8/20/07

Ireland Learns to Adapt to a Population Growth Spurt, By Eamon Quinn (NYT)


Inside a north Dublin warehouse, 15,000 cardboard boxes containing the documents of Ireland’s most recent census rise on new shelving from the concrete floor. The sight is nondescript, but the collated and computer-scanned documents contain evidence that the Republic of Ireland is the fastest repopulating small country in the world.

Findings from the April 2006 census, which are being published in a series of releases this summer, showed that in the four years since a previous survey, the Irish population swelled by 322,645, roughly split between immigrants and births. That lifted the total population to 4.2 million.

No European Union country has a younger population: statistically, the Irish have been barely aging at all, with the median age staying close to 33. The country will remain young for decades, say the experts, and escape the “graying” fate of the rest of Europe.

Further, demographers now predict that the population could rise to over five million in about a dozen years, and to six million within a generation. With a growing population in Northern Ireland, the island could match its largest population — more than eight million before the devastating 19th-century famine that prompted waves of emigration — by 2032.

Edgar Morgenroth, a member of a panel of experts who predict Irish population growth, said the famine started a diminishing of the population that lasted to the late 1960s. “It was only in the 1990s that our population stabilized and started to grow, rapidly,” he said. The population might reach the 19th-century level, but it will look very different.

The population changes have been uneven geographically. New houses stretch in a wide arc from north Dublin to the west of the city. But the city’s core, despite being replenished by an influx of immigrants, has lost residents to the suburbs and to once unimaginably distant commuting centers in the midlands. In the south, the city of Cork shrank while the county grew.

Some experts think the scale is beyond most citizens’ imaginations: in about half a generation, the population may grow by another Dublin, which has 1.1 million people in its greater metropolitan area.

“The worst is that we find ourselves without growing our services to cope with the numbers,” Mr. Morgenroth said. “The benign outlook is that we have tackled our services and, like Switzerland or Luxembourg, we have great wealth and a great quality of life. The smaller countries can do it right.”

Eunan King, an economist at NCB Stockbrokers in Dublin, has long argued that a rising population — more workers and more consumers — will help sustain Ireland’s remarkable economic renaissance of the past dozen years.

The largest increases in immigration since 2002 have been from Poland, Lithuania and Nigeria. The latest census showed 63,276 Poles living permanently in Ireland, up from 2,124 four years earlier. In some small districts in Dublin, Limerick and Cork, the census showed, 52 percent of residents were non-Irish, said Aidan Punch, a senior census statistician.

Ireland permits all residents, not just Irish citizens, to cast ballots in local elections. That has helped immigrants win seats in local councils. The mayor of the midlands town of Portlaoise, Rotimi Adebari, is from Nigeria.

To encourage assimilation, the government recently named a minister for integration, Conor Lenihan. The department was organized, Mr. Lenihan said in an interview, to show Ireland’s commitment to share and develop its new wealth with new arrivals. “We have chosen a midpoint between the U.S. and Europe in terms of our economic success,” he said. “I think we can choose a midpoint in integration as well.”

Mr. Lenihan said his department would investigate ways to provide extensive language classes for adult immigrants and to increase training for unskilled local Irish workers.

But immigrants’ representatives say the government needs to do more.

“Ireland should be taking a lead in Europe,” said Jean-Pierre Eyanga Ekumeloko, a naturalized Irish citizen from Congo and a co-founder of Integrating Ireland, an independent support group for immigrants.

Mr. Ekumeloko said the Irish prime minister should lay out a plan for welcoming and integrating immigrants. He said many were working jobs for which they were overqualified. “A lot of things have changed in interactions between the Irish community and immigrants,” he said, adding that in the past he had heard racist remarks. “Things have changed very positively. Now Irish people know Africans.”

At a restaurant table in Lucan, in western Dublin, Dulce Huerta, a Mexican, and her husband, an Irishman named Lorcan Donnellan, cradled their 5-week-old child. They talked about the strains population growth was causing in their area, near the district of Lucan Esker, which according to the census numbers is the youngest spot in the country. More children under 4 live there than anywhere else in Ireland.

“The maternity hospital was packed and needed more staff,” Ms. Huerta said.

They fretted about how the huge housing estates under construction would add to local traffic. “The roads cannot cope already,” Mr. Donnellan said. “It’s going to get more choked.”

A new mother at a nearby table, Suzanne Leyden, an actuary, said the authorities seemed to have anticipated the growing needs by opening or expanding primary schools. “Secondary schools will be the next big challenge,” she said.

Derek Keating, a local councilor for the Lucan area, said: “The big picture is that we are playing catch-up all the time. There is a lack of infrastructure, in everything from schools to recreational activities.”

In the northern Dublin suburb of Swords, Gerard Kelly, a teacher for 25 years and now a principal, said his school would struggle to meet the demand for classroom seats when it opened in September. “Back in 2001 we had 21 children,” Mr. Kelly said. “Next September we will have 340. We have children from 40 countries.”

**Photo Courtesy of Ross McDonnell (NYT)
**Story Link

8/19/07

Immigrant Blues, By Ron Charles (WP)


Novel: Away, By Amy Bloom

Amy Bloom knows the urgency of love. As a practicing psychotherapist, she must have heard that urgency in her patients' stories, and in 1993 when she broke onto the literary scene with Come To Me, we heard it in hers. She has never strayed from that theme. Four years later, she published Love Invents Us and followed that with another collection in 2000, A Blind Man Can See How Much I Love You. A finalist for the National Book Award and the National Book Critics Circle Award, Bloom writes with extraordinary care about people caught in emotional and physical crosswinds: desires they can't satisfy, illnesses they can't survive, and -- always -- love that exceeds the boundaries of this world.

It's the kind of humid, overwrought territory where you'd expect to find pathos and melodrama growing like mold, but none of that can survive the blazing light of her wisdom and humor.

Now, with her aptly named second novel, Away, Bloom has stepped confidently into America's past to work in that old and ever-expanding genre of immigrant lit. It seems, at first, a familiar tune, but she plays it with lots of brio and erotic charge. Lillian Leyb is a desperate young woman, fresh off the boat, trying to make her way in New York during the mid-1920s. Like thousands of other Jews, she has fled the pogroms in Russia with no money, few skills and little English; she rents half a mattress in a crowded flat and competes for sewing jobs with other desperate young women. As potential employers survey the crowd, she pushes to the front: "Whatever it is like, Lillian doesn't care. She will be the flower, the slave, the pretty thing or the despised and necessary thing, as long as she is the thing chosen from among the other things."

Throughout this breathless story, Bloom blends her voice with her heroine's to create a deeply sympathetic narrative that's analytical but always inflected with Lillian's fervor. "She's burning up to learn English," the narrator notes, and after she gets hold of a dictionary and a thesaurus, her thoughts are filled (packed, engorged, crammed, infused) with parenthetical lists of synonyms. No effort is too much. If the boss demands some intimacies in exchange for a place to live, she'll pay up. If his gay son needs her to pretend to be his mistress, well, she'll do that too.

The varied expressions of desire never shock Lillian, a quality of tolerance that she shares with Bloom. In 2002, the author published a nonfiction book called Normal that examined the lives of transsexuals, cross-dressers and people with ambiguous genitalia. Away demonstrates that same compassionate interest in the broad spectrum of humanity, particularly all those people excluded from what we like to pretend is "normal."

Not a drop of self-pity falls in these pages. Instead, Bloom and Lillian seem to sigh over these men and women with their fragile egos and the ordinary needs that they consider illicit. At 22, Lillian has already survived so much that the humiliations and deprivations of New York are merely minor inconveniences: "Lillian has endured the murder of her family, the loss of her daughter, Sophie, an ocean crossing like a death march, intimate life with strangers in her cousin Frieda's two rooms, smelling of men and urine and fried food and uncertainty and need."

That breezy summary of horrors practically acknowledges that these are well-worn elements of an all too common tragedy, but Bloom knows how to keep her story surging with fresh energy. Just as Lillian attains some precarious comfort, Bloom turns this story of coming to America on its head: Cousin Raisele, presumed dead with the rest of the family back in Russia, shows up at the door and announces that she saw Lillian's 3-year-old daughter alive before she left.

"Sophie's name, the sound of it in Raisele's mouth, her name said by someone who had seen her, seen her laughing and chasing the chickens, seen her in her flannel nightgown and thick socks, braids one up, one down, seen her running in the yard. . . . Sophie's name is a match to dry wood."

In fact, this whole novel reads like dry wood bursting into flame: desperate and impassioned, erotic and moving -- absolutely hypnotic. Once Lillian hears that Sophie may be alive, her only ambition is to leave America and find her daughter in Siberia. The old immigrant tale suddenly becomes a wild emigrant adventure.

It's an impossible quest, of course, and everyone tells her she's "doomed, foolish, and peculiar." Her cousin is probably mistaken -- or lying (she wants Lillian's job and her sugar daddy). Her best friend, an old tailor who loves her deeply, can't understand why she would give up everything she has in America for such a hopeless cause as her lost daughter. "Because she belongs to you?" he asks. "Is that why?"

"No," Lillian answers. "Not that she is mine. That I am hers."

Because travel over the Atlantic Ocean and the European continent is impossibly expensive, a friend concocts a crazy plan to send her across North America, over the Bering Strait and then directly into the Soviet Union. He's underestimated her itinerary by about 3,000 miles, but none of this matters. "The fact is that however far it is from one place to the other, and however difficult it will be, they both know she must go."

And so she goes and goes and goes, with maps of the Pacific Northwest sewn inside the lining of her overcoat. It's a grueling journey that begins with a 22-hour train ride to Chicago in a locked broom closet. But that turns out to be the easiest of the trials Bloom throws in Lillian's path. Along the way, she's beaten, robbed, jailed and enslaved -- a whole catalogue of exploitation, from one side of America to the other as she soldiers on by train, steamship, mule, canoe and foot. No matter how little she has, everybody wants something from her, and it's usually sex. Yet nothing angers Lillian or derails her. Bloom has boiled this woman down to a single, inexorable desire, and Lillian expects no better from anyone else: "That people are ruled by their wants seems a reliable truth." She wastes no time fuming about that truth or wishing it were otherwise.

