Essentially, the Carribeanese (like Hispanics, Asians, and other immigrants) are further diversified depending on the various islands they hail from. As Sutton writes, New York City provides the opportunity for these islanders to truly meet and expose themselves to the cultures of other islanders. As a result, there will be “…intergroup separation and association” depending on how well each island culture can relate to one another.  Factors that can affect intergroup interaction include language, physical features, and cultural values.

A question that can be posed based on Sutton’s writings is whether the islanders will merge culturally with the predominant cultural groups in the United States or maintain their unique island identities. This is also a question that can be asked for many other immigrant ethnic groups.

In my opinion, merging with predominant cultural groups stems from the loss of unique cultural and ethnic values. This can be prevented when immigrants latch onto memories of their native country and, as a result, they have a sense pride for their culture and are naturally inclined to preserve it. Merging can also be encouraged when people experience a feeling of alienation because they cannot relate to others because of cultural differences. They may feel inclined to learn the culture of their new country in order to feel as if they belong within their community. It is my belief that the preservation of culture and ethnic values comes much more easily in New York City than elsewhere because of the diversity within the city. The feeling of alienation is alleviated because of this diversity and the awareness that many others in the city are immigrants as well.

3/20 Black and Afro- Caribbean Queens

The basic underpinning of Sutton’s “The Carribeanization of New York City and the Emergence of a Transnational Sociocultural System” is that there is “life” to New York City that is affected by both it’s economic and demographic components. The change in economic and demographic components by immigrants in recent times, specifically Caribbean immigrants (the subject of this piece),  transforms and redefines the nature and boundaries of the city’s “life”.

This piece, an introduction to a larger work dealing with many subjects pertaining to the Afro-Caribbean community, seeks to preliminarily address many issues and dimensions within the Caribbean immigrant-New York City dynamic: How these immigrants fit in within the city’s larger socio-economic/racial/ethnic matrix, how Caribbean culture has transformed New York City culture and how New York City culture and attitudes has shaped Caribbean culture and self identity.

Most important to Sutton’s arguments is the idea that afro-Caribbean culture is a vastly layered and multi-dimensional entity that has been shaped by colonial, indigenous, and other forces. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that afro-Caribbean culture has brought a set of entirely new ideas to NYC because, after all, many of those ideas and cultural components were possible informed by NYC and American traditions themselves. As a result, Caribbean immigrants often find that they have to carefully shape and construct their identities upon living in America.

Sutton notes that the large part of the afro-Caribbean community defines themselves within the borders of the black-American/African American community, even though they have distinct historical and cultural backgrounds and despite the fact that Caribbean immigrants often encounter and work within socio-economic structures much differently than African Americans. Both groups have been shaped by colonial oppressions but it is also with out a doubt that both groups have distinct cultural heritages. Both groups also generally suffer from uneven economic growth in comparison to White majority groups but it can also be said that Caribbean groups have generally reached a higher socio-economic status as compared with black African Americans.

However, just as American tradition has affected Caribbean culture, so to has Caribbean culture widely impacted and transform New York City culture. In particular this change has been felt, as Sutton puts it, “on the streets”. This street-culture phenomenon has been found in trends with other immigrant groups. What is remarkable, although definitely not exclusively unique, to Caribbean immigration is that affect that afro-Caribbean culture has had on New York City’s “high culture” in addition to street culture. Caribbean culture has influenced the academic, artistic, and cultural institutions of New York City.

The city’s afro-Caribbean immigrant population has also had a huge influence on the city’s economic infrastructure and labor market dynamics. Caribbean immigrant populations have offered cheap and flexible labor that has not only stimulated stagnating economic sectors, but has also created/expanded new ones: particularly in health care and child care fields. While this has had a positive effect on employer’s labor markets and has benefited the Caribbean immigrant community in that it provides them with higher wages than they would have received at home, it has also created sharp socio-economic disparity.

South Asians In Queens

In Chhaya CDC, Chhaya surveys South Asian families in the five boroughs, focusing on Queens because that is where most reside, to pinpoint the concerns and problems that South Asians face once they move to New York.  Although Chhaya focuses on housing problems, job, social, and educational problems also came up in the findings of the survey.  What got my attention the most were the education and job related concerns.  Coming to a new country, 47% of South Asians surveyed already had a college degree and 14% had some college education.  As a U.S. born citizen, this level of education would qualify us  for a decent professional job with at least an average salary to live of off comfortably.  However, only 8% of the same group had a professional or technical job with 21% making $40,000 or more a year. As great as it is to see some succeeding and being able to live comfortably in America, it is not acceptable that most of the qualified South Asians are not being given the opportunity to contribute to their field of study.  Especially since they will have ideas and innovations that are different to those of the average American.  According to the survey, this problem is caused by the lack of availability of job opportunities in the fields that they were trained in in their home country, as well as the language barrier.  This forces the already educated group to go to school and become trained in a more available field.  However, it is like their past educational background is wiped out.  Several Bangladeshis that were surveyed explained the lower level jobs that they had after the many years of experience they had in their home country.  Once they moved to America, they had to essentially start over.  This is big problem that must be dealt with in immigrant communities.  Chhaya suggests, in the beginning of this passage, that the government provides development programs for the fields that South Asians are already trained in or invests in South Asian owned small businesses.  This would give South Asain immigrants the chance that they have worked hard for in their home countries.

South Asians

Chhaya CDC’s “Deepening Roots and Creating Space” discusses about the challenges South Asians face and some proposed solutions. By utilizing census and surveys, Chhaya CDC was able to pinpoint some core issues the immigrants face. The first issue they addressed was the housing issue. The South Asian communities have grown significantly in the past decade, which is during the “country’s worst economic crisis”. Because the economic hardship, not only has it been hard for the South Asians to purchase a house, there has been many cases of overcrowded families. Also, the process of buying a house is also a hassle. Most of the housing contracts require some sort of income report. However, since most of these people are self-employed, they face disadvantages in housings issues.

In my opinion, the basic problem these people face is the language barrier. Being an immigrant myself, I also have had problems because I couldn’t communicate with others. It really is frustrating. Because you can’t communicate, you don’t want to interact with the society, which is why the first generation immigrants have hard time getting a job. Although these immigrants have received decent education, they can’t succeed in American because they can’t find the opportunities. As mentioned in the article, half of the selected group of people had college degree but only 8% of them were working in a professional field. That really shows how big this cultural barrier is.

Learning language surprisingly gives you a lot of confidence. You don’t feel as helpless as before. You feel like you can contribute and help others. Being able to communicate is really the key. A lot of these immigrants have the education that the society wants. However, that simple lack of communication is what’s blocking these immigrants from adapting into the society. That’s why, for the immigrants, there is a huge barrier to numerous opportunities.

The Arrival of South Asians into Queens

South Asians are part of the New Wave of immigrants; Queens in particular has seen many of these new immigrants arriving and creating a new home for themselves here. Yet, unlike many of the immigrants that have been arriving in the past few decades, these South Asians-Indians in particular- are highly educated individuals, have obtained secondary school education and even college education for some. This is not such the case for other immigrants; many of the Latinos and Asians that have been immigrating to the U.S. are not highly educated.

These new immigrants have, like others before them, made their presence known. Jack Nicholson, a resident of Jackson Heights, discussed his experience living in Jackson Heights, before and after the waves of immigrants decided to make that neighborhood their home. Jackson Heights, like Flushing, like Corona, was originally a rural neighborhood that was part of a growing metropolis. Jackson Heights was built and created as a home for the whites that were fleeing Manhattan; this was made crystal clear when in Maly’s article, Nicholson recalls that it specifically did not allow any blacks, Jews nor Catholics. This highlights the fact that that area was intended to be a sort of haven for the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants that were still in the city.

Yet, fast forward to the recent decades, there is a diversity in Jackson Heights. To clarify, the Heights draws many immigrants not only because there are already established ethnic communities there, but also because of its convenience. The 7 train easily goes through this neighborhood, which is great for immigrants working blue-collar jobs and have to work longer than the traditional 9-5 PM work day. Ironically, this is what was used to appeal to the original white residents as well. Jackson Heights now has white residents, Latino residents, Chinese, Koreans, South Asians, you name it. Much like Queens, Jackson Heights has come to represent (what Nicholson stressed) would be the world in a few years.

The arrival of South Asians-Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc- means that there are new concerns that must be addressed. Nicholson recalls that property values in Jackson Heights dropped dramatically. His home, valued at $90,000, dropped to a value of $35,000. In Chhaya’s article, research found that many immigrants are concerned with jobs, cost of housing, and as one resident put it, “the overcrowding in schools.” (10) In addition, the research and numbers show that while many of the South Asian immigrants have gone to college, the jobs that they are getting are not much better than the ones that uneducated immigrants get. About 80% of the survey’s participants made less than $40,000 but 47% of the participants in general went to university. How is this possible, considering that in Joe Salvo’s presentation and research, we learned that Latino immigrants, most of whom have not gone to college, are earning around $30,000-$35,000?   In fact, many of the South Asian immigrants are taking low-end jobs, such as taxi drivers, laundry cleaners, etc. This disparity, however, should not be easily dismissed.

My American Girls Reponse

My American Girls is about Ortiz’s family and the challenges they face as immigrants. Not having proper education, Mrs. Ortiz has to raise her three daughters with a couple of low paying jobs. She wants her daughters to work hard so that they don’t have to suffer like her. Although there are lots of complications and hardships, the Ortiz’s house is full of visitors and neighbors. These Dominicans are brought together because they face similar challenges. Because they understand each other, the neighbors have special relationships with each other.

The community and Ortiz family impact Mrs. Ortiz’s girls who were born in America. While Monica, the oldest sister, is the one with the least ties to her native heritage and she is the one who has the balance between her Dominican side and her American side. She gives up her dream of acting to make her parents proud and instead pursues a more stable job. The family’s expectation has shaped her educational and career path.

Aida, the second oldest sibling, represents a young teenage girl who seeks attention and independence. She begins working at McDonalds to help her parents, but in the end, it affects her grades negatively and gets fired for being late to work. She thinks she is grown up, but the reality shows that she still needs perseverance and patience. Finally, Mayra, the youngest out of the three sisters, is an example of an immigrant who is still tied to her homeland. She struggles in academics and hangs out with her neighborhood Dominican friends. Out of three sisters, she is the one who is most badly caught in between two different cultures. She wants to live a Dominican life, but the environment won’t let her

My American Girls Reaction

The documentary, My American Girls: A Dominican Story, sheds light onto the living situation of many immigrant families and first-generation Americans, particularly Latinos. This extended family spans the four floors of their home: struggling through school and low-wage jobs during the week, and celebrating the weekends as they dance and sing in Spanish in the backyard. In this sense, the Ortiz family was almost a community unto itself.

However, each of the three daughters, or “American girls,” reacted to this community differently. The eldest, Monica, almost completely rejects her Dominican roots, abandoning much of the culture and tradition to be “Americanized” in the most traditional sense (attending an Ivy League university, having a white boyfriend, living in Manhattan away from family, etc.). This is a stark contrast to her younger sisters. Mayra, the youngest, embraces Latino culture, but in a less traditional sense. A self-proclaimed “ghetto” kid, she identifies with other Latino children, and perhaps even Latino stereotypes, and is very limited in a geographical sense (only hanging out with “kids from the block,” so to speak). Aida, the middle child, is almost a melding of the two, having her own “American” ambitions while still trying to keep ties with her Dominican culture and family.

Monica represents the epitome of the “American dream:” coming from nothing, validating the sacrifies her parents made, finding her place in the big city. Mayra, however, represents another faces of “Americanness:” the notion that we are a country of immigrants. In self-identifying, she exemplifies this American tradition of “being from somewhere” and having a sense of culture. Personally, I see the most commonality between Aida and myself. Being a child of immigrants, albeit of different socioeconomic situations, I can understand Aida’s stance on trying to keep ties to your heritage while forging your own path, so to speak. All of these “American identities” stem from being first-generation Americans; these girls have the autonomy to create their own personas, regardless of who their parents are or where they come from. The variability comes from how much they want to maintain ties to their ethnic backgrounds and how far they are willing to go.

