Alvaro Briones knows more about healthcare than the average landscaping employee. A medical school graduate from Nicaragua, Briones hopes to one day practice medicine in the United States. But for now, he works for a landscaping company that sub-contracts to Washington University.
Briones presented his story of transition into American culture at Wednesday’s town hall meeting on ‘Xenophobia and Immigration in St. Louis,’ co-hosted by the International and Areas Studies Department and its honor society, Sigma Iota Rho.
Speakers discussed the current state of immigration and its associated implications.
Sunita Parikh, associate professor of political science, presented the historical and sociological context of America’s current immigration issues. Cities like St. Louis, she said, were pivotal for expanding immigration beyond gateway metropolitans and into smaller cities and towns. “We [St. Louis residents] are on the forefront of what immigration will look like in the next 30 years as opposed to what it looked like in the previous 30 years,” she said.
In spite of the encouraging diversity across the nation, she noted that the more recent waves of immigrants from Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East experience stigmatization that is comparable to the treatment of Italians, Slovaks and Jews during the early 1900s.
“Xenophobia is alive and well,” said Parikh.
Briones spoke to the crowd of about 75 graduates and undergraduates following Parikh. His experiences in St. Louis reflected the “invisibility” of the immigrant worker that is prevalent in today’s American society.
Joan Suarez, J.D, is the co-chair of Workers’ Rights Board and Immigration Rights Action Task Force, reaffirmed by Briones’ feelings of invisibility. Suarez further discussed constitutionality of immigration ordinances and legal rights of immigrant workers. During the question and answer session, Suarez reported that Missouri did not allot state government funds toward the assimilation of immigrants. Instead, she pointed out that the Illinois state government allocates fund towards immigration projects such as English programs.
Both Parikh and Suarez used Briones’ case to illustrate that Americans must realize that their ‘needs and demands’ for labor as an economy equal the financial needs of immigrants.
The speeches illuminated various aspects of immigration and xenophobia, opening up imperative questions that the guests took turns in answering. The questions ranged from generalized concerns about the current trend in immigration to specific queries about Missouri State Government’s involvement in immigrant programs.
“Worries about a changing cultural climate are not illegitimate,” Parikh said in response to a question about possible reasons that have contributed toward demands for immigration reform. She explained ideological and economic reasons to corroborate her statement.
Ideologically, certain parts of the American population oppose multiculturalism and favor assimilation, she said. Groups that believe transparency is an essential American trait would probably view women in ‘burkhas’ [veils] as non-transparent and non-assimilating.
In the economic perspective, along with growing population concerns, the willingness of immigrants to work for lower wages thereby has been cited as reason for the financial woes of poor Americans.
“It’s important to also note that people are coming in response to our needs, demands and incentives,” Suarez said.
Although the speakers admitted that a concrete solution is not yet evident, a general remedy would entail a National Comprehensive Package that confers full working rights and privileges to guest workers during their stay in the country.
The meeting adjourned with a question asking for the panelists to compare America’s treatment of immigrants to other nations experiencing an influx of foreigners.
In response to this question Parikh, Briones and Suarez unanimously agreed that the United States is more transparent in its policies.
However, in today’s politically complex world where laws and regulations can change from one term to the next, Parikh offered an optimistic view of the future of immigration in the U.S. “Our political system has a foundation that has the ability to incorporate immigration protection easily,” she said.