Indeed, nobody wastes any time in this novel, particularly the author. The whole saga hurtles along, a rush of horrible, remarkable ordeals: One minute Lillian is jumping into a deadly ménage à trois, the next she's beating a porcupine to death with her shoe and eating it. Not every woman could pull that off. Each chapter reads like a compressed novel, a form that works only because Bloom can establish new characters and grab our sympathies so quickly.

One of her most striking techniques is the way she periodically lets little tendrils of the story push ahead, shooting into the future to spin out the stories of characters Lillian encounters along the way. Lives bloom or wither in these asides, and then we're back with Lillian once more as she trudges on, inexorably, toward her daughter. And so what begins as a paean to the immigrant spirit in a city of millions is ultimately a gasp of wonder at the persistence of love, even in the remotest spot on earth. Hang on.

**Image Courtesy of Amy Bloom
**Story Link

Liberal Suburbs Don't Avoid Heated Debates On Immigration, By Ernesto Londoño and Karin Brulliard (WP)

The air was stuffy and hot inside a packed hall in Silver Spring during Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett's town hall meeting last month when a lanky man in the back row raised his hand.

What, he asked, is Leggett doing to curb the influx of illegal immigrants to the county?

"Immigration is a local issue," said the man, who gave his name only as Ryan. "Local government needs to respond."

Some people jeered and others applauded as the man elaborated. Uncharacteristically, Leggett lost his cool.

"Shut up and listen for a moment!" he cried, silencing the crowd. "We are not in the business of enforcing immigration issues."

Leggett articulated the stance that leaders in Montgomery and Fairfax County, the two largest suburbs in the Washington region, have taken in recent months: They have no plans to follow the lead of such counties as Prince William and Loudoun by passing legislation that targets illegal immigrants.

Such measures, they say, are unlikely to produce meaningful results, given the limits the courts have set and the limits on federal enforcement resources. "You're raising a public expectation about what you're going to do, but what you're really going to do is a lot less than that expectation," Fairfax Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerald E. Connolly said in a recent meeting with Washington Post editors and reporters.

But Connolly and Leggett, both Democrats, acknowledge that the debate over illegal immigration has become more impassioned within their borders, entwined for some constituents with issues such as crowded schools, rising crime and aging neighborhoods.

Help Save Herndon, a group that galvanized the outcry over a day labor center in the Fairfax town, is hosting a meeting today to launch a countywide branch, citing public discontent over a hiring site near a Centreville library. Montgomery's newly created branch of Help Save Maryland had two protests in the past month.

Even in these relatively liberal counties, considered friendly to their foreign-born populations, immigration threatens to become a wedge issue. "I worry that if we're not careful, we could have very long-lasting divisions," Leggett said in an interview.

Such divisions have emerged in many of the counties farther from Washington. This week, Anne Arundel County Executive John R. Leopold (R) issued an executive order declaring that the county would sever contracts with any business caught employing illegal immigrants. The order is largely symbolic -- it includes no enforcement measures -- but underscores the county's growing unease on the issue.

In Loudoun and Prince William, leaders voted last month to mandate studies of what public services might be lawfully denied to undocumented residents.

Fairfax's more measured approach is counterproductive, Prince William's board chairman said yesterday. "They have clearly been the laggards," Corey A. Stewart (R) said. "If Fairfax doesn't begin to crack down on illegal immigration, they are quickly going to find themselves as the illegal immigrant sanctuary in Northern Virginia, particularly for the criminal element."

"I think that that's an emotional reaction," said Fairfax Supervisor Michael R. Frey (R-Sully), "but I don't think that there's any evidence to indicate that. All the evidence I've seen indicates that people live near where they have family, or friends. . . . The second is jobs and housing."

Unlike Loudoun and Prince William, which both experienced a sudden boom in immigration population in the past five years, the District and its closer-in suburbs have had steady growth over the past two decades. Elected officials in Fairfax and Montgomery have developed outreach programs for various immigrant communities and businesses and have cultivated more-established members for campaign contributions and votes.

These relationships help temper the immigration debate.

"We don't see this as a problem in Fairfax County," said Sami Kalifa, past president of the Annandale Chamber of Commerce, who emigrated from Jordan in 1969 and owns a flower shop. "The immigrants are established immigrants. They've been here for a long time, and they are really building the county. They are part of it. . . . That nice mix makes it what it is."

Grace Rivera-Oven is a Bolivian immigrant who has lived in Montgomery for two decades and has advocated for day laborers and other immigrants. She has also hosted coffees for politicians and speaks regularly with county officials.

Rivera-Oven said she doesn't think the opponents of illegal immigration are likely to make political inroads any time soon: "I think people in Montgomery County are more well rounded and politically savvy than to elect people with very narrow points of view."

But she said these opponents have successfully spread what she considers misconceptions about the ramifications of illegal immigration. "They're blamed for everything: from usage of hospitals, school money. But there's really no facts to back this up," she said. "It's easy to blame all the ills of the world on this group, because they don't have a real political voice."

Much of the tension over immigration in Fairfax and Montgomery has surfaced in public debates over creating day labor centers in Herndon and Gaithersburg.

Gaithersburg eventually abandoned the project, and Montgomery County set aside a piece of land just outside the city limits to open the day labor center this spring. Herndon officials opened a center in December 2005 and are searching for an operator who will verify that workers are in the country legally, something the nonprofit group that currently runs the center has refused to do.

The debate over immigration has also reached higher decibels as more foreign-born residents move beyond established enclaves and the new communities adjust, said Gaithersburg Police Chief John King. For instance, he said, Wheaton and Silver Spring residents have grown accustomed to the sight of Hispanic men loitering in a commercial area, but when it happens in Gaithersburg, some consider it intimidating.

The political action in Virginia's outer counties has also emboldened opponents in older neighborhoods, where some fear their communities will become magnets for undocumented immigrants if leaders fail to act.

"The majority of county taxpayers do not support the ongoing inflow of an uneducated, aggressive population that seeks as many services as it can get while avoiding paying taxes in order to feed its ignorant sense of greed," Silver Spring resident Sandra Pontius wrote in an e-mail to Leggett.

Ellen Albert, president of the Winterset Varsity Civic Association in Annandale, said an association meeting does not go by without a discussion of how illegal immigrants are "draining our resources." Albert, a computer consultant who is a Democrat, said residents feel "like strangers in their own land," overwhelmed by signs in foreign languages, neighbors who do not speak English and gang graffiti.

Her state delegate, Democrat David L. Bulova, sent out a survey before this year's legislative session, asking constituents to rank issues of concern. Transportation came in first. Illegal immigration came in second. Republicans and Democrats alike are upset, he said.

NumbersUSA, a national organization that lobbies for reduced immigration, says its membership has more than doubled in Virginia and Maryland since the beginning of the year.

Nearly 12,000 people were registered in Virginia, about twice as many as in Maryland. Among congressional districts, Virginia's 10th and 11th -- which include most of Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William counties -- had the most members as of late last month, a NumbersUSA spokeswoman said. In Maryland, the 6th District, which includes Frederick County and northern Montgomery, had the highest number.

"What was invisible to many citizens for many years is more visible," said Montgomery County Police Chief H. Thomas Manger, who worked in Fairfax before moving to Maryland. "People who didn't have an opinion about it now do."

Federal enforcement efforts, including last month's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid on El Pollo Rico, a Wheaton restaurant whose owners were charged with hiring illegal immigrants and money laundering, have strengthened the perception that illegal immigration fuels crime.

In Fairfax, complaints have surged about crowded houses, an issue officials say is the source of most local outcry over immigration -- even if the two topics are not always linked.

But the county has adopted no measures aimed directly at illegal immigrants.

Instead, officials emphasize that the county's policy is to provide illegal immigrants with public assistance only as required under federal law, such as with emergency medical care.

It has responded to crowding complaints by forming a multi-agency "strike force" of inspectors to crack down on violations.

"We're focused on outcomes and behavior. We're not focused on what is your status," Connolly said. He said the county staff is preparing an analysis of the cost of illegal immigration to Fairfax.

Bulova said he has felt constituent heat over the topic since he went door-knocking in 2005 in his central Fairfax district.

He was one of the few Democrats who voted this year for a measure that would have made it a crime for illegal immigrants to set foot in Virginia.

"We're a nation of immigrants, so we absolutely want to respect that," Bulova said. But, he said, "if you're here illegally and you get in trouble, then we shouldn't be turning a blind eye. That's what I'm hearing from folks."

Story Link

Immigration Activist Leaves Sanctuary, BY Robert Jablon (AP)

An illegal immigrant who left the protection of a Chicago church for the first time in more than a year was in Los Angeles Saturday to campaign for immigration reform, saying she chose to "stay and fight."

Elvira Arellano, speaking at a downtown church, said she was not afraid of being taken into custody by immigration agents. She sought sanctuary in the Chicago church to avoid deportation and separation from her 8-year-old American son.
"From the time I took sanctuary the possibility has existed that they arrest me in the place and time they want," she said in Spanish. "I only have two choices. I either go to my country, Mexico, or stay and keep fighting. I decided to stay and fight."

Arellano, 32, and other activists want lawmakers to place a moratorium on deportations and hammer out reforms that would allow undocumented immigrants to remain in the country, at least temporarily.

"We cannot wait for another election," she said. "We can't wait, sitting with our arms crossed, while our families are being separated."

As Arellano spoke her son, Saul, took part in a small immigration reform rally by activists a few miles away at City Hall.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials declined to discuss their operations, but no uniformed agents appeared to be present at the church or rally.

Local church officials said Arellano planned to visit and pray Sunday with the families of four other people who are staying in sanctuary churches in Los Angeles, then head back East.

Arellano came to Washington state illegally in 1997. She was deported to Mexico shortly after, but returned and moved to Illinois in 2000, taking a job cleaning planes at O'Hare International Airport.

She was arrested in 2002 at O'Hare and later convicted of working under a false Social Security number. She was to surrender to authorities last August.

She sought sanctuary on Aug. 15, 2006, at Adalberto United Methodist Church. She had not left the church property until deciding to be driven to Los Angeles, said the Rev. Walter Coleman, pastor of the storefront church on Chicago's West Side.