Deepening Roots and Creating Space

The Chhaya CDC report entitled “Deepening Roots and Creating Space: Building a Better Future for New York’s South Asians” clearly outlined the problems today’s South Asian immigrants face and make suggestions in how to solve these problems. Although I found this list of recommendations to be a bit lofty in the sense that all of these initiatives require substantial funding, the report explicitly explains the issues that plague this ethnic group.

The two most notable matters of struggle explained were employment and housing, two intertwining facets of a person’s life, regardless of whether or not they are an immigrant. However, how these things are affected differ for South Asians. A staggering statistic claims that nearly 50% of South Asian immigrants have a college degree, while only 8% work technical jobs. This discrepancy is concerning to say the least. Un- and underemployment are issues plaguing the nation as a whole, but for a person having the education and abilities of an accountant to be working as a cab driver is unacceptable. This raises the question of why this is occurring, and according to the report, much of it stems from English language proficiency, or a lack thereof. Therefore, it’s integral for ESOL classes to be implemented in these communities if there is any chance of ameliorating this employment predicament.

Naturally, if one is un- or underemployed, making ends meet can be tough. In explaining the housing situation, the report shows how an overwhelming majority of South Asians are renters. In being renters, they face a whole other set of problems, in particular, paying rent and having a lease. The first is fairly self-explanatory; what is notable is that half of these renters do not have leases, putting them in a precarious situation in terms of keeping their homes. On the other hand, homeowners, especially new ones are at high risk of being victims of a subprime mortgage, considering more than half of them weren’t asked to show proof of income when applying for the mortgage. These issues could be linked back to the language barrier since a) these South Asians may not understand the lease process or the validity of a mortgage, and b) their lack of knowledge in English puts them at lower wage jobs and therefore lower income housing.

Finally, it was also interesting to see that the number one reason for moving into a neighborhood was maintaining a sense of community, linking back to the concept of these immigrant enclaves. One participant is even quoted as feeling out of place in a community that is majority Chinese and Hispanic. There were also links to the Jerry Vattamala talk, especially in regards to the underrepresentation of South Asians and the un-acknowledgement of Indo-Caribbeans in the US Census. Personally, I think the report does a good job of explaining and enlightening the issues of South Asians, but there are still leaps to be made before the initiatives recommended can really be mobilized.

South Asians and The Barrier War

Chhaya CDC Report of 2012 has me absolutely appalled at the conditions of the South Asian community in New York City. What stood out the most was the fact that almost 47 percent of the South Asians surveyed held college degrees, but only 8 percent work in professional or technical jobs. That I felt was the main focal point of this reading. The language barrier was one of many big challenges faced by this demographic group. These language barriers are the main cause of the job and home issues this group faces. The issues faced at homes, is faced primarily by families renting houses or apartments who are faced with different issues that other renters do not ordinarily face. Most of them are paid in cash, therefore they must pay their rent in cash without any proof of ever having paid their rent to the homeowners. In addition, these South Asian immigrants primarily do not speak English, therefore they are not known of their rights as a renter and are often unaware of when they’re living in a rent control apartment. And since they pay rent in cash, there is no way of proving that they are being cheated out of their money.

Opportunity barriers are another prime issue facing this group South Asians. In one of the surveys done, it was noted that a young Bangladeshi male who has a master’s degree in accounting but currently works as a Taxi driver. Because of their different language, it is difficult for South Asians to gain work in their field of expertise. Immediate action should be taken to allow for this group of people to be accommodated for their differences in language. After all, 80 percent of the surveyed people were either US citizens or permanent residents. The South Asian community has had the largest percentage increase in population in New York City, 159 percent increase. There days are soon to come, because they’ll be around for many more years to come.

Becoming American, Being Indian

In Khandelwal’s article “Becoming American, Being Indian,” various aspects of the lives of Indians are depicted. Some themes include the spatial landscape of South Asian New York, the locations of the concentrations of these people, the range of religions practiced by Indian immigrants, and the change of Indian immigrants from a “professional middle-class population” to one of “diverse occupations.” With the recent migration, trajectories show a shift of these people from Manhattan to New York’s outer boroughs and suburbs. That being said, along with the growing numbers of new immigrants, streets are becoming more overcrowded and there is an accompanying frequent turnover in local businesses. Despite the drop in the number of Indians living in Manhattan, the sheer number of Indians who work in and around NYC has increased, with medical students, businessmen, cab drivers, and newsstand workers looking to the city and its surrounding environs as an opportunity for greater financial success. As evidence, anywhere you go in the city, you can expect to see South Asians employed as cabdrivers or as newsstand workers. These jobs are those that are readily available to them, since they are either uneducated or have little money to tide them over until they find better employment. Simply put, they need the money now. I can attest to this harsh reality, having an uncle who drives a taxi. The “taxi community” consists of many Indian people who know each other and establish the connections that allow other newcomers to join this service industry to make ready money. Even though the salary may not be sufficient, driving a cab still enables these new and/or uneducated South Asians to earn a living and make some money to support their families. Those who are ambitious certainly have the opportunity to work overtime. Khandelwal continues to go on in greater detail about the importance of the “taxi community” to Indian immigrants and to elaborate as to how this recent influx of Indian immigrants has changed the community as a whole.

South Asians in Queens

Michael Maly is able to show how Jackson Heights transformed from a once upper middle class community to the hyper-diverse neighborhood it is today. He does this by making a clear timeline of events that occurred in Queens. In the very beginning of the twentieth century, Queens was nothing more than rural land made up of individual townships. Ten years later, Jackson Heights was bought by Edward MacDougall’s Queensboro Corporation. When MacDougall began to develop Queens, he imagined an exclusive community of young, educated Protestants living in an area of “calm tree-lined streets” while “sharing a common garden.” The construction of the Queensboro Bridge as well as the E, F and 7 trains provided a link between Queens and Manhattan. These new modes of transportation as well as the Hart-Cellar Immigration Act of 1965, which decreased restricted immigration, attracted a “massive influx” of immigrants from Latin America, Asia and the Caribbean. Initially a diverse community was formed but “white flight,” the move of white settlers to escape immigrants, followed soon after. The steep drop of white settlers in the area actually proved to be beneficial to immigrants in more ways than one. First, the value of real estate significantly declined. This made it possible for new immigrants to afford housing that they would have been unable to afford if the area remained exclusive to the upper middle-class. In addition, residents were able to open up new businesses and institutions in the area that catered to the likings of new immigrants such as Indian grocery stores, sari shops and temples. Queens went from rural land to an exclusive community of white Protestants into a safe haven for immigrants. Today we see Queens as a hyper-diverse community that many South Asians have found a home in.

Unity Within the Community

The articles mention how the U.S. government tends to generalize immigrants into basic ethnic groups and fail to recognize the diversity within these groups. This is a result of America’s lack of understanding of the newer yet increasingly prominent immigrant groups such as the South Asians. This lack of understanding makes it difficult for the federal government to meet the needs of these immigrants and, as a result, these immigrants have a harder time thriving in the city. Here, we can ask the question of whether the government is actually making an attempt to understand them.  If they are, perhaps they lack the resources to be able to do so.

However, we see that within these communities immigrants form their own organizations (such as Chhaya CDC) in an attempt to better the conditions immigrants face when attempting to live in the United States. These organizations have a much better understanding of the diversity and culture of the ethnic groups. They are more efficient than the government consensus at obtaining data that accurately reflects the condition of the community. They are more in touch with the culture and traditions of these ethnic groups and much more inclined to help these groups for the sake of bettering their lives. They also work for representation in the government for these minority ethnic groups so that the needs of these groups can be met and actually provided for by the government.

In my opinion, the forming of institutions and organizations within ethnic communities is a result of a need for protection, support, and representation. These organizations help bring the voices of the community together and permit them to be heard by the government. Where the U.S. government will not or cannot efficiently provide for the needs of these ethnic communities, the organizations will step in and attempt to resolve the problem or attempt to pressure the government to do something about it.

Becoming American, Being Indian

In this piece the author, Khandelwal, discusses the “Indian” immigrant experience in America and the larger implications of the term “South Asian”. While the discussion of the “Indian”-American experience in Queens was fascinating, especially as a life log Queens resident who has observed these dynamics first hand, I found the issue of defining “Indian” and the issue of who should assume responsibility for that issue, to be most interesting.

Khandewlwal addresses is how exactly to define “Indian” identity and how it fits in within the larger category of “South Asian” identity. While the author does not provide a definitive definition (indeed, considering the vast diversity within and originating from the subcontinent there really can be none) what is settled is that the American manner of defining “Indian” and “South Asian” is flawed, or at least, lacking perspective. Here’s my question though: upon whom does this burden of definition fall? Should American society be obliged to properly define a set of cultures that are distinctly not American (and what is American?)? In my opinion, yes, there is inherit social and humanistic value in properly defining and understanding a foreign culture. However, for the practical purposes of the American government, isn’t it better to simply construct a definition that would best serve the needs of a people. In a sense, much of the Indian immigrant community would benefit from this broad association and conflation with other south Asians. Historically, there have been more communal and non-profit resources designated towards to struggling South Asian immigrants in general, as opposed to those struggling Indian immigrants whose economic needs are consistently marginalized the the “Indian” economic elite who maintain an image of Indian communal  wealth and comfort. In other words, the “burden of definition” should fall solely upon the “Indian” community, and the American government should simply be obligated to define “Indian” only insofar  as it helps and improves the lives of the immigrants.

South Asians of Queens

Deepening Roots and Creating Space: Building a Better Future for New York’s South Asians gives a clear, thorough urban analysis of the South Asian plight in New York. Using a variety of research tools and methods such as statistics, focus groups, surveys, charts, and the current US census data, the Chhaya Community Development Corporation specifically focuses on the dire housing and economic development needs of the South Asian community.

South Asians, the fastest growing ethnic population, are composed of immigrants from a variety of countries in that region. They face a great deal of obstacles in their attempts to maintain housing, mainly language barriers, discrimination, and limited civil service access. Chhaya describes how most of them (70%) are forced to rent due to high costs. The 30% of them who do own homes bought them recently within the past decade, and they struggle to pay the mortgage; to afford these costs, they rent out their basements or attics illegally. Renters also engage in dubious behavior as well, for they rent in cash, do not own leases, or live in the informal units. In not having anything on paper, they make themselves vulnerable to displacement. Furthermore, the places that they find themselves dwelling in are overcrowded and are just generally bad living conditions. Particularly because of the recent economic downturn, they are much more unwilling to do renovations to their places. The prices for the most part continue to be on the rise and unfortunate statistic is that the number foreclosures continues to go up as well, specifically in the Queens section that is 50% South Asian.

Another issue that Chhaya raises is employment for South Asians. Their economic mobility is severely limited and therefore they are mostly confined to the service industry. An ironic statistic is that regarding education, the highest academic achievement for them is either a college degree or below a high school degree. Chyyana also includes anecdotal evidence to support the claim that for most people, the higher education still does not have an effect on their job; they are still stymied in the classic South Asian service industry. Especially as of late, they have faced severe unemployment, which causes them to have difficulty meeting a living wage. Therefore, the problem of employment and housing is highly correlated.

Chyyana gives many recommendations as to how to ameliorate the housing predicament and substandard living conditions that South Asians are facing. And while I understand that he is trying to address a severe issue that occurs today, I do not think that some of his solutions are feasible. It is indeed problematic that South Asians have trouble paying the high housing costs. However, I do not think that lowering down payment costs is the solution. Chyyana mentions that during the housing bubble they, like others, did not pay a down payment; when the bubble burst, many of them went into foreclosure. The lack of a down payment clearly tempted them to buy houses that they could not afford; had they paid the initial sum, they might have thought twice before signing on the dotted line. A down payment is a therefore a safety measure in the housing market. If we lower it, the economy will surely return to its nadir a la 2007. I certainly believe in helping educate marginalized people and immigrants into making proper, sound financial decisions, but I do not believe in policies that will negatively affect the outside economy.

Response to My American Girls

The documentary, My American Girls, focuses on the lives of the Ortiz family residing in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. It provides an insightful window into the lives of this family and the difficulties they face. This is a reflection of the lives of many immigrant families throughout New York City. The community and the environment play a vital role in the development of the children within the family.