**Story Link

8/14/07

Migrant workers struggle to find housing, By Gillian Flaccus (AP)


Life is harsh for the 4,000 migrant workers who live in the Desert Mobile Home Park, where hundreds of dilapidated dwellings sit along dirt streets. The 110-degree air is thick with large black flies and the stench of raw sewage. Wild dogs prowl the alleys.

But conditions could get even worse if the federal government follows through on its threat to close this site on a sun-baked Indian reservation because of rampant health and safety violations.

"Where are we going to go, where are they going to put us?" asked Angelina Cisneros, 59, who lives with her family of four in a crumbling sea-green trailer. "We don't have any money."

The fertile Coachella Valley is one of the nation's richest farming regions and home to five-star tourist destinations such as Palm Springs. But the thousands of migrant workers who toil in the fields struggle to find housing. On annual wages of just $12,000, many families can afford only squalid homes.

Desert Mobile Home Park is unusual because it's located on the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation — beyond the reach of state and local governments.

Thus far, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has not been able to provide any alternatives for residents, even as it prepares to ask a federal judge next month to order a phased closure of the park over four months.

The judge could agree or instead demand that the owner make repairs or put the park into federal receivership.

The bureau is working with county officials to find alternative housing — a daunting prospect in a region southeast of Los Angeles where demand quickly overwhelms the 200 or more affordable units that come on the market each year.

"There's no easy answer, and I wish there was," said James Fletcher, Southern California superintendent of the bureau. "Is it better for people to continue to live in those kinds of conditions? That's the balance we have to strike."

The migrant workers are essential to the farming economy, harvesting nearly $1 billion of table grapes, dates, chili peppers and other crops from the region's heavily irrigated fields.

A number of agricultural areas across the country are facing similar problems. In Washington state, some migrants have lived in a tent camp for four years on commercial land near an airport. In North Carolina, the governor is considering a bill that would allow close monitoring of migrant housing conditions.

In California, farmworker advocates are appalled by the living conditions but caution that shutting down the trailer park will not help residents. They want the federal government to take over the site and make urgent repairs while working out a long-term closure plan.

"The focus should not be on closure but on rehabbing the park to address the most serious health and safety issues," said Arturo Rodriguez, a staff attorney with California Rural Legal Assistance.

The conflict began in the late 1990s, when local officials began cracking down on illegal trailer parks hidden away on county land.

Harvey Duro, a member of the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, opened 40 acres of his land to the migrant workers who were being displaced.

With trailers in tow, the workers flocked to Duro's land.

Conditions worsened until 2004. Federal officials ordered numerous repairs after the facility was cited by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau of Indian Affairs for alleged clean-water violations, open sewage, illegal dumping and overcrowding.

Alan Singer, a spokesman for Duro, said the landlord has spent tens of thousands of dollars repairing the water system and eliminating hazardous conditions.

"If the park is shut down, it will be a total disaster," Singer said. "They'll live where they used to live, which is under trees and in cars because that's the only place they have."

Residents pay $275 a month to rent a space for a trailer. With utilities, they said, the monthly bill frequently tops $500, even though water and electricity service are often lost for days.

During peak season as many as 20 people live in some trailers at the park, located near a recently closed dump and an open-air wastewater treatment pond.

The latest federal inspection came last month, after a fire destroyed eight trailers. Fletcher, of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, said few improvements were found.

"You have to put in at least basic infrastructure — proper water, proper sewer, proper electrical — and he didn't do any of those," Fletcher said.

Singer said the Bureau of Indian Affairs has not shared the latest inspection report with Duro and accused the federal agency of trying to take over Indian lands in a "new-millenium land grab."

Riverside County is considering several options for residents who could be displaced if the park is closed, including asking for temporary trailers from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and expanding a mobile home loan program that helps residents in unlawful camps secure replacement housing.

Still, local government would be overwhelmed if thousands of people became homeless during the next few months, said Denys Arcuri, a spokesman for county Supervisor Roy Wilson, whose district includes Coachella Valley.

"We just don't happen to have 2,000 empty homes to put people in," Arcuri said.

**Photo Courtesy of Damian Dovarganes (AP), with slideshow
**Story Link

8/10/07

LISTEN: Las Vegas Tackles Local Immigration Reform, By Frank Geary (NPR)

Tell Me More, In our regular feature, Dispatches, Las Vegas Review-Journal reporter Frank Geary weighs the costs and benefits of immigrants in Las Vegas.

M.I.A. from the Immigration Debate, Creating Economic Opportunity in Mexico, By James Ridgeway (MJ)


Washington Dispatch: Could an influx of foreign aid to Mexico solve America's immigration problem?

For all the talk about immigration reform on the Hill, there has been notably little discussion about what is driving Mexican immigrants to pour over the border into the U.S., let alone any debate about measures that might go to the root of the problem. According to Laura Carlsen, the director of the International Relations Center's Americas Program, the reason behind the "massive out-migration" is fairly clear. Put simply, she wrote not long ago, "Mexico is not producing enough decent jobs for its people—and the United States is hiring." It would seem, then, that one potential answer to the United States' so-called immigration problem would be an effective development policy toward Mexico (whose citizens make up 56 percent of America's undocumented population, according to the Pew Hispanic Center), including both private investment and foreign aid. As it stands, Mexico receives the bulk of its aid not from the U.S. government or corporations but from immigrants themselves.

Despite having incomes well below the national average, many Mexican immigrants regularly send a portion of their earnings home to support their families and sometimes entire communities. Remittances from immigrant workers now stand approximately equal to oil revenues as one of the two largest sources of foreign income in Mexico. According to Guillermo Ortíz, head of Mexico's central bank, they totaled $23.54 billion in 2006.

These remittances – the vast majority sent from the United States, primarily in payments of $100 to $200 -- exponentially exceed foreign aid to Mexico. According to the Century Foundation, for every dollar in official foreign aid that goes to Mexico, immigrants send home $150. The bottom line is that these remittances have become a substitute—and a poor one at that—for effective development policies aimed at generating employment and stimulating rural production.

While the United States frequently grouses to the Mexican government that it ought to provide economic opportunities at home that will keep its citizens from teeming over our border, we've been less quick to provide Mexico with much help in doing so. To the contrary, the U.S. continues to exploit Mexico's resources for its own needs. Those resources, of course, include the very undocumented workers we complain about, which, like the illicit drugs we likewise condemn, would soon cease to flow north across the border if there were no demand for them here.

The 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was supposed to be a tremendous boon for Mexico, as well as for the United States and Canada, creating the beginnings of a common market for the benefit of all. More than 13 years later, though, the relationship still smacks of colonialism. Howard Zinn, the author of A People's History of the United States who has documented the history of U.S. colonialism in Latin America, says of the current immigration debate, "Why should capital go freely across borders while people cannot? These are human beings trying to make a better life, for god's sake. Why is the wall on the Mexican border more acceptable than the Berlin Wall?"

Contrast all this to what's happened in the European Union, which was formed just two years prior to NAFTA, in 1992. Through the post-war years and well into the 1980s, most of the huge number of foreign guest workers in then-richer nations like Britain, Germany, France, and Switzerland came not from the so-called Third World, but from current European Union member-countries like Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Ireland. Instead of just employing foreign workers, though, the wealthier European nations also jumpstarted the economies of their poorer neighbors with billions of dollars in investments. As Douglas Massey, a Princeton University sociologist and co-director of the school's Mexican Migration Project, told the San Francisco Chronicle last year, if "the United States had approached Mexico and its integration into the North American economy in the same way that the European Union approached Spain and Portugal in 1986, we wouldn't have an immigration problem now."

**Photo Courtesy of Mother Jones
**Story Link

Bush Plans Immigration Crackdown, By Robert Pear (NYT)


The Bush administration plans to announce numerous steps on Friday to secure the border with Mexico, speed the expulsion of illegal immigrants and step up enforcement of immigration laws, administration officials say.

The effort stems, in part, from White House frustration with the failure of Congress to approve President Bush’s proposals to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws and grant legal status to most of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. In debate on that legislation, many Republicans said Mr. Bush should first enforce existing laws more aggressively.

Carlos M. Gutierrez, the secretary of commerce, and Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, have invited employers to attend a briefing on the new initiatives on Friday.

Under the most significant change, disclosed earlier this week, many employers could be required to fire employees who used false Social Security numbers. At the same time, federal officials would crack down on companies employing substantial numbers of illegal immigrants.

Administration officials told members of Congress on Thursday night that they would speed up construction of fences along the Mexican border, hire more Border Patrol agents and detain more of the immigrants caught illegally crossing the border.

Moreover, administration officials said they would try to match up records of the arrival and departure of noncitizens entering and leaving the United States. Members of Congress say this exit-control system, required under a 1996 law, is essential to securing the nation’s borders, but many lawmakers say the administration has been slow in carrying out the law.

In addition, administration officials said they would train more state and local law enforcement officers to help enforce federal immigration laws. Since 2002, the federal government has trained more than 300 police and correctional officers. But members of Congress say the administration could do much more.

Administration officials said they were also planning to step up efforts to arrest and deport illegal immigrants who were members of street gangs. And they said federal agents would fan out across the country to hunt down “alien fugitives” who had been ordered to leave the United States but failed to comply.

Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, has repeatedly urged the administration to take action against such “alien absconders.”

Under a 1986 law, employers must ask job applicants for documents to verify that they are United States citizens or immigrants authorized to work here. Administration officials said they wanted to simplify this process for employers by limiting the documents that could be used.

Mr. Bush’s immigration proposals collapsed on the Senate floor on June 28, after three weeks of debate. Mr. Bush had repeatedly promised tougher enforcement, but many lawmakers said they did not trust him to fulfill his promises.

“The federal government has failed and has rightfully lost the trust of the people” on this issue, said Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma.

In debate on the Senate bill, Mr. Coburn proposed an amendment that would have required the administration to enforce all existing immigration laws and demonstrate “operational control” of the Mexican border as a precondition to granting legal status to illegal immigrants.

Rosemary E. Jenks, director of government relations at Numbers USA, a major foe of illegal immigration, said the steps being taken by the administration were “long overdue.”

But Laura Foote Reiff, a lawyer who advises companies on immigration issues, said employers might have to dismiss many workers whose Social Security numbers could not be verified.

“People will be leaving the work force in droves,” Ms. Reiff said. “It will be like a hurricane hitting the country.”

**Photo Courtesy of Charles Dharapak (AP)
**Story Link

8/9/07

Congress needs to fix legal immigration first, By Bruce A. Morrison (SFC)


The resounding defeat of the Senate immigration reform bill was a relief to true friends of American immigration. No more urging a "yes" vote just "to move the process forward." Let's speak the truth - the Senate bill was not merely imperfect, it would have made many things worse.
"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" sounded good, but it reflects a flawed strategy.

Immigration opponents put illegal and legal immigration into the same bucket because they want to convince Americans that there's just one problem - too many immigrants. When immigration supporters make coming or staying illegally seem like just another immigration option, they invite the same wrongheaded conclusion - that cutting all immigration is the answer.

The Senate bill was the inevitable result. To secure support for legalization (which opponents will always call amnesty regardless of the technicalities), both family and employment immigration would have been cut and crippled by broadly unpopular, ideologically driven changes demanded by restrictionists. Employers all around the Bay Area and in Silicon Valley, who have created thousands of American jobs with the help of key immigrant employees, would have been hurt by these changes. Yet all the Senate's concessions produced no additional support in the end.

But to drop immigration reform from our national agenda until after the 2008 election would be wrong. Delivering what the American people are for - legal immigration based on America's needs and enforcement that prevents illegal presence - are the first steps to fixing immigration policy as a whole.

So now is the time for the House to go a better way: "Fix Legal Immigration and Prevent Illegal Immigration First." It is two Northern California representatives - Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and Immigration Subcommittee Chair Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose - who can play a leading role.

Who gets to immigrate should be driven by our national interest, not our failures. Congress must make certain that the family members and employees we need and want have enough visas and get them promptly. Right now, they don't. So without legal immigration reform, enforcement strategies fail.

Besides, preventing a problem is better than enforcement after it occurs.

Prevention depends on removing the magnet of illegal employment. Today's system is a joke. It is impossible for employers to tell who is legal from the documents they are allowed to see. The pilot electronic system is a good idea, but it lacks capacity to defeat identity theft. Employers need an easy-to-use electronic system with minimal paperwork that gives a clear and dependable "yes" or "no" whether a prospective employee is legal. Let's use private sector competition to build an effective system and enlist law-abiding employers as partners in preventing illegal employment so we can focus enforcement on employers who choose to be scofflaws by avoiding or misusing the system.

Had we spent the last decade with a legal immigration system that delivered what we want and deterred what we don't, we would have many fewer people here illegally today. The silver lining of the Senate bill's collapse is that it provides the opportunity to do these two things we need most.

The longer we wait to do first things first - provide enough visas for legal immigration and remove the magnet for illegal entries created by unauthorized employment - the larger the numbers of those who will be here illegally and the less the public will trust Congress to fix the problem.

It is folly to ask Americans to accept new promises for effective immigration control when the record is so dismal. We know what to do - keep up pressure at the border and remove the jobs magnet - and unauthorized entries will plummet, especially if realistic numbers of visas are available for jobs going unfilled by Americans.

Some of that was in the Senate bill, but not without other baggage and not in a form that anyone could believe would be implemented anytime soon.

Some object that fixing legal immigration first leaves millions who are here illegally without a path to legalization. But so does the political impasse demonstrated by the Senate bill. The difference is that fixing legal immigration and stopping illegal immigration first moves toward a solution that can attract broad support, because it says "watch us" not "trust us" to the American people.

A few advocates even argue that only by holding prevention hostage can Congress be persuaded to respond humanely and sensibly to the 12 million already here. The Senate result shows that they have it backward. Most Americans will be far more open to dealing generously and wisely with residents here illegally after the federal government has shown that legalization is about curing a past mistake, not another step to millions more entering illegally in the future.

No doubt, the Senate will be slow to return to these issues. But that presents Pelosi and Lofgren with a historic opportunity to take the lead: fix legal immigration and prevent illegal immigration first.


Bruce A. Morrison, a former Democratic congressman from Connecticut, was chairman of the House Immigration subcommittee during passage of the Immigration Act of 1990 and a member of the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform.

**Photo Courtesy of Jacquelyn Martin
**Story Link

The Face of Local Counties Shifts With Surge in Minorities, By N.C. Aizenman (WP)


Fueled by an explosion of jobs attracting immigrants to the nation's suburbs, the percentage of minorities has dramatically increased in six local counties -- including Prince William, where the share of minorities grew from 35 percent in 2000 to 48 percent in 2006, according to census estimates to be released today.

In addition, Manassas Park was one of eight jurisdictions nationwide that shifted to majority-minority status in 2006, bringing the total number of counties in which minorities outnumber whites to 303 -- nearly one in 10 of the nation's 3,141 counties.

Of these, Los Angeles County's minority population of 7 million was by far the largest -- exceeding the total population of 38 states, and accounting for one in 14 of the nation's minority residents.

Locally, Charles County in Maryland and the Virginia counties of Prince William, Loudoun and Stafford, as well as the city of Manassas, remain majority-white, but the proportion of minorities increased at some of the fastest rates in the nation.

In 2000, minorities accounted for 33 percent of Charles's population. By 2006, they were 45 percent. Similarly, Stafford's share of minorities grew from 20 percent to 29 percent, and Loudoun's share increased from 20 percent to 32 percent.

In the case of Manassas Park and Manassas (both of which the census treats as the equivalent of a county) and Charles, the shift was partly attributable to a decline in the number of non-Hispanic white residents. But in Prince William, Loudoun and Stafford, the influx of non-Hispanic whites was simply dwarfed by the increase in minority residents.

A similar dynamic is occurring nationally, with the Hispanic population growing by 26 percent between 2000 and 2006, from 35 million to 44 million. Demographers said the effect of this growth has been further heightened by the increasing inclination of minorities -- particularly Hispanics -- to move beyond major metropolitan areas in which they have historically concentrated, into suburban, exurban and rural localities.

The Hispanic population continued to grow fastest in large metropolitan counties in the South from 2000 to 2006. But it also increased by 22 percent in small towns and rural areas in which the overall population growth was 3 percent.

"A lot of these rural places would have lost population if it weren't for their Hispanic population gains," said Mark Mather of the Washington-based Population Reference Bureau. He produced a report on the data with colleague Kelvin Pollard.

Mather and Pollard speculated that such areas are losing non-minority populations because of fewer jobs in family farming, manufacturing, mining and other longtime core industries. In their place, positions are being created in less-well-paying industries such as commercial agriculture, meatpacking and textiles. Those jobs attract foreign-born workers willing to labor for less money. By contrast, minority growth in suburban and exurban areas appears to be driven by the overall population increase of those areas, according to William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution.

Large numbers of blacks are following the pattern of suburbanization that was more common among whites during earlier decades, Frey noted.

"Meanwhile, the movement of a lot of middle-class whites to the suburbs and exurbs has spawned a whole new industry of jobs in construction, landscaping and housekeeping that suburban residents don't want to do and which therefore attract immigrants," he said.

That cycle may help explain why Stafford, Loudoun and Prince William, along with three other Virginia counties (Culpeper, Fauquier and Spotsylvania) and Frederick County, Md., have among the top 20 fastest-growing Hispanic populations in the nation.

Culpeper ranked second, with an increase in its Hispanic population from 858 in 2000 to 3,111 in 2006, or 7 percent of the population.

The newcomers have contributed to economic growth in those counties, but they have also provoked social tensions.

County governments in Prince William and Loudoun have passed measures to deny public services to illegal immigrants, intended to discourage them from settling there. And yesterday, Culpeper's Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a resolution declaring English the county's official language.

**Graph Courtesy of Washington Post
**Story Link

8/8/07

U.S. Set for a Crackdown on Illegal Hiring, By Julia Preston (NYT)


In a new effort to crack down on illegal immigrants, federal authorities are expected to announce tough rules this week that would require employers to fire workers who use false Social Security numbers.

Officials said the rules would be backed up by stepped-up raids on workplaces across the country that employ illegal immigrants.

After first proposing the rules last year, Department of Homeland Security officials said they held off finishing them to await the outcome of the debate in Congress over a sweeping immigration bill. That measure, which was supported by President Bush, died in the Senate in June.

Now administration officials are signaling that they intend to clamp down on employers of illegal immigrants even without a new immigration law to offer legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the workforce.

The approach is expected to play well with conservatives who have long demanded that the administration do more to enforce existing immigration laws, but it could also lead to renewed pressure from businesses on Congress to provide legal status for an estimated six million unauthorized immigrant workers.

“We are tough and we are going to be even tougher,” Russ Knocke, the spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, said yesterday. “There are not going to be any more excuses for employers, and there will be serious consequences for those that choose to blatantly disregard the law.”

Experts said the new rules represented a major tightening of the immigration enforcement system, in which employers for decades have paid little attention to notices, known as no-match letters, from the Social Security Administration advising that workers’ names and numbers did not match the agency’s records.

Illegal workers often provide employers with false Social Security numbers to qualify for a job.

Employers, especially in agriculture and low-wage industries, said they were deeply worried about the new rules, which could force them to lay off thousands of immigrant workers. More than 70 percent of farmworkers in the fields of the United States are illegal immigrants, according to estimates by growers’ associations.

“Across the employer community people are scared, confused, holding their breath,” said Craig Regelbrugge, co-chairman of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, a trade organization. “Given what we know about the demographics of our labor force, since we are approaching peak season, people are particularly on edge.”

The expected regulations would give employers a fixed period, perhaps up to 90 days, to resolve any discrepancies between identity information provided by their workers and the records of the Social Security Administration. If workers’ documents cannot be verified, employers would be required to fire them or risk up to $10,000 in fines for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

Immigrant rights groups and labor unions, including the A.F.L.-C.I.O., predicted the rules would unleash discrimination against Hispanic workers. They said they were preparing legal challenges to try to stop them from taking effect.