The neighborhood and community supported the Ortiz family, but at times it also affected their lives negatively. The support the Ortiz family receives from their community is evident in their weekly barbeques and events where their friends and family congregate to celebrate and dance like they did back in their native home in Puerto Rico. Monica’s surprise graduation party is another example of the community’s support. The neighborhood the Ortiz family resides permits their children to be more in touch with their ethnic roots but because it is a less affluent part of the city, as Sandra complains one night while accompanying her daughter back home because of unsafe conditions, the police are less inclined to enforce the law there. This issue of safety is one that usually comes with living in a neighborhood with working-class immigrants.

Mayra and Aida were more inclined to participate in neighborhood events than focus on her studies. They represent the challenges children of immigrants face in America. They are more in touch with their Puerto Rican roots, but as a result are much more detached from the social standards in America. Monica is the most Americanized of the three daughters in terms of culture and social standards. She moves into the city and attempts to “draw a line” between her life and her family’s. However, we see that because she conforms to American social standards, she appears to be the most successful of the three daughters academically, socially, and financially. In terms of upward mobility, she moves to a much more affluent neighborhood of the city. So does this mean that assimilation to traditional American standards results in natural upward mobility for immigrants or children of immigrants?

In the video, the daughters in the Ortiz family lived in a house with their extended family. The basement, first floor, second floor, and the third floor are all partitioned to families within their family (i.e. the Ortiz family that was interviewed lives on the third floor). This is a characteristic of Sunset Park that Min Zhou describes in her writings, but instead of one family renting parts of the house out to others, the Ortiz family was large enough to all find work and pay for the house this way. Min Zhou’s writing focuses on the influx of Asian immigrants. She mentions how in 1990, the neighborhood was fifty-one percent Latino, but that an increasing number of Asian immigrants were moving into Sunset Park. However, this documentary was filmed in the late 1990s and depicted the image of a still prominent Latino community within the neighborhood.

My American Girls reflects the lives of many immigrants in New York City and the difficulties they face. In this film we see the importance of culture and we also see how American culture can clash with the culture of immigrants. Even within the ethnic neighborhoods immigrants reside in and seek comfort from, there are conflicts and safety issues. The difficulties immigrants face in a new country are endless, however as in the case of the Ortiz family, some are successful in achieving their dreams, but “do the ends justify the means”?

Sunset Park Through My Eyes

Having grown up in Sunset Park, I was easily able to identify the surroundings. The parks, the houses-all areas that I have, in some way or another, passed by. Yet, it was definitely a shock to see what Sunset Park was like on the big screen, to outsiders. Most of Sunset Park is not middle class or anywhere near that strata. Sunset Park and its residents are predominately working-class immigrants and their families. Therefore, Mrs. Ortiz and her three daughters are one family amongst many others, struggling to make a better life for themselves in a strange country.

I would argue that her three daughters: Monica, the eldest, Aida, the middle child, and Mayra, the youngest, have characteristics that all define the American experience. As the film goes to show, all three sisters are very different, and yet, the same.

Monica is the epitome of the American dream: she is from a poor family who studies and works very hard, graduating from one of the best institutions in the world. Yet, she originally wants to sacrifice her happiness-acting- for a steady job as a doctor for her parents’ happiness. Monica is also the one who pushes aside, willingly or involuntarily, her Dominican heritage. As she herself and her sisters said, she doesn’t have many Latino friends. She characterizes the immigrant who wants to adopt a new identity, someone who is more American. This is part of the American experience: an immigrant or the second generation immigrant is eager to discard their old identity in favor of conforming. Monica also describes herself as a “jack of all trades, master of none” which is something a lot of young adults face nowadays in an economy that demands multiple skills.

Aida says that according to her psychology textbook, she “is the typical middle child.” As we see, she fits that description perfectly. Much of the film doesn’t focus on her problems, but rather on Monica and on Mayra. Aida struggles to get attention from her parents, who are working long hours as custodians at the hospital and at the doctor’s office. She tries to find her own independence-like many of us- by getting a job at McDonald’s. It was supposed to be a way for her to not ask her parents for money, yet she ends up getting fired because she is late too frequently. Aida is the immigrant who tries to find her identity and the teenager who is growing up and trying to get independence through his/her own means.

Mayra is the youngest child, and she is the one who is closest to her Dominican heritage. She calls herself-or her sisters do-the “ghetto Dominican.” As we see in the film, Mayra struggles in school; she hangs out on the streets with her friends and family. Her mother, Mrs. Ortiz, tries to be more involved in Mayra’s activities in school. Mayra is the one who famously dubs her house as a “hotel in the Dominican Republic.” Mayra represents the experience of the immigrant who is yet unable to cut ties to her heritage. Unlike Monica, who has few connections to her Dominican background, Mayra is immersed in it.

All three of these sisters represent the American Dream and the American Experience in some way or another. All the sisters come from humble background, but all have their heads held high: they may struggle and toil as their parents are/were, but what they will realize is that despite the work that goes into achieving a better life in America, the result will be so worth it. Eight years after the film was created, in fact, the Ortiz family opened a hotel in the Dominican Republic, which is managed by Aida. All three sisters have higher education and families of their own now. Now, that is the American experience.

South Asians in NYC

The reading Deepening Roots and Creating Space: Building a Better future for New York’s South Asians  discusses a study that was done by Chhaya Community Development Corporation and DataCenter to uncover the underlying causes of the many of the complaints held by South Asian descent in New York City. The study’s aim was to create more stable communities by granting the individuals of neighborhoods such as Jackson Heights the opportunity to voice their experiences and concerns regarding their housing and community needs. The CChaya Community Development partnered with DataCenter, a national research and training organization for social justice movements to study marginalized communities and help uncover knowledge in order develop community leadership and power and inspire change within the community.

The South Asian population, like the Latino population, is one of the fastest growing ethnic population in New York City, with an over 159% increase in it population since 1990. What caught my attention while reading this study is the comparisons that can be made between the South Asian population and the Latino population, particularly in the sorts of struggles they currently face. Like the latino population, the South Asian population was also hard hit by the economy. Many South Asians have been forced to live in overcrowded conditions due to the many barriers that prevent them from economic mobility, namely the limited English proficiency of 60% of South Asians, a statistic that has decreased in the years 2007 -2010.  A major concern of the South Asian community is the struggle to find adequate jobs. In contrast to Latinos, 47% of South Asians have college degrees. However, the concern for South Asians is finding professional jobs in their field, with only 8% having jobs in their field of expertise. This obstacle is made even more difficult by the fact that many of the jobs available to them do not accept degrees obtained outside the United States.  Furthermore, another major concern is the struggle to find affordable housing. Even with housing, issues such as lack of heating, lack of leases and discrimination by landlords are still prevalent.

The study presents possible solutions to many of the problems currently faced by South Asians. The reading states that programs can be implemented to teach individuals with limited English proficiency the language and thus aid them in finding jobs. In addition, job training programs can also be implemented to provide individuals with the skills needed to excel at these jobs. Certification programs can also be created to allow South Asians to make use of degrees obtained in their countries of origin. Also, legalizing illegally converted homes can also benefit the South Asian population by raising the property value, allowing them to benefit from supplemental income  and in the process, creating affordable homes for large families.

On a personal note, one of the issues discussed in this reading that caught my interest was the struggle South Asians face of finding a job in their filed that accepts degrees obtained in a different country. Prior to starting at Queens college. My parents had always discussed the possibility of me starting college in Costa Rica. The college education in Costa Rica is said to be very good, and I entertained the idea for a while, thinking that perhaps I can move back to the United States once I graduate from college and obtain a job here. It was interesting to find out that maybe that plan might not have worked out because of some jobs refusing to accept those degrees. It was also interesting to read about Jackson Heights from the point of view of South Asians, with many of them embracing the diversity and others feeling isolated. Perhaps other programs can be implemented to make sure that the South Asian and White or Latino community becomes more integrated in order to minimize such feelings of isolation.

Latinos in Corona

Ricourt and Dante’s Introduction: The Emergence of Latino Panethnicity talked about the population of latinos in Corona, as well as the change in population of other parts of the borough of Queens.  They started off by discussing the sense of unity Latinos of Corona found in their common language.  This was the first thing that stood out to me about this passage.  I found it interesting language was the most unifying factor of the Hispanic population.  It did make the most sense to me, though, because as different as various Hispanic cultures are, the language is the one thing that they have in common.  That is the one thing that they can depend on to communicate and connect with each other.  Since Spanish is what attracts Latinos to Corona, it makes it easier for more and more Hispanics to feel comfortable living in the area, interacting, and creating a community of their own.

As a child, I spent a lot of time in Corona and I remember looking around and thinking that my family was “the outsider” in this area.  Reading this passage made it seem like it was in fact the other way around, at least at one point.  Ricourt and Dante explain the growth of Latinos in Corona and how it was a result of “new immigration.”  However, before this Corona’s population was predominantly white and black.  Soon, more blacks would move into the area and whites would move out.  By the 1990’s, the area became multi-Latino.  Although the area became predominantly Hispanic, there were people moving in from various spanish countries, from Puerto Rico to Panama.  All of these cultures mixed into one area can be hard to believe.  There are bound to be separations and divisions, but as a whole, Latinos have made Corona their home.

A Different Jackson Heights

Reading the essay about the development of Jackson Heights, Queens, I realized that no matter how hard one tries, one cannot always control the outcome of a neighborhood. There are too many outside factors that make this control difficult. MacDougall lost in his fight to create an upper middle class to upper class exclusive neighborhood, Jackson Heights. Building the neighborhood in a great economy, he banned certain groups of people, such as Jews and Blacks, from moving to Jackson Heights, but when the Great Depression hit, this all changed. People could no longer afford these homes, so some people moved out, and prices of all the homes dropped. The Great Depression did set up Jackson Heights for its new dynamic of being a diverse neighborhood, but it was not until decades after the Great Depression that immigrants, other than Jews or Catholics, moved to Jackson Heights. The outside factors were the introducing of two new acts that made opened the door for immigrants to come to the United States. Since Jackson Heights’ real estate market was still bad when these acts were put in place, Jackson Heights was the perfect place for immigrants to settle.

The essay describes Jackson Heights, specifically Roosevelt Avenue, as a place full of life. Every block has stores representing a different nationality. What became of Jackson Heights seems better than MacDougall’s original dream of creating a citadel-like neighborhood composed of only wealthy whites. The Jackson Heights that was created seems much more interesting and attractive. It is so attractive that people come from other states to shop in the area, similar to how people go to Flushing to do their shopping.

The topic of controlling who inhabits an area is intriguing to me because in my town that issue has recently been coming up. A developer wants to build new apartments in my town, but people are afraid that kids are going to settle there, and the schools are already crowded. The developer can try to make the apartments as unattractive to families with kids as it wants, but as we saw with MacDougall’s efforts to control, outside factors can change everything.

Miyares – Changes in Jackson Heights

“From Exclusionary Covenant to Ethnic Hyperdiversity in Jackson Heights, Queens” by Ines M. Miyares mainly focused on Jackson Heights to demonstrate the dramatic change in its ethnic population from the past few decades. Jackson Heights was not meant to be diverse. It was supposed to be the getaway for high earning working people from the New York City. The houses were grand and the neighborhood was clean.

However, the stock market crash in 1929 and the stagnation of real estate 1930s became the spark to the change of Jackson Heights from a rich white town into a town of hyperdiversity. Because of these economical problems, apartments were very hard to sell. In 1950s, finally a new group of people started moving into Jackson heights. These groups of people were Latin Americans who had entrepreneurial experience and were in need to establish a stable business. Because these Latinos were experienced and educated, it was common for them to settle down in Jackson Heights’ “discounted” apartments (thanks to stock market crash).

However, even as late as 1970s, Jackson heights was called “a largely white, middle-class neighborhood”. So what factor impacted the diversity of Jackson Heights the most? The Immigration Reform Act of 1965 removed the quotas on immigrants and made immigration more advantageous. This new wave of immigrants was highly educated and they settled in neighborhoods with large and affordable housings, easily accessible public transportation, and available storefronts for new businesses (and Jackson Heights was a perfect match for Hispanic/Latino and Asian population). As shown in the article’s chart, in 2000, 63% of Jackson Heights’ residents were foreigners. It really is ironic to actually think that Jackson Heights was supposed to be for white rich Europeans. Coincidently, the conditions in Jackson Heights were perfect for the immigrants and this coincidence made Jackson Heights one of the most diverse city in the world.

Ricourt & Dant

Milagros Ricourt and Ruby Dante heavily focused on Corona in Introduction: The Emergence of Latino Panethnicity. The authors discussed that while Corona is now predominately filled with Latin American immigrants, it wasn’t always that way. Dating back to the 1950s, Corona was made up of almost 43,000 whites and 5,000 blacks. Each year, the number of whites drastically decreased while blacks increased (up until Latin Americans began to migrate to Corona, which at that time the number of blacks then decreased.) White flight clearly impacted the Corona neighborhood and molded it into the predominately Latino neighborhood it is today. But while Corona is majority Latino, there is no specific group of Latinos that dominate the area. Between Dominicans, Columbians, Puerto Ricans, Ecuadorians, Cubans, Mexicans, Peruvians, Salvadorians, Hondurans and Panamanians, not any of these ethnicities have an absolute majority. While there isn’t a perfect divide between the groups, each group has their own nook in the community.

While I was reading Introducing Corona, I was very intrigued reading the schedule that was laid out. There was a strong image of people from all different countries of the world standing on the same platform, waiting for the same 7 train. All of these people had their own stories, backgrounds and beliefs but in that moment, all of them had the same goal: to get to on the train and head into Manhattan for work. Reading this passage gave me an almost empty feeling because thinking that there are people who take the same trains for years, that will never actually interact. While they may see and recognize one another, they see that they are not the same ethnicity and therefore do not engage with each other. It is the same as the mothers who go and pick up their kids from school. While they wait with the same individuals everyday, the Latin Americans, Indians and Chinese women all stand separately. The divide between races go beyond the mother countries and translates even in Queens, New York.

 

Jones-Correa on Community

Michael Jones-Correa opens his book, Between Two Nations: The Political Predicament of Latinos in New York City, with a chapter entitled, “Intimate Strangers: Immigration to Queens.” Right off the bat, the title introduces an interesting idea that Jones-Correa further develops. This notion of an “intimate stranger,” a paradoxical sentiment, lends itself to what Jones-Correa coins as “communities overlapping but not touching.” However, before he addresses that, he gives the historical and sociological context of this community shift.

According to his premise, the idea of a community being bound by arbitrarily drawn lines is one that can be debated, particularly with regards to Latino immigrants. Queens, having originally been farmland, is a relatively new place to live, in the grand scheme on New York City. Emphasis on the word live, because that is exactly what people in Queens do. This is not an area for tourists or people to simply pass through, but rather a place for people to carry out their daily lives. Therefore, much more emphasis is placed on this idea of a community.

Jones-Correa refers to the white population of these Queens neighborhoods as “white ethnic residents,” accrediting the fact that they were once too immigrants. However, they do not identify with recent immigrants. Jones-Correa introduces the concept of assimilation, without actually saying the word. He quotes a person saying he never spoke Italian to his friends, despite living in an Italian neighborhood as a child. This contrasts the American-born Latinos who still converse in Spanish with their peers. This thereby lends itself to the idea that perhaps, if Latino immigrants more consciously tried to “blend in” and abide by the social rules put in place by the community’s original residents, there would be no problems.

However, this often isn’t the case, bringing back the idea of an “intimate stranger.” The idea of “communities overlapping but not touching” refers to the reality of an “overlap,” in the sharing of a space, without “touching,” the interaction of the inhabitants. Jones-Correa addresses this in his opening, painting a picture of the 7 train as full of people, but still being a solitary endeavor. Therefore, the question is raised of 1) whether or not asking these people to assimilate is ethnocentric, and 2) how can we integrate these various enclaves, so to speak, into a single thriving community?

Latino Urbanism….The Disappearance of an “Immigrant”

Coming to America, immigrants are immigrants, new to the land and to the American culture. However, when they settle in, they settle mostly in a community that consists more of them and more of their religion and their identity. Therefore, their “immigrant” label diminishes due to the fact that they basically integrate with the people around them. However, the continued interaction among each other as well as social events, they create their own identity. Throughout Dante’s piece, we see the factors that play a role in leaning immigrants to join with their “own” and become their own identity with them. Initially, there weren’t as many Latinos in the Corona but those factors and time greatly influenced the transformation of the background of the community. One factor was White flight that was effective in the transformation in which the number of blacks decreased.

As a son of Indian immigrants, I can compare what Dante says to my own parents. The initial action to reside is somewhere comfortable where you know the people and the culture so they don’t feel the “social force” acting upon them. Not only, but the nature of the growth of population also impacts the emergence of the Latino community. From two states to all 50 states, the population of Latino communities have increased, and within each city they gradually get higher.This article explains much of the demographics of the emergence of Latino Communities as well as that of Corona. With 44% being Latinos, it has been divided into three subareas, North Corona, Corona Plaza, and Corona Heights. Much of the emergence of Lationos has come about from social issues and the interaction with people surrounding them. That is what creates unity as well as a form of identity for themselves. Even though they all come from different nations and parts of the world, they become a group when they surround themselves with their own.

The Transformation of Jackson Heights

If you told Edward Archibald MacDougall that one day the neighborhood he founded and created, Jackson Heights, would someday be one of the most diverse places in the United States, he wouldn’t believe you. The intention of MacDougall was to create a neighborhood meant for rich white Protestants, one that would primarily exclude blacks, Jews, and Irish Catholics. It’s position offered middle to upper class Protestant whites to easily commute to Midtown Manhattan without having to live in the crowded confides of Manhattan. However, by the year 2000, the number of Hispanics residents outnumbered the number of white residents while the Asian population also began to quickly rise. What is the reason for this sudden change in the demographics in Jackson Heights? Ines Miyares outlines the main reasons for these changes as follows: the 1929 stock market crash, the subsequent real estate market collapse, or the change in immigration policies and patterns after the 1950s.

From its creation, Jackson Heights was a neighborhood filled with large apartments, in the forms of the Greystones, the Chateau apartments, and the Towers. When the Upper-Middle Class white Protestants began moving out of Jackson Heights due to the reasons listed above, the most logical group to move in were those of Hispanic origin. The large apartments were the perfect size to accommodate the large families of Hispanic groups including the Colombians and Cubans, two groups who have brought entrepreneurial experience and the capital needed to establish businesses. This was an unexpected turn of events given the way Jackson Heights was formed in the first place. Interestingly enough, in the year 2000 the number of foreign-born residents accounted for nearly 63 percent of it’s residents, compared to the 32 percent for the other four boroughs of New York City. Jackson Heights has an interesting history in regards to the fact that it started as mostly white Protestant Citadel and has transformed into a highly diverse area for New York City immigrants.

Coexistence

In “Immigration to Queens” the author Michael Jones-Correa discusses the concept of community and how it can be distinguished from other areas. From what I can tell, the author believes that immigrants and older residents live in separate communities because of cultural differences. He generalizes the older residents as “white ethnics” and describes their reaction to the influx of new immigrants in a largely negative light. His conclusion in this reading leaves me with the impression that the immigrants and “white ethnics” lead completely separate lives with rare overlaps and interactions because of the “white ethnics” unwillingness to accept the culture and language of the immigrants.

However, the writings of Ines Miyares, Milgaros Ricourt and Ruby Danto describe the lives of older residents and new immigrants overlapping and coexisting. This is a perspective I more strongly agree with. Though they do explain how within the neighborhood, even amongst immigrants, there is a sense of separation and aloofness from other ethnicities and groups. But it is not as extreme as how Jones-Correa describes it. In Miyares’ writing, she describes this overlapping seen in Churches and organizations in Jackson Heights that provide translations in various languages because of the many ethnicities that utilize these institutions. In the writings by Ricourt and Danto, they describe the conflicts between long-time Italian residents and the more recent Hispanic immigrants. Though these are conflicts, the fact that there are interracial conflicts demonstrates how the supposedly separate communities and people do in fact overlap with each other.

I believe that though the lives of new immigrants and long-time residents may differ, they are not completely separate. They coexist surprisingly well despite having drastically different cultures and values. The tendency for people who share similar values or cultures to congregate is natural, but they do not completely detach themselves from others.

Intimate Strangers

“Intimate Strangers: Immigration to Queens” discusses a fascinating and puzzling paradox: while the borough of Queens is home to one of the most diverse immigrant population in the world, people rarely encounter and deal with a diversity of people within their personal lives. In other words, while a wide diversity of people occupy each other’s physical space, they do not occupy each other’s social space. The authors, Jones and Correa address immediately categorize this paradox as both widespread . In my opinion, this label is at best incomplete and at worst incorrect.

First off, both as a life long Queens resident and an objective reader, I can’t help but completely disagree with the authors’ assertion that the different ethnic populations of Queens do not interact with each other. The main problem with this argument is that the authors conflate geographical proximity with social proximity. They say that because ethnic groups live in distinct areas they do not interact socially with other ethnic groups. This idea is logically flawed. People’s social lives do not have to center around their homes, especially in an ever shrinking and technological world. Just because a person might live in a predominantly Afro-Caribbean area that does not mean that all the people they encounter in their workplace and social zones are Afro-Caribbean. Choice of residence can reflect a variety of cultural factors: dietary restrictions/ preferences, access to religious institutions, etc., but place of residence is by no means a fool proof indicator of the diversity of one’s social connections and preferences. Can geographic proximity predict social proximity? Possibly yes. But in this paper the authors do not make sufficient efforts  to clarify the connection between residence and social ties.

I do, however, find the authors proposal to initiate inter ethnic group contact and community involvement very interesting and effective. While at first it seemed strange that a groups  of strangers should be compelled to get to know each other seemed strange, it makes sense. The city is a big place, and its definitely possible to lose oneself within a small and limited group. The beauty of cities is that they connect not just people, but peoples ideas. If we want our city to succeed we need to create a nurturing environment for intellectual cross fertilization, and this starts by connecting people with one another.

“Intimate strangers: immigration to Queens”

For me, it is difficult to describe New York City is few words because there are just so many various characteristics that distinguish New York City from other major cities in the United States. In the first paragraph of the “Intimate Strangers: Immigration to Queens”, the authors use the elevated number 7 train to paint a picture of how diverse New York City actually is. I have taken the 7 trains multiple times but I never thought that the ride from Times Square to Flushing could actually depict the city as if it were “in transition”. The article notes such interesting details about a mere train route. From times square (a major commercial district), the 7 train goes through Northwestern Queens (the home to a large Central American, South American and Asian populations) and it finally ends in Flushing (a thriving immigrant enclave).

The article also points out that despite a decline in factory jobs (contributing to an increase in unemployment rate), the rate of immigration into NYC still increased because many immigrants were “swept” into low skilled labor. This influx of immigrants contributed to “white flight” and does not only occur when Latinos moved into Jackson Heights. As we have seen before, an increase in Asian immigration in Flushing also contributed greatly to the “white flight” in the region, thus proving that “white flight” generally occurs whenever minorities establish a significant foothold in a neighborhood.

Also, the conflict between the white residents and immigrants (in general) is not fairly new either. This brings up the question: should immigrants try harder to assimilate or should the native residents be accepting of the immigrants’ ways? In the article, the white residents of Jackson Heights associated large immigrant populations with increased in criminal activity and an increased detachment from their original community/neighborhood. Many white residents want these immigrants to behave in an “acceptable” manner, although different groups may consider different things to be acceptable. For example, the article states that the playing of loud music is common in Latino culture however, to white residents, this is not “acceptable”. This continuous tug of war between immigrants and native residents still continues today, as various ethnic groups are moving into largely white neighborhoods, thereby changing the racial and cultural demographics of the area. In the end of the article, the authors consider the lifestyles of the Latino and White residents to be to be “parallel” to one another even though they all share the same spatial area. Although there is some disagreement between the groups due to their differences, it is still very remarkable to see how these communities coexist in a relatively peaceful manner  and contribute to the Jackson Heights’ diversity.

Urbanismo Latino

In Introduction: The Emergence of Latino Panthecity the authors Milagros Ricourt and Ruby Dante discuss the various factors that encourage Latinos to unite under a common identity. The authors state that one of primary reasons that leads to Latino panathecity is the sharing of a common culture and language, a characteristic that sets Latin Americans apart from other ethnic groups.