Some Republican lawmakers welcomed the administration’s stance. “If they shut off the jobs magnet in the workplace in a way that shows they are serious about restoring the rule of law, then I’m encouraged,” said Representative Steve King of Iowa.

The new rules codify an uneasy partnership between the Department of Homeland Security, which enforces the immigration laws, and the Social Security Administration, which collects identity information from W-2 tax forms of about 250 million workers each year, so it can credit the earnings in its system.

Mark Hinkle, a spokesman for Social Security, said the agency expected to send out about 140,000 no-match letters to employers this year, covering more than eight million workers. After the rules are announced, the agency is anticipating a surge in requests from employers seeking to clarify workers’ information, Mr. Hinkle said.

Social Security issues letters only to employers who have more than 10 workers whose numbers do not match, when those workers represent at least one-half of 1 percent of the company’s workforce, Mr. Hinkle said.

The agency cannot verify which mismatches came from immigrants who presented false Social Security numbers when they applied for jobs, he said. Mismatches also occur because of clerical errors, or when workers marry and forget to inform Social Security that they changed their names. Several federal studies in recent years have found significant error rates in the Social Security database.

“We don’t know and we don’t speculate” about the reasons for mismatches, Mr. Hinkle said.

The new rules will clarify steps employers can take to avoid being accused of knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, officials said. According to the draft, employers would be given 14 days after receiving a no-match letter to check for clerical errors and consult with the employee to correct mistakes. If the discrepancies are eliminated and new, valid work papers are filed within the fixed period, employers would enjoy a “safe harbor” from penalties.

The rules proposed last year brought a storm of criticism from both employers and workers groups. In a formal comment, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. said the rules would “harm all workers regardless of immigration status.”

“The enforcement is only on the immigration side,” Ana Avendaño, associate general counsel for the A.F.L.-C.I.O, said yesterday. “They don’t do any labor inspection. So they are just giving employers another tool to repress workers’ rights.”

Even large companies that do not hire many low-skilled immigrants would be affected by the rules, lawyers said.

“It’s going to be a big change for almost every company,” said Cynthia J. Lange, an immigration lawyer in California.

Muzaffar A. Chishti, a director of the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research group, said, “If this is strictly enforced there could be massive layoffs of workers.” But Mr. Chishti said that illegal immigrant workers might not leave the labor force but would apply for jobs at other businesses using the same invalid documents. He predicted the market for forged documents would grow.

“A lot of employers are saying, ‘We just can’t handle this,’ ” said Laura Reiff, co-chairwoman of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, which represents employers in low-skilled industries. She said the rules might lead to new pressure from business on Congress to reconsider measures granting legal status to illegal immigrants.

**Photo Courtesy of Mark Avery (AP)
**Story Link

8/7/07

Our Town, By Alex Kotlowitz (NYT)


When I first met with Judy Sigwalt and her fellow village trustee Paul Humpfer this past April, they were, understandably, feeling assured, if not emboldened. A few weeks earlier, with the endorsement of the two local newspapers, they were elected to their village board on the platform that their town, Carpentersville, Ill., should do everything in its power to discourage illegal immigrants from settling there. They vowed to pass a local ordinance that would penalize landlords that rented to illegal aliens and businesses that hired them. They also pledged to make English the official language of the village, which would mean discontinuing the practice of printing various notices — including building-code violations and the monthly newsletter — in both English and Spanish. The third candidate on their slate also won, giving them a majority on the board. Sigwalt and Humpfer considered their election a mandate. Indeed, many in this village consider them heroes. Their supporters wear buttons that read, “Illegal Means Illegal,” and: “I’m tired. Are you? Ask Me Why!” with a sickly looking bald eagle wrapped in the American flag.

At that first gathering, we sat at Sigwalt’s dining-room table, trying to keep our voices down because the four toddlers whom Sigwalt cares for as part of her day-care business were taking their afternoon nap. “People feel like they’re not in their town,” Humpfer told me. “They feel alienated.” In the 1990s, the texture of the town changed significantly. An estimated 40 percent of its 37,000 residents are Hispanic, a jump from 17 percent in 1990. And this has not sat well with everyone. Humpfer and Sigwalt insist that their stance has nothing to do with this demographic shift but rather with the contingent of undocumented immigrants living in the town. There’s no way to measure the actual numbers, but it’s probable that a sizable portion of the Hispanic population living in Carpentersville is without papers. (Nationwide, the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that one-fifth of all Latinos are here without proper documents.) One priest at St. Monica, a local Roman Catholic church, estimated that more than half of the 3,500-member congregation is here illegally. “The American taxpayer,” Sigwalt told me, “is becoming secondary in their own country.”

Sigwalt and Humpfer have become inseparable, at least politically, and people refer to them together in one breath as if they were a theatrical act, like Penn & Teller or Siegfried & Roy. Sigwalt, who is 54, is short and square-shouldered. With her close-cropped haircut and scolding manner, she can come across as a stern, no-nonsense schoolteacher. Humpfer, who is 43 and an accountant at Zurich Financial Services, a Swiss-based company with operations in the U.S., seems less comfortable with all the attention. His sentences are often punctuated by a nervous, uneasy laugh. He has large, handsome features and a dark complexion; as a result, he’s often mistaken for being Latino, though he’s actually part American Indian. His maternal grandfather was Arapaho. “I don’t like that it turns into that I’m somehow against Hispanics,” Humpfer said. “I want to deal with the crime and the overcrowding in our town. And we’re doing anything we can to influence the outcome nationally.”

It’s in places like Carpentersville where we may be witnessing the opening of a deep and profound fissure in the American landscape. Over the past two years, more than 40 local and state governments have passed ordinances and legislation aimed at making life miserable for illegal immigrants in the hope that they’ll have no choice but to return to their countries of origin. Deportation by attrition, some call it. One of the first ordinances was passed in Hazleton, Pa., and was meant to bar illegal immigrants from living and working there. It served as a model for many local officials across the country, including Sigwalt and Humpfer. On July 26, a federal judge struck down Hazleton’s ordinance, but the town’s mayor, Lou Barletta, plans to appeal the decision. “This battle is far from over,” he declared the day of the ruling. States and towns have looked for other ways to crack down on illegal immigrants. Last month, Prince William County in northern Virginia passed a resolution trying to curb illegal immigrants’ access to public services. Waukegan, another Illinois town, has voted to apply for a federal program that would allow its police to begin deportation charges against those who are here illegally. A week after the Senate failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform, Arizona’s governor, Janet Napolitano, signed into law an act penalizing businesses that knowingly hire undocumented immigrants. “One of the practical effects of this failure” to enact national immigration reform, Napolitano wrote to the Congressional leadership, “is that Arizona, and states across the nation, must now continue to address this escalating problem on their own.” Admittedly, the constitutionality of many of these new laws is still in question, and some of the state bills and local ordinances simply duplicate what’s already in force nationally. But with Congress’s inability to reach an agreement on an immigration bill, the debate will continue among local officials like those in Carpentersville, where the wrangling often seems less about illegal immigration than it does about whether new immigrants are assimilating quickly enough, if at all. In Carpentersville, the rancor has turned neighbor against neighbor. Once you scrape away the acid rhetoric, though, there’s much people actually agree on — but given the ugliness of the taunts and assertions, it’s unlikely that will ever emerge.

Carpentersville is without a center. It has no downtown. It has no clear identity.

Forty miles northwest of Chicago, Carpentersville is a bit too far to be a commuter town and not distant enough to be a self-contained village. The town, which sprawls over seven and a half square miles, has grown without much planning, and feels less like a suburb than it does an adventure in navigation. The languid Fox River, which cuts through its midsection, is what orients. East of the river and west of the river have clear connotations.

To the east is the town’s older housing stock, including a 6,000-house development, which, in the spirit of Long Island’s Levittown, was built in the 1950s for returning war veterans who were looking to escape the crowded and increasingly expensive tenements of Chicago. These affordable and unadorned ranch homes (they can be bought for $150,000), all roughly 1,000 square feet in size, have long lured first-time home buyers — first the war veterans and more recently first- and second-generation immigrants from Mexico. The town’s proximity to Elgin, a small working-class city that has a sizable Latino population, has also been an attraction. Elgin, once the home of the Elgin National Watch Company, is still the site of some factories as well as a riverboat casino, and thus a number of entry-level jobs. In Carpentersville, Hispanics have mostly settled on the east side, and so that part of town is dotted with Mexican grocery stores, beauty salons, restaurants and bakeries. Along the river is the older part of the village, mostly white working-class families along with a smattering of small manufacturing firms and a cornfield, which is still harvested annually. To the west of the river lies the town’s new wealth, a collection of labyrinthine subdivisions where home prices start at $250,000 and can go for as much as a million dollars. Many of these residents work professional jobs at nearby corporations, like Sears and Motorola.

It would be easy to live in Carpentersville and have nothing to do with people on the other side of the river, and as the number of Hispanics increased, most in town barely paid attention. People tell me that everyone got along reasonably well. Indeed, in 1999, the village leaders established the Hispanic Committee in the hope that they could help acculturate and celebrate the new arrivals. It encouraged Hispanics to participate in the 2000 census and registered newcomers to vote. Judy Sigwalt was a part of this committee.

Sigwalt describes herself as “just a Joe Blow who at 54 works 10 hours a day at a service job.” Her husband is a diesel mechanic for Wonder Bread. Sigwalt was first elected a village trustee in 1999, and shortly afterward agreed to join the Hispanic Committee. For three summers, the committee was the host of Celebration Latina, a one-day festival of Mexican food and music. But Sigwalt said she believed that non-Hispanic residents in town did not want to attend such an ethnically specific festival, and so she urged a name change, to Community Pride Day. That year attendance dropped off from 2,500 to 500 people. Shortly afterward, the Hispanic Committee disbanded, but it all happened quietly, without much notice.

For 23 years, Sigwalt, along with her husband and her son, lived on the east side of town and watched as their neighborhood slowly changed. Hispanic families moved in. Her son’s best friend, Eddie Morales, was the son of immigrants. The two were on the high-school wrestling team together, and Sigwalt would drive them to weekend matches. But Sigwalt told me she became terribly lonely. There was no one to have coffee with because so many of her neighbors didn’t speak English, and so three years ago she and her family moved to a subdivision west of the river.