Being a Latin American woman myself, I can relate to this article. One of the things that I find most fascinating about my ethnicity is the ability to relate to so many other Hispanics, even Hispanics that are not from my country. Sure, each Hispanic carries ties to their own country, a sense of pride that they carry within themselves, an urge to represent their country here in the United States. A tie to their country that the reading calls “trasnationalism”. However, each of us still carries that separate identity of being Costa Rican or Colombian or Dominican etc. and Latin American.  I often feel that this is overlooked by some people. While each of us speaks the same language and has faced similar types of discimination in the past, we each come from countries that have different slang, different politics, different accents and different histories.

However, despite this pride that we have of our country we each still share what the reading calls “simpatia”, a recognition of ourselves in others. I feel that this “simpatia” is made even stronger in here in America. For example, I know for a fact that in Costa Rica if a Costa Rican were to meet a Colombian immigrant for example, that same “joy” of meeting someone Hispanic will not be as present. On the other hand, in the United States, with its great diversity, meeting another Hispanic from a different country would instantly provide a feeling of bonding. Even if the Hispanic is from another country, we know that in this sea of so many people of different cultures, this Hispanic has a culture that is very similar to ours.

         Coincidentally before writing my Latino Urbanism paper, I was watching an annual music award show on tv called “Premio Lo Nuestro”. While watching this award show, I was thinking how amazing it is that in the audience of the show, and among all the Hispanic celebrities, there were people from completely distinct countries. However, they were all united to celebrate one common thing: how far the Latin American music has managed to make an impact in the United States. However, I feel that Hispanics still have a lot of work to do to overcome the various stereotypes that people place on them. The stereotypes that Hispanics will always work at low-paying jobs, never actually progressing and obtaining higher degrees of education. To be honest, I feel that some of these beliefs are right. While there are the occasional Hispanics that rise above these limitations, the majority are far behind and something must be done about this issue. Sure there are some factors that prevent Hispanics from progressing, factors such as the economy that are not under their control. But when it comes to making the effort to assimilate into the country and learn the language, as well making the effort to teach their children the importance of an education and performing well academically, those are factors that are completely in control of the Hispanic individual. I believe that the government should so what they can to help Hispanics succeed in the United States but I also believe that Hispanics should take advantage of all the opportunities they have before them.

Furthermore in the reading Intimate Strangers: Immigration to Queens by Michael Jones-Correa, the author elaborates on many of the issues the prevents the integration of Hispanics and people of other cultures, mainly Europeans. The authors states that that Hispanics and Whites have differing perception of what comprises a community. To Hispanics, a community is in their memory, a shared sense of home that is combines elements of their homeland and their new neighborhoods in America. To a European, a community is based on physical borders such as streets or familiar landmarks in the neighborhood. An issues that stems from this discrepancy in perceptions is the tendency of Whites to push Hispanics to the “margins” of the neighborhood, and thereafter avoiding those borders because of the association they have of Hispanics with violence, drugs and prostitution. Eventually, many of these Whites decide to leave these communities to live in places that have a lower concentration of Hispanics. It is vital to research these issues today in order to understand not only the future demography of our city but also to  facilitate Latinos in integrating into our communities and society so they can benefit themselves and our country.

La communidad latina de Queens

Latinos, as well as Asians, are an increasing population in New York City. Many of these new and recent immigrants have been settling in Queens and Brooklyn, with a few exceptions in Washington Heights and lower Manhattan. Most notably, the Latino community has been growing rapidly in Corona and in Jackson Heights. Unlike the immigrants before them, who had filled manufacturing jobs and other blue-collar jobs, these immigrants are taking jobs that are primarily “low-skilled…low paying…” (Jones-Correa 19)

Based on some of the former readings, there is an understanding that most of New York City was originally white; this population has reportedly been on the decline as more minorities are moving in and settling in white neighborhoods. Amongst this immigrant wave are Latinos. For this week, the readings focused on Corona and Jackson Heights. Here is where two articles disagree with one another; whereas Miyares states that Jackson Heights has been increasingly diverse, Jones-Correa states that there is a strong Latino community there. Either way, the growing numbers contribute to Queens’ diversity.

As previously proven with the influx of Chinese immigrants who settled in previously suburban Flushing, white residents will only go so far to tolerate new immigrants. Likewise, there was also a backlash against immigrants moving to Corona and Jackson Heights. In one situation, a neighbor complained that the Latinos didn’t speak English. “They never consider this their home…these kids, they are talking…in Spanish and they were born here.” (Jones-Correa 27-28) This has been a reoccurring theme in the articles and in class: immigrants who refuse to learn and speak English. In another article by Ricourt & Dante, a particular situation had a group of young Italians in Corona use violence against the Latinos.

What seems to be the issue that affects both the Chinese and Latino community is that they are simply not “good guests.” This goes back to the metaphor used in Jones-Correa’s article. The initial residents (hosts) will allow foreigners (guests) into their midsts, because they believe that the guests have had a hard life before their arrival. Yet, the hosts will expect that the guests will learn the rules and toe the line. Immigrants in the 19th and early 20th century struggled to adapt to their new homes: willingly dropping their last names to new “American ones” and forsaking their cultures to become an “American.” That does not seem to be the case for these new immigrants, who instead of “assimilating,” (as that word is so often thrown around) choose to live in enclaves with people who are similar to them in ethnicity and culture and do not live by the rules. These immigrants, therefore, ignore the rules. As a result, they must “pay the price.”

The Transformation of a Neighborhood: Jackson Heights

Miyares’ “From Exclusionary Covenant to Ethnic Hyperdiversity in Jackson Heights, Queens” chronicles the transformation of Jackson Heights from its pre-Great Depression days to the place it is today. Originally, the area was intended for an elite, white suburban community for the upper-middle and middle class. Even the name “Heights” promoted it as a place that exuded prestige and that had an elevated ambience as Edward MacDougall envisioned. It was initially the “first garden apartment community,” characterized by its private gardens; its financial plan of the co-op was reminiscent of the more upscale co-ops on Fifth Avenue. Despite MacDougall’s clear vision, Jackson Heights soon transformed in a way that he would never have expected. It became clear that what happened was completely out of his control and there could have been no way for him to determine Jackson Heights’ future.

The metamorphosis from being a homogenous, upper crust neighborhood to a diverse, bustling one resulted from the Stock Crash in 1929. The people could no longer afford to live there, and consequently vacancies and price cuts ensued. Those living arrangement changes, combined with eased immigration restriction policies and the availability of transportation, resulted in an influx of new dwellers in this particular area. Large multi story apartments and two story row homes, originally intended for the wealthy were subsequently divided, yet were still spacious enough for the new households. The leisurely aspect soon disappeared as the heterogeneous population took over.

As a result of the deluge of immigrants, Jackson Heights became marked by its immense diversity. Queens has the highest percentage of diversity out of all the New York boroughs, but there is an even higher percentage specifically within the area of Jackson Heights. Other areas experienced ethnic and racial change as a result of waves of immigrants, but only Jackson Heights maintained the distinction of being the only hyperdiverse neighborhood with no dominant cultural group or language.

The part of Jackson Heights that epitomizes the neighborhood’s essence is Roosevelt Avenue. Having never been to Jackson Heights, I can only imagine this place; I imagine that it is a microcosm of the world, a small land segment in which all cultures are represented. The shops are, among others, Indian, Korean and Latino. I find it ironic that a place that was intended to be exclusive now bursts at the seams with cultural diversity.

An important point the author wishes to make is that it is beyond the control of any human to determine what the future of a place will be. MacDougall envisioned Jackson Heights as a suburban neighborhood for the wealthier whites, but evolution uprooted this plan in favor of enabling it to become a place that welcomes all different immigrants.

Intimate Strangers: Northwestern Queens 15 Years Later

Michael Jones-Correa published “Intimate Strangers: Immigration to Queens” in his book Between Two Nations: The Political Predicament of Latinos in New York City in 1998, but today you can still note many of the same truths that he wrote about 15 years ago. Northwestern Queens still attracts thousands of new immigrants every year from all over the world, especially Asians and Hispanics. His opening description of people on the 7 train sounds like it could have been written yesterday.

In my hometown, Elmhurst, I see the same pattern of immigrants on top of immigrants on top of immigrants. On my block alone, that I know of, there are people of Irish, Chinese, Korean, Argentinian, Italian, Ecuadorian, Mexican, African-American, Polish, Filipino, and Japanese heritage. I listen as all of these people work to learn English, and I watch as their children become more and more a part of a world that they will never fully belong to. I have all of these neighbors, all of us so close to one another, but our neighborhood is pretty much the only thing that we all share. This raises the question: how truthful is the geographic idea of a community?

Jones-Correa offers two opposing views of what “community” means by focusing on Jackson Heights. To the older white residents, who he calls “white ethnics,” communities are well-defined areas enclosed by recognized borders. They assign certain characteristics and values to each neighborhood.

To Hispanic immigrants, community refers to the social community shared between them. Even though they come from different countries, they bond through their shared language and experiences. To them, the borders between neighborhoods are not so important.

Jones-Correa cites Roosevelt Ave. as a recognized border between Jackson Heights and Elmhurst. This street, which runs under the 7 line, is a highly concentrated strip of Hispanic stores and restaurants. He writes that the entire reason that this street developed the way it did was because the white ethnics pushed the new immigrants to the edges of town, and they avoided it because they associated it with crime.

Since then, Roosevelt Ave. has commercialized somewhat, and is not regarded as being so “dirty” as it used to be. It is still a main street in the area for Hispanics merchants and businesses. The concentration of Hispanics along this street eventually pushed into the rest of Elmhurst and Jackson Heights as more and more white people left. In Jackson Heights, they now make up the plurality of the population.

The year after Jones-Correa’s book was published, a section of Jackson Heights was granted historical status. In this chapter, he wrote about how it was an attempt for the whites to hold onto some power over land usage. The next year, they succeeded. How successful was this move, however? Though the buildings granted historical status are typically controlled by whites, Hispanics have moved further into all other parts of the neighborhood and their numbers are still on the rise.

Overall, I believe that some of the tension between the white ethnics and Hispanics has calmed. It may either be that there are too few whites left to protest, or that they recognize that they are outnumbered, but within the past 15 years, the Hispanic push into Jackson Heights has been relentless and mostly uncontested. This has been true of the region for several decades now, and the dynamics we see in these neighborhoods are changing everyday. At the same time, we can recognize this as the normal story of Queens, the immigrant’s landing spot. Some things just don’t change.

What is Community?

Michael Jones-Correa’s “Intimate Strangers: Immigration to Queens,” discusses the dichotomy between white ethnics and Latin Americans in Jackson Heights, Queens. Jones-Correra makes several points differentiating the mentalities and following actions of the disparate groups, but one specific point took hold of my attention: the idea of “community.”

The white ethics of Jackson Heights viewed community as a “neighborhood..with its boundaries…that are forever fixed, even as they feel ‘their’ neighborhoods changing.” The inhabitants of a true community personally know each other and interact on a regular basis. Further, the white ethics of Jackson Heights view community as an enclosure of space; they regard the “physical structure of the neighborhood…as the community.”

Latin-Americans, on the contrary, hold a different view of what a community encompasses. Jones-Correa uses the term “geography of memory” to explain the Latino’s relationship with the space in which they reside. It is almost as if Latin Americans have dual identities; one part of their identity resides in the community of their home countries, while another resides in the U.S. Simultaneously, it is their memory of the geography back home that shapes their experience of community in the U.S. Therefore, the identity of the Latin American is not inextricably linked to tangible space.

The two different definitions of “community” set out by the white ethics and Latin Americans of Jackson Heights prompted me to think about my own community, and, more specifically, my family. My parents are both immigrants, my mother from Guyana and my father from Turkey. We reside in College Point, Queens, which is not similar to Jackson Heights in terms of Latin American ethnic concentration. College Point, in the past few years, has increasingly become populated with Asian Americans, so my family is an outlier of sorts in the community in which we have lived in for nearly twenty years. Personally, I can relate to the Latin-American’s view of “community.” My parents have brought with them, from their home countries, ideas of their own communities. We cook food from both cultures, and shop at grocery stores that carry our specific brand of Chai   tea that isn’t available in any of the mainstream American grocery stores, or the recently opened Korean Supermarket that’s a five minute drive away. My family’s sense of community lies largely in where our culture is–be it Richmond Hill or Astoria; it is in these two areas that Guyanese and Turkish culture are largely concentrated in. Simply residing in an area (geography) does not create a sense of community, especially if there are not people of similar descent nearby. “Community,” to me, is where one’s culture is.

Response to Li’s “Beyond Chinatown”

Li’s “Beyond Chinatown, beyond enclave: Reconceptualizing contemporary Chinese settlements in the United States” focuses on Chinese immigrations and the changes it’s been going through throughout the history. First, I wondered why different ethnic groups form communities to almost shut themselves out from the mainstream society. Then I realized, being an immigrant myself, I was significantly more comfortable around the people from my country. In the early immigration era, prejudice caused these Chinese to seek comfort from the people of their own kind, which resulted in Chinatown.

One of the most interesting points in this article is that Li mentions Chinatown and immigration pattern is changing. He lists six stages of “Chinese settlement patterns and community forms”. From the stage-to-stage, Chinese immigration’s expansion and evolution were significant. A stunning fact is that a war actually benefited these immigrants significantly. The World War II essentially became the stepping-stone for them. Chinese started to move out of their safe haven and settle in suburban areas.

Li also mentions that later Chinese immigrants are more educated, well trained, and have higher status than previous immigrants. I thought the example of monster house was hysterical in certain ways. Previously, immigrants had to adapt to the already existing society, forming their own town to seek comfort and opportunities. As mentioned in the article, now the residents have to adapt to the foreign immigrants at some point. In the past people would have dreamed for an issue like monster house to come up. It just shows how dominant Chinese immigrants have become in this society.

Prejudice against Asian immigrants is still present in the current society. I’ve seen numerous adults doing business in Asian enclave, not learning English nor interacting with the mainstream society. In my opinion, no matter how globalized the world is, there always will be some sort of tension between races. Clash of different cultures have led to racism and segregation – problems with immigrants will not go away easily.

Chinese Immigrants Establishing a Place for Themselves in America

The readings on immigrant enclaves focused solely on predominantly Asian enclaves. They provided a brief history on traditional Chinatowns and Chinese immigration.

Chinese immigration began noticeably during the 19th century when they came from overseas looking to work in mines and railroad construction sites. They were originally poor laborers of minimum education and skills. The Chinese Exclusion Act successfully lowered the number of Chinese immigrating to the U.S. and faced with discrimination and violence, the Chinese congregated in urban areas, forming so-called Chinatown enclaves in large cities such as San Francisco and New York City. Chinatown provided protection from racism and the means of survival for the Chinese. In exchange, however, they secluded themselves from the rest of the city. The large influx of Chinese immigrants didn’t really occur until after the 1960s when legislations preventing Chinese immigration to the U.S. were lifted and the Chinese finally opened its doors to the rest of the world. The new wave of immigrants were better educated and more affluent than their predecessors. They had the means to form communities outside of overcrowded Chinatowns. As a result, Asian-prevalent communities such as those in Sunset Park and Flushing came into being.

Places such as Flushing and Sunset Park are not considered traditional enclaves such as Chinatown. They are considered ethnoburbs. One of the reasons they are different from an enclave is because of the diversity found within these communities. It is not solely composed of one ethnicity. There also reside a considerable number of immigrants from various countries. Another reason is that these ethnoburbs tend to be in more suburban areas. The original immigrants who formed this community chose the location because they were socioeconomically able to do so with the intention of forming a comfortable and secure environment, but often times the area becomes filled with successful businesses. When immigrants obtain the means to relocate, many choose to go farther away into suburbs. This may cause conflict with the current residents because of cultural differences.

Some Chinese immigrants who are beginning to establish themselves in predominately-white neighborhoods, will no doubt experience difficulty assimilating into the American culture and obtaining general acceptance by the pre-established natives in the community.

Enclave or Ethnoburb?

Wei Li’s “Beyond Chinatown, beyond enclave: Reconceptualizing contemporary Chinese settlements in the United States” gauges the evolution of ethnic communities, particularly Chinese ones, as they respond to the world around them. Originally, Chinatowns fit the description of a ghetto, being forcibly shut out of the community due to their ethnicity, left to lead less than ideal lives. Having read the Anderson article mentioned, I can attest that the Chinatown of Vancouver was dirty, crime-ridden, and unsafe. As the article explains, this was due to both de facto and de jure causes. Racism permeated American culture at the time and there were many laws prohibiting Chinese from being able to own property, intermarry, or sometimes even attain citizenship. They were heckled and hated by the white folk, being considered as opium users or gambling addicts.

However, as time progressed and more immigrants were arriving at American shores, Chinatowns became enclaves, in the traditional sense, and acted as sources of comfort and security in a new land. These communities became self-sufficient and served as ports of entry for newcomers. They weren’t as limited by legal barricades, but still faced social ones, so to create sustainable living conditions, they banded together in the traditional Chinatown setting.

The most interesting development in this evolution is the notion of an ethnoburb. As times and technologies change, more and more Chinese immigrants are well-educated folks, unlike their predecessors who were often times the laborers or farmers of their homeland. These suburban types of jobs lend themselves to a more suburban type of living, creating these so-called ethnoburbs. Able to assimilate into mainstream society, these people want to still have some sense of identity and heritage, so they form these communities to do so. Another interesting facet of this relatively recent concept is the notion of “parachute kids.” Children are often sent to the United States to receive an education, so these kids end up having a sense of duality. This nontraditional family structure could be a regression away from the more developed ethnoburbs.

Regardless of which ethnic group is being discussed, it is safe to say that more and more immigrants and minorities are finding their way out of ethnic enclaves and into more traditional suburban settings. Li’s diagramming of this progression succinctly exhibits how we truly are a nation of immigrants, and one that advocates cohabitatation regardless of cultural differences.

Immigrant Enclaves: Reading Response # 2

In the article “Flushing 2000: Geographic Explorations in Asian New York” by Christopher J. Smith and John R. Logan, much of the focus is on Asian immigration in the neighborhood of Flushing, Queens. The article shows us both the positive and negative impacts of the large influx of Asian immigrants. In “Beyond Chinatown, beyond Enclave: Reconceptualizing contemporary Chinese settlements in the United States”, Wei Li reports that Chinatowns established in various cities were not always viewed as a thriving immigrant enclave. They were considered to be a ghetto and were similar to the ones that Peter Marcuse described in his article. Therefore, it was interesting to read about how Chinatowns and other areas with a large Chinese population (such as Flushing, Queens) went from outcast communities to thriving immigrant enclaves.

Like we read and discussed in class, these immigrant enclaves promote the upward mobility of their residents. According to Logan & Smith’s observations, these enclaves are thriving because many immigrants bring entrepreneurship skills and establish small businesses. So, they help themselves and also play a key role in the revitalization of their community’s economy. This is clearly evident in Smith & Logan’s study of Flushing where the influx of Asians helped revive the area, which was experiencing a long period of economic decline. Unlike Manhattan’s overcrowded Chinatown, the area of Flushing provided jobs, housing and peaceful lifestyle for its inhabitants, thereby making it attractive for future immigrants. This could probably one of the reasons why many Chinese people (immigrants or non immigrants) choose to move out of Manhattan’s Chinatown (a fact pointed out by Joe Salvo in his presentation at The John Jay School of Criminal Justice).

On the other side of the spectrum, the Logan & Smith’s article reports that the Hispanic population is on the sidelines. Instead of the predicted increase in population, the Hispanic population in Flushing actually leveled off at 20%. Because of the Asian dominance, the Hispanic population instead settled in nearby neighborhoods but they still worked in Flushing.  The Hispanic community was described as an “enclave within a enclave”. This characterization was interesting because even though there is a clear Asian dominance, the Hispanic community has still maintained its foothold in the community instead of being completely wiped out. Another very interesting phenomenon discussed in Wei Li’s article is the influx of affluent Asian immigrants into white suburban neighborhoods. In our previous class, we discussed that Whites preferred to live with Asians and Hispanics who were very assimilated into the American culture and were well established in US (refer to the “buffer theory” in the article “Global Neighborhoods: New Pathways to Diversity and Separation” by Logan & Zhang). Although I am not too familiar with the movement of other Asian groups, I am aware that there is a quite large Indian population residing in the suburban Eastern Queens and part of Nassau county. This could be partly related to their income levels and preference to settle a little further away from heavily crowded urban areas (but still close to major enclaves). This move of well established Asians into suburban towns is highlighted by Wei Li in her article and it shows that other minority groups are integrating with previously all-white communities and are not subject to isolation anymore.

 

The Politics Behind the Chinese: Immigration and Assimilation (or lack thereof)

China and the United States have had a very interesting relationship throughout the decades, one that has gradually emerged from that of Chinese exclusion, to the welcoming of certain Chinese, now seen as beneficial. Wei Li, author of “Beyond Chinatown, Beyond Enclave: Reconceptualizing Contemporary Chinese Settlements in the United States,” explains the utilization of politics as a means to manipulate the Chinese population, both historically and presently.

Li gives much detail regarding the influx of Chinese into the U.S.; he divides Chinese immigration patterns into six time periods, from pre-1882 to the present. In each period of time, there has been some type of political influence; furthermore, these influences have come to “…indirectly impact the types of resulting immigrant settlement patterns.” The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 reigned for 61 years, creating a tumultuous environment for the Chinese that had already immigrated to the U.S. The Exclusion Act caused the Chinese immigrants to recoil from the hostility being tossed at them, resulting in the emergence of Chinese ghettoes.

When the Exclusion Act was repealed in 1942, the ghettoized Chinese communities were relieved of many restrictions, and were legally free to participate in the mainstream market. It is in this way that the Chinese rose from the ghettoes and instead of forming communities as a means of protection from external forces, they voluntarily chose to live in enclaves, bolstering the beginnings of economic prosperity. The Immigration Act of 1965 further opened the doors of the U.S. to especially talented Chinese, who would serve as an asset to the economy.

It is in this way that political influence and immigrant settlement patterns are inextricably linked. Throughout every time period, I noticed one common theme emerge: fear. The Chinese Exclusion Act came at a time when competition was fierce in the U.S.; the Gold Rush was in full swing, and the Chinese miners were seen as a threat by white miners who were eager to claim all the wealth of any one area. The Exclusion Act was repealed when the U.S. was on the eve of joining WWII; the Chinese quickly became allies in the wake of Pearl Harbor, where public disdain shifted to the Japanese. Fear has motivated each political action, be it fear of economic failure, limited resources, or external terror. When the “Monster Houses” were constructed in Silicon Valley, by wealthy Chinese who favored sprawling “multigenerational lots,” two pieces of legislation were passed to set limitations on the housing that could be built. Whites in the area feared change and difference from the status quo–in implementing policy against change, the Whites were able to assert their dominance and quell their fears.

Chinese: Different Destinies in Immigrant New York (Zhou)

In Chinese: Different Destinies in Immigrant New York, Min Zhou describes the Chinese enclaves that exist in New York and also historically explains the reason of great immigration to New York. Zhou also analyzes the settlement of Chinese immigrants and the causes for immigrants to settle at a specific area.

In the 1900s, many Chinese people came to the west coast in search of gold becoming laborers in many industrial sites. They hoped to go back to China with the gold and wealth that they had high hopes of attaining. As a Chinese immigrant said, “New York offers many fortunes but unequal opportunities to newcomers. Not everyone can make it here.” Coming to a new country brings many changes and sometimes immigrant’s destiny to belong in New York does not belong. With more than 1.5 million Chinese people legally admitted in the US (in 1997) the population of these Asians continues to thrive in numbers. One reason why was because of the passage of the Hart-Celler Act which rapidly led Chinese people to fly to America to be with their whole family, rather than have family restrictions. With modernization and push for higher education, many Chinese students have come to New York to make their living similar to those Chinese workers who came in the 1980s.

With the arrival of various Chinese immigrants, not all were on the same boat. Some were poor, some had little education, and others had poor working skills. These characteristics shaped their selection of jobs as well as the place they settled. Zhou focused on three settlements: Old Chinatown, Flushing, and Sunset Park. All three settlements had very distinguishable difference. Old Chinatown was the site where they had the similar “socioeconomic status” with low-wade jobs, low level of education, and more of an area for the elderly. Flushing is more of an area not dense in one ethnicity but is known as the “second” Chinatown that has seen great business and property expansion and offers a good socioeconomic standing. Sunset Park consists of more of a working-class community with little “mobile immigrant Chinese” people  and is the site for not so expensive houses for immigrants to come to. Like other communities in New York, Old Chinatown, Flushing, and Sunset Park are all similar in the make-up but they have different characteristics that suit certain people. When Chinese immigrants come to New York, there are reasons for settlement at a specific community.