Last fall, Humpfer, who had initially been appointed to fill a vacancy on the village board, approached her about passing an ordinance similar to the one that had been proposed by the mayor of Hazleton. Humpfer had been upset by a couple of matters. A restaurant owner and his family, who were Hispanic, had been abducted from their nearby village to a home in Carpentersville. The six kidnappers, all members of a street gang, believed the restaurateur had a stash of drugs or cash, which they wanted. Everyone was eventually freed safely, but in the aftermath the newspapers reported that one of the kidnappers was here illegally. “It scares you,” Humpfer told me. “It’s just a matter of time before it ends up in my neighborhood.” Around this time, Humpfer also learned that the village was having little success in collecting $372,000 in ambulance fees. The collection agencies hired by the village were unable to locate many of the individuals with outstanding bills. A number of them had Spanish surnames, Humpfer said, and he concluded that many gave false addresses because they were without documents and so feared deportation.

Moreover, Humpfer and Sigwalt said that constituents had expressed dismay at the number of businesses in which the proprietors spoke only Spanish. “I’ve gone into the Polish deli and the German deli, and they’re so friendly,” Sigwalt said. “When I go into the Hispanic grocery store, I feel like an intruder; I feel unwelcome.” Humpfer added, “It’s gotten to a level where the number of illegals is so big, these stores can cater to only one culture.”

So, together, Humpfer and Sigwalt introduced a Hazletonlike ordinance that would penalize landlords for renting to illegals and businesses for hiring them. At the next village meeting, more than 2,000 protesters showed up to denounce the ordinance. A number of them were from Chicago and Elgin, members of a club for people from the Mexican state of Michoacán, the original home of many in Carpentersville. Such a demonstration was unprecedented for this small town. The trustees tabled discussion of the ordinance that night because the village hall seats only 210 people, and they couldn’t find a large enough space to accommodate everybody. (Since then, the village has purchased speakers, which are set up outside so that the proceedings can be heard by those who can’t fit into the rotunda.) The rally made the Chicago newspapers, and it seemed to encourage Humpfer and Sigwalt as they, along with a first-time candidate, formed a slate to run in the coming election. They called themselves the All American Team.

During a tour of Otto Engineering, a family-run business, Tom Roeser, its president and owner, saw that I had noticed alarm signs, which were in both English and Spanish. “Those are going,” he assured me. Roeser prohibits bilingual signs in his factory, and these signs, which had been put up by an outside cleaning company, didn’t sit well with him. Nearly half of Otto’s 502 employees are Hispanic, and Roeser insists that they learn English. Prospective hires must first pass a language test. He requires supervisors to give instructions in English. He also has a full-time instructor on staff who offers English-language classes to employees; they won’t receive pay increases unless they have achieved a certain proficiency. “If you learn the language, it’s the first sign you’re assimilating” he told me.

Otto is the town’s largest employer, which gives Roeser stature in the community. The company designs and produces customized switches and audio products for NASA, the Air Force and the like, so its work force is a combination of highly skilled engineers and low-skilled assembly workers (most of the Hispanics are among the latter). According to Roeser, Otto’s revenues last year were roughly $77 million. Roeser, who’s tall and lanky, is modest in his appearance, favoring khakis and open-collared shirts often with “Otto” stitched above the pocket. (He does, though, covet fancy wheels, driving an Aston Martin two-seater, which he parks in the lot along with his employees’ pickups and older-model American-made cars.) The company was founded by his father, Jack, a conservative who started a political action committee, the Family Taxpayers Network, which takes on both fiscal and social issues, like high taxes and same-sex marriage; he has vigorously and successfully opposed at least two school referendums, criticizing what he considers out-of-control spending and overpaid teachers. Tom, too, is conservative — he told me he was hoping Newt Gingrich would seek the Republican presidential nomination — but he doesn’t have the same political zeal as his father, who is semiretired from the company. As a result, people in town were surprised when he took on Humpfer and Sigwalt, and did so with an unusual bluntness. “They’re bigots,” Tom Roeser told me. “They’re walking around like roosters.”

About 12 years ago, Roeser began to see the ethnic makeup of his hourly work force, which is predominantly female, change. Initially the company hired a handful of recent Korean and Laotian immigrants; then Hispanics increasingly got jobs there. Roeser takes great pride in his relationship with his employees. Most call him by his first name. Each year, he gives them a picnic, and at the one I attended earlier this summer, Roeser knew the name of just about all the employees there, as well as their spouses. At a Christmas party in 1995, Roeser approached a group of assemblers and boasted of the family atmosphere at his company. One longtime employee, Darlene Hutchins, shook her head. “Tom,” she said, “that’s what you think, but there are people who are unhappy. Some of us older ones, we don’t feel like we’re being recognized for what we’ve done for this company.” Hutchins, in recounting this moment, told me: “We were just uncomfortable because they” — the newer Hispanic hires —“seemed to get everything. We felt lost in the crowd.”

In response, Roeser formed the Wise Owls Club, recognition for those at Otto for 15 years or more. He gave away Wise Owls shirts and sponsored an annual luncheon. It was a small gesture, but Roeser realized he had to retain his older employees, most of whom were white and all of whom would soon be in the minority, while also trying to assimilate his newer Hispanic workers or, as he puts it, “Ottoize” them. This is essential to Roeser, and he maintains it is at the heart of the contentiousness in Carpentersville: that longtime residents don’t trust that their new neighbors are becoming Americanized fast enough.

Hispanics, Roeser told me “are more social. They’re more in your face. So if you live next door to a Hispanic, they probably have more levels of family living there. I’ll call it overcrowding. They may live in a low- income house, so they have only one bathroom, and the men go outside and urinate on the tree. You live next door to this family, and you don’t like that the man urinated outside, and you don’t like the fourth car in the front yard. And you don’t like the loud music and the picnicking, and so what you say is they must be a bunch of damn illegals. But once they’re all legal, you still have the same problem. You need to assimilate them.” And for Roeser, the quickest way to assimilation is to learn the language, which is why he’s so insistent that his company not operate in both Spanish and English. English, you might say, is the official language of Otto.

As with many, Roeser’s thinking about immigration is complicated and at times conflicted, infused with a sense of American practicality, compassion and nationalistic pride. For instance, he won’t allow employees to hang a Mexican flag in the plant, and he refused to allow employees who wanted to attend a large immigration march in Chicago to take the day off. On the other hand, he celebrates Cinco de Mayo every year by bringing in two mariachi bands, one for each cafeteria, and a catered Mexican lunch. (He’s quick to tell me that he has also arranged for festivities on St. Patrick’s Day and Casimir Pulaski Day.) At this year’s Cinco de Mayo celebration, which I attended at Roeser’s invitation, Roeser took the hand of one of his assembly-line workers — she was wearing a T-shirt that read, “Kiss Me, I’m Mexican” — and pulled her onto the floor to dance. Soon others joined in. Those along the walls and at the tables cheered them on, as this tall, gangly white man dressed in loafers, chinos and a green plaid shirt clapped his hands together with some semblance of rhythm along with six Hispanic women, most wearing flowing peasant dresses and adorned in red and green ribbons.

Roeser is an engineer by training, and if there’s one thing he hates, it’s inefficiency. He saw Humpfer and Sigwalt’s proposed ordinances as just plain bad management. While Otto, he says, already screens new hires for false papers (it refined its process after the Immigration and Naturalization Service performed an inspection 11 years ago and found 30 workers with false documents), the proposed ordinance would be especially tough on smaller businesses and landlords. Moreover, he was concerned that if the village stopped translating official notices into Spanish, some residents wouldn’t abide by local regulations.

Roeser considers himself an exceptionally rational decision maker. But it became clear as we spent time together that he took great satisfaction in getting to know the Hispanics who work for him. He has come to know their travails and at times has offered a hand. A number of years ago, Antonia Garcia, who was a supervisor, came to Roeser for help. Her teenage daughter had stopped going to school, and she wondered if he might give her a job at the factory. Roeser told her, sure, he’d hire her, and put her on the assembly line next to “a big, fat, smelly man” in the hope that she’d find the work so distasteful that she’d return to school. (She did eventually quit.) When the I.N.S. audited Otto in 1995, one employee who had used false papers to get hired told Roeser that she was a permanent resident but had gotten caught up in a bureaucratic tangle. Roeser hired an attorney to help her.

The southeast corner of Carpentersville, which is mostly Hispanic, is particularly blighted and overcrowded; that upset Roeser. He tried to persuade Habitat for Humanity to come in, but they told him they don’t do renovations, so over the past couple of years, Roeser has bought 20 town houses that he then fixed up. He rents the houses to employees for $600 a month, which according to a local real estate agent is well below the market rate. He also purchased a nearby restaurant to keep it from being converted into a tavern.

Roeser’s wife, Betty, who disagrees with his stand against Humpfer and Sigwalt, often teases him. “What is it about ‘illegal’ that you don’t understand?” she’ll ask him. She told me that he has a soft spot for his Hispanic workers. “He’s biased,” she said, “because he has so many good Hispanic workers, and he’d be hurting without them.” (When I told Roeser what his wife said, he took exception. “It’s my objective view,” he insisted, “and not the biased view of someone who owns a company that hires a lot of Hispanics.”)

The presence of a large, low-skilled work force has undoubtedly allowed places like Otto to keep wages low. A beginning assembler at Otto earns $7.65 an hour plus profit sharing, which averages to seven weeks of pay each year. I asked Darlene Hutchins, the woman who inspired the formation of the Wise Owls Club, what she earned. She looked away. “My children laugh at me,” she muttered. After 28 years, she makes “a little over $10 an hour” plus, she was quick to add, a health care plan, a 401(k) savings plan, profit sharing and a $200 bonus for perfect attendance. Roeser defends his pay scale, contending that it’s comparable with what other area factories pay if not actually more.

Roeser became so distressed by Humpfer and Sigwalt’s proposals that for the first time in his life he became involved in a local election. He interviewed potential candidates who he thought could defeat them. He mailed two letters to residents urging them to vote for his preferred candidates. He registered voters at his factory and sponsored a political forum there. He sent letters to the editor. And he helped finance one candidate’s campaign. Humpfer, Sigwalt and their supporters suggested in media interviews and letters to the editor of the local paper that Roeser’s interest in this was financial: they insinuated that he hired illegals and that just the presence of undocumented workers in the area kept his wages down. “A lot of my constituents have brought the question to me: What is he hiding?” Sigwalt told me. “I don’t want to get my butt in a ringer, but I wonder what ICE” — the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency — “would find if they went in there.”

It was a rancorous campaign on both sides. Opponents dug up a two-year-old case in which Humpfer supposedly struck his wife, and a supporter of the opposing (and losing) slate was arrested for tearing down political signs. Tensions were so high that the Department of Justice sent agents to monitor the voting.

A month before the April election, Roeser received two anonymous voice-mail messages, providing details suggesting that one of his favorite employees was in fact here illegally and had used false documents to get hired. “You have a person working there with illegal papers,” the caller said. “She is in the audio department. . . . You’d better be careful because you’re into politics and this may affect you.” The second message was more threatening: “Do something about it today or tomorrow, immigration will be in there.” Roeser knew he was in the spotlight, so he instructed his human-resources manager to re-examine the papers of all Otto employees and confronted the employee in question. She admitted that she had used her sister’s Social Security card and driver’s license. The employee had worked at Otto for nine years and had been taken to the United States by her parents when she was a baby. Roeser felt obligated to let her go, especially given all the attention on him and his factory. He told his human-resources manager, “The witch hunt’s begun.”

Word got around about the woman’s firing from Otto, and an already anxious Hispanic population became even more so. Over the past two years, the town police helped Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrest and deport 45 illegal immigrants, who had been charged with serious felonies or with being active gang members. In December, the trustees — led by Sigwalt and Humpfer — directed the Police Department to apply for a federal program in which local police officers would be trained in how to inquire about an arrested person’s legal status and to initiate deportation proceedings. A new police effort to ticket motorists not wearing seat belts also fueled rumors that the police were out to deport illegal immigrants. When the roadblocks go up on the east side’s main thoroughfare, neighbor tells neighbor, and those without documents stay off the road.

Many of the Hispanic residents I spoke with achieved citizenship as a result of the national amnesty offered in 1986, but they’d grown up in households where their parents instructed them to be measured and cautious in their activities. That may, in part, have accounted for the low voter turnout in Carpentersville. Indeed, early on, Roeser told me he was “surprised the Hispanic citizens didn’t get more vocal, saying, ‘This is our town too.’ ” But some of that changed when, the day before the election, 2,000 families in town received a flier. It read, in part:

Are you tired of waiting to pay for your groceries while Illegal Aliens pay with food stamps and then go outside and get in a $40,000 car?

Are you tired of paying taxes when Illegal Aliens pay NONE!

Are you tired of reading that another Illegal Alien was arrested for drug dealing?

Are you tired of having to punch 1 for English?

Are you tired of seeing multiple families in our homes?

Are you tired of not being able to use Carpenter Park on the weekend, because it is over run by Illegal Aliens?

Are you tired of seeing the Mexican Flag flown above our Flag?

If you are as tired as me then let’s get out and Vote for the: All American Team ... Finally a team that will help us take back our town!

This tract, which was sent out by a key supporter of Sigwalt and Humpfer, and with the knowledge of Humpfer, became a marker of sorts, a moment when the wedge was driven so deep (one resident told me, “It’s kind of like the Grand Canyon”) that there would be no easy reconciliation. Most Hispanics didn’t learn of the flier until after the election, but it so offended many of them — especially those who were American citizens and had a foothold in the middle class — that even those who’d never been politically active began heading out to the village meetings to gauge firsthand the mood of their neighbors. What so alarmed them is that it felt less like a debate on illegal immigration than it did a condemnation of Hispanic culture.

When I first met with Sigwalt and Humpfer, Sigwalt retrieved two items from a kitchen drawer. One was a photograph she had taken of four trash cans filled with household junk. Planted in one of them was an American flag. Sigwalt told me that these were the remnants of a family who felt forced to move because of the changes in town, and that the flag was a symbol of surrender. “You have Americans giving up on their own country,” she declared. She then pulled from a small plastic bag a wall socket that was charred, the plastic melted. She told me that the previous occupants of the house she moved into three years ago were four Hispanic families and that the overcrowding led to an overload of the electrical circuitry. “This,” she said, holding up the burned wall socket, “is what’s going on in town here.”

The charred socket has become a totem for Sigwalt and Humpfer, symbolizing all that they believe has gone awry in Carpentersville: overcrowded homes and schools, rising crime, blighted neighborhoods and residents who speak little or no English. (They complain about the public announcements in Spanish at the local Wal-Mart and Sears.) For them, it boils down to this: many Mexican immigrants are reluctant to adopt the American culture. “They want the American dream, but they don’t want to assimilate,” Sigwalt told me. “Immigrants are what made this country great, but the immigrants of yesterday and the immigrants of today are totally different people. They don’t have the love of this country in their hearts.”

When Italians came here in the late 19th century and early 20th century, nativist Americans chafed at the new arrivals’ inability — or in the eyes of some, their unwillingness — to master English, language being the most visible and tangible measure of whether an immigrant group is becoming American. In 1919, shortly before his death, Theodore Roosevelt wrote, “We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.” Many suggested back then that the Italians were fundamentally different from previous immigrant groups, that they would live only among their own, that they’d frequent only their own stores, that they couldn’t speak English. Edward A. Ross, a prominent sociologist at the time, wrote in The Century Magazine, “That the Mediterranean peoples are morally below the races of Northern Europe is as certain as any social fact.” But as the new immigrants had children and grandchildren, the once-new arrivals became a part of mainstream culture (influencing it, as well) and, notably, spoke English fluently.

Becoming integrated into another culture is a dynamic process, and one that is undergoing a fresh debate given the most recent wave of immigrants, primarily from Latin American and Asia. After the last large migration to the country — of Italians, Slavs and Poles — there was a political outcry, and in the early 1920s, Congress placed severe restrictions on immigration. It wasn’t until the Immigration Act of 1965 that the gates once again fully opened. Since 1970, according to the Department of Homeland Security, an estimated 27 million foreign-born people have received legal permanent-resident status in the U.S.

There are essentially three camps on the assimilation question, which I would describe, albeit simplistically, as the pessimists, the optimists and the cautious optimists. The pessimist camp includes self-proclaimed populists like Lou Dobbs, who see few parallels between the present-day migration from Mexico and the surge of Italians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. “We are a melting pot,” Dobbs said on one of his many broadcasts on immigration. “And while our pot is full, and looks as though it’s going to get fuller unless we do something about it, we are not melting.” The intellectual force behind such thinking is Samuel P. Huntington, a Harvard professor, whose 2004 book, “Who Are We?” makes the argument that Mexicans — unlike the earlier immigrants from Europe — don’t subscribe to what he calls the nation’s Anglo-Protestant values and so have not become Americanized, instead forming their own social and linguistic enclaves. “There is only the American dream created by an Anglo-Protestant society,” he writes. “Mexican-Americans will share in that dream and in that society only if they dream in English.”

The optimists suggest that like the Eastern and Southern Europeans before them, second- and third-generation Mexicans will master English and become quite American in their behavior and customs. (And, of course, influence the culture, as well.) According to the U.S. census, 40 percent of Mexicans in this country are foreign-born, or in other words are first-generation and, like new immigrants before them, have not been particularly proficient at acquiring a new language. Numerous studies have indicated that for their children, English becomes the primary form of communication. A survey published in the journal Population and Development Review found that by the third generation, nearly all Mexican immigrants speak only English at home. Another study, by Roger Waldinger, a sociologist at U.C.L.A., found that while 42 percent of first-generation Mexicans have at least a high-school diploma, 83 percent of second-generation Mexican immigrants do. Speaking of Dobbs and others, Waldinger suggests, “What they’re seeing is a lot of people who speak Spanish and live among themselves, but what they’re not seeing, because it hasn’t happened yet, is what happens to the children.”

And then there are the cautious optimists, a small but influential group of scholars who have been studying the influx of Mexicans into this country for years. They argue that many Mexican immigrants are indeed ambivalent about Americanization, and that upward assimilation and downward assimilation are happening at the same time, something they call “segmented assimilation.” They suggest that becoming an American can have both positive and negative repercussions, depending on what aspects of this culture you acquire. For instance, studies conducted by the sociologists Rubén Rumbaut and Alejandro Portes indicate that as immigrant children become more like Americans, not only do they learn English, but they also spend less time on homework, their blood cholesterol rises, divorce rates go up and levels of incarceration increase. They become more like native-born Americans in those ways, too. Moreover, Mexicans may well experience discrimination, which limits their options.

Mexican migration long had a distinct pattern: Mexicans would make two or three trips to the U.S., each lasting several months to a year, so that they could earn enough money to, say, purchase a home in Mexico. (Interestingly, by some estimates, nearly half of the Italians who arrived at the turn of the last century returned to Italy.) Portes suggests for many now here legally, their intent, like their predecessors’, was to come here only temporarily and then return home. But as border security has tightened, it has become more dangerous and more expensive to make those round trips, and so they have settled here reluctantly, with little interest in identifying as Americans. (I remember Humpfer at one point telling me, “I think there are some who are not trying to become Americans.”) Nonetheless, says Portes, who heads Princeton University’s Center for Migration and Development, “If they have children, they will become Americans.” Rocio, a woman I met in Carpentersville, was frustrated that her husband wouldn’t speak English in their home. Rocio, who would speak on the condition that her last name not be used, was born in this country; both her parents immigrated from Mexico, and Rocio learned English when she began school. Her husband, on the other hand, came here illegally 13 years ago at the age of 15, and he worries that he could at any point face deportation. So he didn’t see the sense in fully investing in becoming American. But that changed with the birth of their daughter. She just entered day care, where she’s learning English, and so Rocio’s husband has agreed to speak English at home, and now for the first time has asked Rocio for help in learning the language.