Within each Chinese community, there is “class status” that determines what location is the best fit to live. From affordable housing to decent housing, Chinese immigrants look to settle where they can afford and be like the rest of the others. This is a main factor that determines their achievement when they come to New York for a successful life. Another factor is “ethnic networking.” Being a stranger when coming to NY and meeting new people from work or from other areas, it is important to have the connection or friendship near you so their is comfortability as well as a cultural relationship.

With the arrival of these great Chinese populations, different communities have been created and although it may not seem like it, but there are different characteristics that surround each community. I can relate to this article but with the Indian community. Jackson Heights, Queens, and Flushing are sites of big Indian population but only they know the difference in each community. Although I haven’t been to Sunset Park, I’ve been to Old Chinatown and Flushing, but I never distinguished the people from those two areas. I viewed them as the same, but reading this article, by a Chinese person who probably can relate to it, helps us see and think of the differences within the communities in New York. I could tell the differences within the Indian Community since I’m Indian and same for Zhou because she is Chinese. Using that insight and knowledge, I can understand the Chinese settlements as well as how much they have developed.

Chinese: Divergent Destinies in Immigrant New York

In “Chinese: Divergent Destinies in Immigrant New York,” Min Zhou gives a detailed depiction and analysis of the Chinese in their immigrant enclaves. He addresses a broad scope of matters, ranging from spatial, societal, and economic issues, that pertain especially to the Chinese settlement and development.

The Chinese first began to flock to America in search of gold, hoping to strike it rich and consequently return home to their family in China. Most were unsuccessful in doing so and therefore had to remain here. Over time, they engaged themselves in the workforce through a variety of jobs, such as railroad construction and mining. Their role in the economy soon proved quite important in two different respects. The Chinese supported their fellow immigrants by running informal businesses in their enclaves, such as garment business, laundromats, and supermarkets. They also bolstered the global market by involving themselves in high skilled and formal jobs. Interestingly, the types of jobs that were most or least popular depended on the Chinese enclave.

The area where the Chinese immigrants lived was an important factor in their development and lifestyle. Early on, the Chinese lived exclusively in California. Over time, some moved to New York. The Chinese population in California differed from that in New York because the former was less condensed than the latter. Zhou specifically focuses on three main Chinatown areas: Old Chinatown in Manhattan, Flushing, and Sunset Park. Each is culturally distinct from the one another. Old Chinatown is marked by low education and income; Flushing exudes ethnic diversity and the Chinese there are better off socioeconomically; Sunset Park is a working class neighborhood with an ethnic economy that does not provide much social mobility. Zhou argues that while each place is a Chinatown, each has its own unique characteristics. The inhabitants speak the same language, yet they in fact speak Chinese dialects that are mutually intelligible due to the fact that people originate from different villages and Asian countries.

An important point that Zhou tries to focus on throughout the piece is that while these Chinese immigrants are attempting to achieve successful destinies, their progress is often hindered by societal constraints. Chinatown initially started off as a predominantly bachelor neighborhood because few women were allowed to emigrate from China. In fact, they were not allowed to become naturalized citizens.  Whether they integrated themselves in the global economy by working with Americans or lived separately in their own enclaves, the Chinese were vulnerable to incessant discrimination and exclusion. Such marginalization was clear even on a federal level, for Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act that virtually barred any Chinese from immigration to the United States. While the Immigration and Nationality Act greatly expanded the Chinese population in America, they were already set in their lifestyle and continued to maintain Chinatowns in areas in which they comprised a large presence.

Zhou does an excellent job of emphasizing the fact that since their arrival in America, there have been many changes in the Chinese community, both in terms of the actual neighborhood and the inhabitants. While they all came from the same continent, over time their goals and destinies have diverged. Some places have shortcomings while others have impressive strengths.  They have a broad culture, evident especially in the different occupations, which spans the area of Old Chinatown, Flushing, and Sunset Park. Before reading this piece, I grouped all Chinese communities in New York under one category. Now I realize how distinct each one is and how their development over the years has molded them into the ever-changing communities that they are today.

Response to Li’s “Beyond Chinatown”


      What I found most striking about Li’s article was the underlying and persistent theme of agency, meaning “the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices” (Wikipedia). In the case of immigration, this would refer to an immigrant/ immigrant group’s ability to shape their experience in America. In other words, to be able to work, live, learn, and socialize the way they want.

Li discusses the history and legacy of the formation of Chinatowns. What struck me most was his point that Chinatowns were both the cause and effect of the white American population’s prejudice against the Chinese. White Americans said that the Chinese were inflexible and unwilling to adapt to American life and Americans used that accusation to justify using legal and social pressures to isolate the Chinese immigrant population into areas now called Chinatowns. Once these Chinatowns were formed, white Americans portrayed them as the physical manifestation of the Chinese immigrants’ backwardness. Chinese immigrants wanted to adapt and integrate, but they could not, and they were later blamed for their failure to integrate. In other words, the Chinese population had no agency in determining the degree to which they adapted to American life.

These facts beg the question- is the same thing happening today? Are Americans once again depriving immigrants of their ability, and, once could even say right, to integrate into American society? There are some segments of American society and government that want to discourage immigration. They cite the fear that new immigrants will not integrate into American society. In light of Li’s article, however, we need to think- is this very question preventing immigrants from integrating? In line with Li’s thinking,  America’s fear of immigrant social non-compliance is the actual cause of immigrant’s communities inward withdrawals.

Even if this is not the case we must contemplate the how our own preconceived notions of immigrant groups shapes and distorts our views of them. For example, in the last class we discussed how there are some views that immigrants are unwilling to learn English. When my I thought this point over my gut instinct was to agree and think that due to immigrant communities’ isolation, members of those groups had no need and therefore no desire to learn English.  But then I realized that this, in fact, wasn’t true. According to New York City statistics English classes are extremely oversubscribed, meaning that there are a lot more immigrants that want to take classes than there are spaces available. This is exactly the kind of bias that Li makes note of: fact-less and untrue. Reading Li’s article has made me more aware of the necessity of carefully identifying and overriding biases in order to gain a more realistic picture of America’s immigrant population.

 

My Encounter with the Buffer Effect

In Logan and Zhang’s “Global Neighborhoods: New Pathways to Diversity and Separation,” they expanded on a phenomenon in cities that they called the buffer effect. Put simply, it says that communities of white and black people will not last for long because the white people of that community will leave if they feel there is too large of a black presence. The only time that white and black people will live together in a community is if Latinos and Asians move into the white community first. For some reason, this makes it more appealing for blacks to move into what used to be mostly white communities. These mixed communities are said to be unstable because the white populations eventually leave after the blacks come.

As I read about this, several familiar neighborhoods came to mind. One that is close to home in my case is a development complex called LeFrak City. LeFrak City is a collection of 20 apartment buildings that was built in the 1960s to bring some of luxurious aspects of city living into Queens. The development had a pool, a park, a grocery store, and many other such luxuries that attracted some of the wealthier people of Queens. At first, the majority of the residents were wealthy and Jewish. This was the case until Mayor Lindsay designated parts of the complex as affordable housing and he worked to incorporate welfare recipients into the apartments.

The majority of the new tenants that came pouring into Lefrak were low-income blacks. The wealthy Jewish people who lived there beforehand fled in large numbers. In my childhood in Elmhurst, I’ve met many people who currently live in LeFrak, and I’ve noted that the majority of the tenants are black or Hispanic. I’ve also noted a hesitance from other white people to go too close to LeFrak because of a perception of danger that they have about the area.

Through the years, the population of LeFrak has changed from mostly black to nearly half black and half Hispanic. Since this has been true, I feel like there is a slightly better perception of LeFrak by whites in the area. This is obviously different from the view they held of LeFrak in the 1970s, when the buildings were utterly crime and drug ridden. This change in perception bothers me somewhat because it implies that race plays a key role, but nonetheless, it is a clear cut example of how the buffer effect plays a role in tensions between white and black populations in a community.

Global Neighborhoods: New Pathways to Diversity

Global Neighborhoods: New Pathways to Diversity and Separation offered interesting insight on how whites and minorities interact in different neighborhoods, and the sudden disappearance of formerly all white tracts in global cities. This study uncovers an odd phenomenon about how whites and minorities, particularly black people, interact with each other. Research has shown that white people are more likely to leave a neighborhood when black people enter into it, but less likely to do the same when Asians or Hispanics move into their neighborhood. In addition to that, the study also shows another phenomenon called the “buffering hypothesis.” White people are less likely to leave a neighborhood when black people enter a neighborhood if there exists a presence of another minority, Hispanic and Asian people. Also the study notes that only five previously all white tracts made a change from a predominantly white to white-black. In contrast, the number of Hispanic or Asian entry into a previously predominant white society without the entry of blacks was larger than 400.

This study was an eye opener for me, I never once thought about how whites react to minorities moving into their previously all white neighborhoods. The number of all white neighborhoods has taken a big dip from 1980 to 2000 alone. A study done by Freidman notes that predominantly white neighborhoods dropped from a large 54% to just 28%. The future patterns of how white people will choose to live in the future are a mystery, but I believe it will, or may, eventually change. In metropolitan areas, the diversity of neighborhoods has changed how scholars view each area. There are a lot more neighborhoods now that go beyond the white-black tracts and the more common sight is one filled with whites, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. The concept of buffering of white and black tracts by Asian and Hispanic minorities cannot really be proven to be true, but it’s a concept that should be accepted based on the trends that we see in every in metropolitan areas.

The Enclave, The Citadel, and The Ghetto

Marcuse spends a great deal of his essay discussing the differences between a ghetto and an outcast ghetto. He claims that in a ghetto, the dwellers of the ghetto are incorporated in the mainstream economy, but in an outcast ghetto, they are not. In other words, Marcuse is saying that people living in the ghetto have more value to the society in which they live. This claim is so interesting because in the examples Marcuse gives, when people had a lower view of people, meaning they felt more superior, it was not outcast ghettos that formed, but regular ghettos. For example, he talked about the Venetian Jewish ghetto, in which non-Jews forced the Jews to live in a specific area, but the Jews had businesses outside of the ghetto and contributed to the economy. Most black ghettos now are outcast ghettos, different than the ghettos in which the Jews resided. However, in general, people do not look down upon blacks in the way people looked down upon Jews. Yet, blacks in the ghettos are economically outcaste. This does not make sense.

I would like to understand why people in black ghettos have not been able to incorporate themselves into the economy. I understand Marcuse’s point when he says that you cannot say immigrants living in the enclaves can incorporate themselves, so therefore blacks should too. Blacks are fully American, and have been here for so long. I would like to know if it is the attitudes towards blacks living in ghettos coming from people in the outside or the attitudes from people living in the inside that have hindered Blacks from branching outside of the ghettos; maybe it is both and one attitude affects the other.

One part of this essay that confused me was Marcuse’s statement that people do not voluntarily live in ghettos, whereas people voluntarily living in enclaves. There is no legal segregation, so Blacks can choose to live in places that are not ghettos, but Marcuse talks about the inability for Blacks to move out of ghettos. There are other places that are affordable. Maybe there are enclave characteristics of ghettos that keep people in ghettos (living there is more comforting), and living in ghettos is actually voluntary for some.

That’s So Ghetto….

Upon completing the readings, the article that fascinated me the most was The Enclave, The Citadel, and the Ghetto authored by Peter Marcus from Columbia University. The word ghetto is often nonchalantly thrown around by those of my generation. It is not uncommon to hear one of my peers say, “That’s really ghetto” in reference to something that they deem of crappy quality. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t guilty of this “political incorrectness.” The word has also become synonymous of minority groups living in the projects.  Although this utilization of the word remains more true to the actual meaning of the word, it still has a negative connotation.  According to Marcus, a ghetto is a spatially concentrated area used to seperate and to limit a particular involuntarily defined population group held to be and treated as, inferior by the dominant society. In any case, this piece illustrated that the word ghetto has a more significant meaning that certain groups of people might find offensive given the misused context.