I first met Adam Ruiz, a second-generation Mexican-American, at a gathering at the village hall. The village president, Bill Sarto, who along with the lone Hispanic trustee had taken on Humpfer and Sigwalt, invited an immigration lawyer and the former director of Chicago’s I.N.S. field office to answer questions about immigration policy. The former I.N.S. official warned the 50 residents in attendance that with all the local and state laws being introduced around the country, “my concern is that we’re going to have a Tower of Babel of regulations across the landscape.”

Sigwalt sat on the edge of her chair, fuming. She and Humpfer had, for the time being, chosen to table their proposed ordinances until the courts ruled on the one passed in Hazleton. They didn’t want the town to incur the costs of a lawsuit. But they continued to push the town to adopt English as its official language. “The country has been crying out loud and clear as to what they want,” she heatedly responded. “As far as the law, I don’t expect to get out of a parking ticket. The American people are angry. . . . While illegal aliens are looking for their dreams, the American people are losing theirs.” Her comments were met with applause. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw a man who looked to be Hispanic shaking his head. The man, who turned out to be Ruiz, strode out of the room and in the hallway sought out a police officer. I got up and followed him. He was clearly shaken. He explained to me and the police officer that as he had entered the village hall, a man with his young daughter in tow told him, “This is a white man’s meeting.”

Ruiz, I learned, is a product manager for a large communications company and lives in one of the newer subdivisions, among predominantly white families. A neighbor had showed him the flier. “I was hurt,” he said. “It was just mean. . . . I thought, Why are you picking on Mexicans?” Ruiz, as did others, said he believed the flier had less to do with illegal immigrants and more to do with Hispanics, illegal or not. “I feel like I’m branded because I have dark skin,” he told me.

Ruiz, who is 38, is by his own admission a bit of a nerd. He’s balding, with a slight overbite, and he considers himself politically conservative, having voted for George W. Bush in the last two elections. A cautious man, he doesn’t fly the Mexican flag because, he told me, “I don’t want to cause problems.” Like virtually all of the Hispanics in Carpentersville I spoke with, he has a border story. His father crossed into the U.S. illegally when he was 12, entering with an uncle to pick cotton. He eventually was selected for a worker-visa program to pick strawberries in Southern California, then followed a family member to Indiana, where he landed a well-paying job at LTV Steel. Ruiz, who was born in the U.S. but didn’t learn English until he entered school, ended up matriculating at Purdue University, after which he met his wife, who was born in Mexico. They moved to Carpentersville four years ago with their four children, mostly because they could find a new five-bedroom home in their price range.

Ruiz began attending the village meetings this spring after he saw the flier, and at each he would speak during the public comments section. “Trustees Humpfer and Sigwalt, why do you only listen to your people?” he asked at one gathering. A month ago, he told me that he planned to send an e-mail message to his neighbors, informing them about the comments made at the board meetings, generally to let them know how he felt. But in the end, he chose not to send it. He told me that he and his wife are in a bowling league with 13 other couples, and only a few have said anything to him about the heated debate in town. “It bothers me,” he said. “But I’m not going to look for their favor.” Already, he has gotten the cold shoulder from one neighbor. His wife didn’t want him talking with me, in part because she fears for his safety, and in part because she doesn’t want to antagonize their friends.

Ruiz — like Sigwalt, Humpfer and Roeser — says that learning English should be a priority for new immigrants. “You need to be able to socialize and communicate,” he said. But he wouldn’t support the ordinance for English as an official language because of what he sees as the intent of its supporters. “They’re not trying to unite the people, they’re trying to divide the people,” he told me. “And they did it. They divided the community even more.”

As I spoke with Ruiz and other Hispanics in Carpentersville, it became clear that they wanted many of the same things that Sigwalt and Humpfer want: safe, clean neighborhoods and good schools. In fact, one woman I met, Antonia Garcia, the woman whose daughter Tom Roeser assisted, moved out of Carpentersville because she was displeased with the large class sizes at the schools and tired of the noise from neighboring homes with two or three families. It should also come as no surprise that there are divisions within the Hispanic community about immigration, especially between generations. I visited with the Morales family, whose son, Eddie, was best friends with the Sigwalts’ son. They live in a one-story ranch house just down the street from the Sigwalts’ old place, a part of town where the lawns are manicured, the homes well cared for. Paula Morales, who crossed into the U.S. in 1968, at the age of 21, cleans for two families nearby in the prosperous town of Barrington. “Judy’s my friend for a long time,” she told me. “It really hurts me.” She agrees with Sigwalt that some things need to change. She told me that across the street, there were 20 people living in a house no larger than hers, and that there were cars parked up and down the street and loud music late into the night. But why not enforce housing codes, she suggests, recalling that when they first moved here in the 1980s, code enforcers would ticket homeowners who had too many people living in a house. Morales told me she asks herself, Did Judy always have these feelings? She and her son, who served eight years in the Army National Guard, then had a spirited discussion about whether it made sense to make English the official language of the village. “I see my mom’s point of view, but I also see Judy’s,” Eddie said. “If you’re going to try to make a living here, you should try to learn English.”

Sigwalt and Humpfer’s main arguments for ridding the town of illegal immigrants come down to this: their presence has led to both rising crime and overcrowded schools. As it turns out, however, the crime rate in Carpentersville has actually been cut in half over the past 10 years; and while the schools were, indeed, overcrowded four to five years ago (when Antonia Garcia moved her family out), class sizes have now been reduced — although it did require the passage of a tax referendum.

It is clear, though, that Sigwalt and Humpfer have had an impact. Hispanics are leaving town. On the east side, for-sale signs seem as ubiquitous as the cicadas that emerged this spring; the number of homes for sale has nearly doubled from the same time last year. While part of that may be a result of the slow housing market, real estate agents told me that some people say they want to leave town, either because they or a family member is illegal or simply because they feel unwelcome. Ruiz’s father is selling a rental property because he doesn’t want any problems from the village. One woman, Mireya Delgado-Aguilera, who has chosen to stay in town, at least for the time being, told me that she’s considering sending her two children to a Christian school because she’s concerned that the animus will spill over into the public schools.

When I last spoke with Tom Roeser, I asked him if anything was new. He sighed and told me that he just received a call from the Department of Labor informing him that it plans to audit his company’s employment records, specifically checking to see if he has hired illegals. Roeser says he believes it’s a direct result of the controversy. “I’m disappointed in the town,” he told me. Given that one employee worked at Otto for nine years with false papers, it’s very possible, Roeser says, that they’ll find someone else, and he’s already bracing himself for the local headlines and subsequent attacks. “I don’t think they care about Carpentersville,” he told me, speaking of Sigwalt and Humpfer. “They’re demagogues.” Roeser is probably closer to the two trustees on national immigration policy than he or they would like to think. He opposes granting any illegal immigrant citizenship — though he does maintain that if they’ve been here long enough and have been gainfully employed, then they should be allowed to stay, just not as citizens. Humpfer, for his part, isn’t sure what he would do with those who have been here for many years. Maybe, he says, if they have a good track record here, citizenship should be an option. “There are some people who want to deport every illegal alien,” he told me. “I’m not sure I’m there. Not every one.”

In June, I attended my final village board of trustees meeting. They had been long, coarse affairs (one went until 1:30 in the morning), and each has centered on the wrangling over immigration. At one meeting, a woman accused the town president of being psychologically deranged; at another, a resident pointed his finger at Humpfer and, referring to the reported altercation with his wife, tried to turn the tables, declaring, “Illegal means illegal.”

The June gathering was particularly well attended — standing room only — because Humpfer and Sigwalt planned to introduce their ordinance, which would require village employees to use only English for official business. There were three television crews present and reporters from the local papers as well as from The Chicago Tribune. Police officers stood in the back of the room, a common sight at these gatherings. The town’s trustees sat beneath the town’s slogan: “Building a Better Tomorrow Today.”

Carpentersville is very much a small town, and so the proceedings began with the promotion of two police officers, who, to the applause of everyone there, received their new badges. It was the only civil part of the evening. Adam Ruiz was the first to speak, and it quickly became clear that the rhetoric on both sides would be ratcheted up a notch. “They have made this about race,” he said of Sigwalt and Humpfer, and then asked them to publicly denounce the flier that so agitated him and others. (The man next to me mumbled, “This is the United States of America, not a foreign country.”)

One trustee, Kay Teeter, a soft-spoken Mary Kay cosmetics saleswoman, appeared agitated by the suggestions by Ruiz and others that supporting the proposed ordinance was the equivalent of dismissing Hispanics. “I am not a racist,” she said. “We’re a blue-collar people. My grandparents worked hard to assimilate and become Americans. What we’re trying to do here is unite the community with a common language.” Things quickly spiraled out of control. Two Hispanic women who had come with a contingent from Chicago rose from their seats and began chanting: “Viva la Raza. Viva la Raza.” “Speak English,” someone hollered. Two older men in the back row waved American flags. The women were ejected.

A week earlier, the town’s department heads submitted an eight-page memo detailing how an English-only ordinance would hinder their jobs. “If officers are not allowed to speak in a foreign language,” the police chief, David Neumann, wrote, “it will have a chilling effect on the Police Department’s relationship with those who do not speak English, whether they reside here legally or not.” So, Humpfer and Sigwalt chose, instead, to propose a resolution which would be more a declaration of their beliefs than a set of regulations. (English-only ordinances or resolutions have passed or are pending passage in 35 municipalities and counties.)

Sigwalt seemed particularly taut, in large part because she was disappointed that they had to retreat from their original proposal. “The reason we don’t have a unified country is because the second and third generations are not learning English,” she lectured. “What is tearing our community apart is that there are so many different languages I can’t interact with my neighbors anymore.”

Sarto, the town president, who has continually sparred with Sigwalt, got in the last word: “Passing this ordinance is not going to make one person learn English any faster,” he said. “All it will say is this: ‘This is not a welcoming community.’ The immigration problem is not going be solved here in Carpentersville.”

Despite this plea, the English-only resolution passed by a vote of 5 to 2. Undaunted by the Hazleton decision, Humpfer and Sigwalt intend to reword and reintroduce the ordinance that would penalize landlords for renting to illegal immigrants and businesses for hiring them in the coming weeks. They also plan to look for outside legal help and check the insurance coverage in case of a lawsuit.

**Photo Courtesy of Paul D'Amato (NYT)
**Story Link