 

Immigrant Neighborhoods in Global Cities: Enclaves, Citadels, and Ghettos

Having read all three pieces because I will be leading the classroom discussion on Immigrant Neighborhoods in Global Cities, I decided to reflect here on my reaction to the piece that I found most fascinating: “The Enclave, the Citadel, and the Ghetto: What has Changed in the Post-Fordist US City.” As neither a minority nor an immigrant nor an upscale elitist, it seems odd that this piece would speak to me. Yet as I read it, I understood that such spatial clusterings reflected stagnation, or worse, regression, in our society. Marcuse accurately describes how the black ghetto causes the inhabitants to be outcasts in society, how the immigrants in their enclave are more of a congregation, and how the upscale arrogantly choose to dwell in citadels. One would expect that such social confinement and inflexibility were archaic and a thing of the past, and yet here Marcuse highlights how it is very much present in our society.

One piece that particularly stood out was the reference to the Jewish ghettos. Marcuse quotes a bishop’s explanation that the rationale was to makes Jews feel special once outside of the ghetto. This explanation is severely misleading and highlights the terrible nature of the ghetto. The placement of Jews in their own ghettos, or quarters as they are sometimes called, stemmed not from special treatment, but from unadulterated Anti-Semitism. To apply the bishop’s logic to the ghetto inhabitants nowadays: blacks are placed together because when they leave, they will feel special once they enter an all white town. The problem nowadays is even worse, because the blacks in the ghetto are considered outcasts and are practically shunned from general interaction. The truth is that placing blacks in their own ghettos stems from racism. And nearly every time Jews were placed in ghettos, they were tormented or killed; any marginalized people are vulnerable to this exact fate. The notion that a ghetto still exists in a country that prides itself on every citizen having personal rights is frightening; Marcuse notes that the concept of having ghettos for blacks stems from the post Civil War, when they were trying to figure out what to do with former slaves. Essentially, this special enclosure is an extension of maintaining control over blacks as they were when they were slaves. The ghettos must be stopped lest history (slavery, torture, and mass killings) repeat itself.

Response: Immigrant Neighborhoods in Global Cities

When reading Global Neighborhoods: New Pathways to Diversity and Separation, Logan and Zhang stated that, “… whites remain in neighborhoods where they constitute a large majority and where other conditions…suggest an attractive housing market…new minorities are able to enter when conditions suggest that the neighborhood is no longer attractive…” Upon reading this sentence, I recalled reading President Obama’s novel, Dreams from my Father, published before he became the President. In one section, Obama had worked as a community organizer, and he wrote about how many of the white residents had moved away from the neighborhood as African-Americans residents moved in. The property values fell, and the general area diminished in quality. This resulted in many of the current residents moving out, and the same white residents moving back in, buying up the lands at a cheaper price. When using that information as the context to this article, it is easy to see that this problem is not an isolated one, nor is it a recent one. This issue has been happening as new immigrants have moved in. The white population has been moving out and further away, either to other cities or to the suburbs. Logan and Zhang also assert that in no way do global communities make any racial divides disappear; in fact, the most common example of this would be on the subway. As we board the train and it winds through the boroughs, there are neighborhoods where one ethnicity or one race tend to gather. Though New York City itself is a global city, there are still invisible divides, however minute.

In Enclaves, Citadels and Ghettos, Marcuse states that there are significant differences between the three. Marcuse also explains the difference between a ghetto-which would be an area where residents are involuntarily made to be inferior to other members outside of the ghetto, and enclaves. There are two types of enclaves: an immigrant enclave and a cultural enclave. Perhaps the most prominent ghetto in New York City that comes to mind is Harlem; Marcuse states that while Harlem was the center for black culture, it has changed. “42% of Harlem’s residents live below the poverty line” and “the death rate in that area is higher than any other place in the city”. When taking enclaves, citadels and ghettos into consideration, one must also remember that the richest areas in New York City-the Upper East and Upper West Sides: homes that go for tens, hundreds of millions- and one of the poorest ares in the entire nation-Harlem- are only separated by a few blocks, with a common route that cuts through both: Broadway.

Finally, in Immigration and the Global City Hypothesis, Samers explains the origins of immigrants the mark they left on the city. Samers alludes to the fact that many of the new residents took up jobs in manufacturing, and we see that it is because of their participation in jobs like clothes manufacturing that the city was allowed to change and develop, for better and for worst. All three of these works have gone to show the origins of neighborhood developments in New York City, and what the results were of industrialization and immigration on current and arriving residents.

Immigrant Neighborhoods in Global Cities: Reading Response # 1

In the article, “The Enclave, the Citadel, and the Ghetto: What has Changed in the Post-Fordist US City”, Peter Marcuse accurately describes an “enclave”, a “citadel” and “the ghetto”. Marcuse provides an extremely engaging in depth analysis of the various characteristics of each of these “social spaces” or “spatial clustering” that define and distinguish them from one another. For example, the article draws a very clear line between immigrant enclaves and the black ghettos. I cannot say much about the black ghettos of New York City but as an immigrant, I can confirm the article’s claim that most immigrant communities are established voluntarily to provide support to one another so that everyone can achieve upward mobility in the American society is very on point. Marcuse makes another interesting observation that that the residents of Black ghettos rarely ventured out to participate in mainstream economic activity. Meanwhile, immigrant entrepreneurs used their business as a means of communication with the non-immigrant world. Although this observation about the “black ghettos” might be relevant in economic terms, I think that not all black neighborhoods are secluded from society. In fact, they are an integral part of the mainstream society and do exert a major influence on culture. For example, rap music is indeed a very popular music genre and has had a significant impact on our mainstream music industry. Therefore, I learned that while this article reports some very interesting facts, not all points discussed apply to all urban black ghettos.

Also, instead of just merely reporting facts such as high crime and unemployment rates, this highly informative article further explains why these “outcast black ghettos” are in their current state. These new ghettos, which emerged in the Post-Fordist cities, were subject to social and economic segregation. According to the article, the residents of the “citadel” (the upper wealthy class) labeled the black ghettos as “a leper society” mainly because they provide little or no benefit to the economy. Instead, it is assumed that they drain the public and private resources. This labeling could be a reason why residents rarely established businesses outside their ghettos. But once again, this observation may be flawed because such characteristics are not shared by every black neighborhood, especially in such a diverse city like New York.

            Although we don’t always observe blatant discrimination in New York City, we can often notice the residential segregation. Various examples of the predominantly black neighborhoods, immigrant enclaves and the exclusive “citadels” can be found. An example of a “citadel” would be the luxurious apartments on Manhattan’s Upper East Side where the wealthy reside. Certain areas of Manhattan and Bronx, on the other hand, are labeled as the “ghetto” mainly because of their large Black population and their relatively low-income levels. Chinatown is considered to be a thriving immigrant enclave because it is always bustling with great economic and cultural activity. I think that by informing the readers with extensive information about these various “social spaces” that comprise the city, I realized that stratification in terms of race is even more prominent that I thought.

Reading Response #1

Out of the assigned readings, the article that most stood out to me was the one titled Global Neighborhoods: New Pathways to Diversity and Seperation. Last year in high school I based my Macaulay Honors college essay on reasons for Hispanics and Blacks having the lowest college graduation rate of all ethnic groups. Some possible causes of these daunting statistics were income, conformity and stereotypes. One of the points that I found interesting while reading this article, was where the author stated that evidence suggests that Hispanic share predicts Black entry into white tracts, but that White exodus increases with the share of Hispanics, Blacks and Asians. Based on the research I did for my college essay, I wonder if economic status or similarities in their experiences with society are some of the reasons while Blacks feel more comfortable moving into White neighborhoods if Hispanics are present. In addition to this, another thought that I had while reading the article was that it did not do a good job of explaining the reasons as to why Whites are more likely to leave areas that primarily inhabited by minorities. Why is it that people of different cultures such as Asians, Blacks and Hispanics are more likely stay in one neighborhood together, but on the hand Whites are less likely to remain in that neighborhood? What is it about the arrival of Hispanics and Asians that has kept Blacks from depopulating certain cities? Furthermore, although, according to the article, there is still some white-black segregation, it was fascinating to read about how diverse a lot of cities have still managed to become. Having been born and raised in Queens, I have always noticed its unique diversity in comparison to other cities. It was interesting to read about how this trend of diversity is spreading to other places as well. However, it was upsetting to find out that researchers have not yet discovered a clear process to bring Whites back into minority-filled neighborhoods. This indicates to me, that there will never be a way to increase the diversity of White, Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics in EVERY city. This, I believe prevents those city residents from having the opportunity of interacting with people of different cultures, in the way that I have been able to during all my years that I have lived in New York.

Peter Marcuse’s “The Enclave, The Citadel, and The Ghetto: What Has Changed in the Post-Fordist U.S. City”

In this text, Peter Marcuse discusses the implications of the enclave, citadel and ghetto in post 1960-70 cities. He first makes it a point to define each system of division, and continues on in familiarizing the reader with each concentration of people by sharing the taxonomy behind each concentration, ranging from “spatial formation” to the “identifying characteristics” of any one peoples.

Ghetto: “A spatially concentrated area used to seperate and to limit a particular involuntarily defined population group held to be and treated as, inferior by the dominant society.”

  • Outcast Ghetto: “A ghetto of the excluded, rather than of the dominated and exploited.”

Enclave: “Generally seen as positive; members of a particular population group…congregate as a means of enhancing their economical, social, political and cultural development.”

Citadel: “A spatially concentrated area in which members of a particular population group, defined by its position of superiority, in power wealth, or status, in relation to its neighbors, congregate as a means of protecting or enhancing that position.”

After grasping these core definitions, I realized that communities around me possess one or many of these attributes, and could be characterized accordingly (though the lines between ghettos and enclaves can very easily blur.)

Though the text discusses many features of the ghetto, enclave and citadel, I was most intrigued by the economic relationship that each concentration of people shared both within their communities and outside of their immediate areas. Marcuse, throughout the text, explores the economic impact of the outcast ghetto. Where a traditional ghetto is seen as inferior by the majority of people residing in the area surrounding it, and outcast ghetto builds upon this definition and is almost ignored, especially when looking at the outcast ghetto from an economic standpoint. A traditional ghetto is not necessarily separated from the mainstream economy (in terms of being occupied outside the ghetto, or using services such as grocery stores or laundromats). An outcast ghetto, however, provides little to no economic advantage to its surrounding area, and burdens the area rather than adding to it. It is in this way that divisions are deepened, and the internal economy of an outcast ghetto is perpetuated. This is especially detrimental to the outcast ghetto if its economy is already sub par with little growth.

When looking to the enclave, the economic relationship between the concentrated population and its surrounding area is different that that of the outcast ghetto. Since enclaves are typically composed of immigrants or cultural groups (in terms of religion, etc.), rather than blacks, they are perceived somewhat differently. Since enclaves are largely seen as voluntary congregations rather than exclusions, they are free to participate in the outside economy, but many choose not to simply because of the prosperity already existing within their enclave. In many cases, immigrants/ cultural groups have chosen to expand their businesses outside of their enclaves, and in the process familiarize the outside population with their culture, opening the door to potential integration. Where outcast ghettos are seen as a burden, enclaves can present a wealth of economic opportunity, and sometimes are essential to the upkeep of the mainstream economy of an area.

Lastly, the citadel differs from both the ghetto and enclave in that it is always “defined by its position of superiority.” Inhabitants of a citadel are afraid of being adversely influenced by sub par economic conditions outside their realm, and thus attempt to “shut in” their economic wealth and success.

I was surprised that the ghetto, enclave and citadel could be characterized in terms of economic condition, and economic relations both within their realms and outside. I came away from reading this text with a few questions: Do any of the communities I’m familiar with in the NYC area display these economic typifications? Do I routinely overlook examples that I may come into contact with on a day to day basis? For example, I take the bus through Flushing, NY every morning on my commute to Queens College. Flushing appears to resemble an enclave; the Asian-Americans who reside in Flushing are largely a congregation of immigrants who have flocked together in one area for cultural, socioeconomic, and political support. I have noted over the years that the majority of shops and services offered in Flushing are Asian-oriented, from restaurants to hairdressers. I’m interested in looking into the economic statistics of the area as we go through the semester.