http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/jchs_americas_rental_housing_2013_1_0.pdf
This study is really fascinating, I would recommend skimming it (since it’s really really long). Here were some crazy points:
1.There has been a dramatic increase in the amount of renters from almost every age group (the exception being people over 70).
2. Depending on the pace of immigration, this number is likely to increase by between 4 and 4.7 million in the next ten years.
3. One in five households that were in their 30s in 2001 switched from owning to renting at some point in
2001–11, as did nearly one in seven of those in their 40s.
4. Contrary to the stereotype, families with children are nearly as likely to rent their homes as singles.
5. Assuming current rentership rates, the aging of the baby-boom generation will lift the number of renters over age 65 by 2.2 million in the ten years to 2023, generating roughly half of overall renter growth.
6. As the number of low-income renters have grown, the likelihood of assistance (i.e rent subsidies) have diminished.
This study was quoted in a CNN OpEd on affordable housing. http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/28/opinion/rubinger-affordable-housing/
Also in that article was a study done by NYU Furman Center: according to them, more than 45,000 existing lower-cost homes will return to market value by the end of De Blasio’s first term. http://furmancenter.org/files/publications/NYChousing_Preservation.pdf
Check out this article on solutions to the housing crisis that we discussed in class.
Earlier this year, the House of Representatives dismissed a comprehensive immigration reform bill entitled “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013”, which sought to establish a five-year route to lawful permanent residence, followed by citizenship, for illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. While many initially perceived this action as a death blow to immigration reform in the near future, some Republicans are now considerably concerned that the president will take executive action to bypass the congressional gridlock and institute his own revisions to U.S. policy. The White House recently confirmed that it, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security, had commenced a reexamination of its administrations unprecedentedly pervasive deportation policy. One change being thoroughly entertained by the Obama administration is one that would effectively make noncriminals and minor offenders the lowest deportation priorities. Though the president has declined to elaborate on when said policy reforms might be enacted, many, including Senator Marco Rubio, fear that this reassessment indicates his willingness to act unilaterally on the issue of immigration reform.
If Obama were to utilize his executive prerogative to take actions into his own hands, it would mean the further exacerbation of tensions between his administration and the GOP-dominated house. House Speaker John Boehner predicts that such action by the president would “make it almost impossible to ever do immigration reform, because he will spoil the well to the point where no one will trust him by giving him a new law that he will implement the way the Congress intended.” Is the immediate implementation of reform really worth inciting additional antagonism and, consequently, increasing the likelihood of political stalemates in the future? http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/21/politics/immigration-not-dead/
In the presentation by the director of the City Planning Department’s Population Division, Joseph Salvo, that we saw at the beginning of the semester, we learned that New York has become a major destination for internal migrants within the United States, which helped to account for the population growth in the city. In the year 2000, 60,000 people migrated to NYC from the other states; by 2010, that number had grown to 80,000 migrants. Additionally, the number of people who migrate from the city has dropped from 360,000 to 205,000 within this same time span. Both of these facts have contributed to the population increase to over 8.4 million in the past few years. In contrast, the number of immigrants has decreased by 6,000 annually in the same time span.
These internal migrants are different than the immigrant population in that they are generally younger and tend to live in “non-family” households more often–that is, they live alone or with unrelated roommates. Immigrants whom they interviewed for this article (one of whom moved specifically to Astoria) expressed that the city has more opportunity than other parts of the country. They tend to come from other parts of New York, New Jersey, California, and Pennsylvania. Though the focus of our class is on immigrants from other countries, who have so determined the cultural, ethnic, and political diversity of the city, it is interesting to examine the motivations and situations of those who elected to come from other parts of the United States.
Many people on the right are very suspicious towards undocumented people. In recent years, many Conservative leaders have taken very extreme stances towards the issue. But that might change soon.
Jed Bush, one of the potential 2016 Republican presidential candidates, had this to say. “But the way I look at this — and I’m going to say this, and it’ll be on tape and so be it. The way I look at this is someone who comes to our country because they couldn’t come legally, they come to our country because their families — the dad who loved their children — was worried that their children didn’t have food on the table. And they wanted to make sure their family was intact, and they crossed the border because they had no other means to work to be able to provide for their family. Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love. It’s an act of commitment to your family. I honestly think that that is a different kind of crime that there should be a price paid, but it shouldn’t rile people up that people are actually coming to this country to provide for their families.”
As we know already, Senator Marco Rubio, another prominent Republican, lead a bipartison push for comprehensive reform last year. And know Jed Bush seems to be taking a much more moderate stance. Could this be a sign of the Republican Party shifting away from the far Right?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/06/jeb-bush-many-illegal-immigrants-come-out-of-an-act-of-love/
An article that peaked my interest was one in the Wall Street Journal this week that discussed a new plan that would permit young people who have originally come to the US as illegal immigrants to join the military and then eventually become permanent legal residents. Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, California Representative Howard Buck McKeon spoke with his panel on Thursday about including this provision to his version of the National Defense Authorization Act .Also known as the NDAA, it is a federal law that stipulates the expenditures an budget of the United States Department of Defense. Each year the act incorporates new provisions through Congress. A committee aide has expressed that no finite promises or decisions will be made unless the provision will receive support. Within Congress there are groups who are staunch advocators and groups that are adamantly against this new provision. Opponents of the provision have already taken to organizing against its passage. Representative Mo Brooks is the process of completing a letter that will circulate among House members stating that illegal immigrants should not be allowed to take jobs within the American military. He has been quoted saying “There is always a risk when you rely on foreigners for your national security…..the risk is misplaced loyalty. It really comes down to who you prefer – American citizens or illegal aliens? And I prefer American citizens.” Since the
House members who head Latino districts find themselves in a tight spot, since the Senate passed an extreme immigration over haul 9 months ago. These representatives headed by Rep. Jeff Denham of California have been pushing to add the measure to last years military authorization bill since last June. Rep. Denham has been quoted saying “This is one opportunity for those that have gone to school here, that have graduated from high school, that are in our communities, to show their ultimate support for this great nation and are willing to sacrifice in support of our country.” After the provision brought about an argument on the floor with its opponents the provision was withdrawn from the floor but will be used as part of the broader immigration debate. This has been promised by chairman of the Judiciary Committee , Rep. Bob Goodlatte from Virginia. “There is no doubt that individuals brought to the United States as young children by their illegal immigrant parents are the most sympathetic group of people not lawfully present in the United States today, and that is particularly true of those who desire to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States,” Mr. Goodlatte said on the floor. Currently Rep. Denham is working on to persuade Mr. McKeon to add the provision to this year’s bill from the start so that it will not require floor votes for its passage. This new version of the defense authorization bill will be introduced by Mr. McKeon in May.
What are your opinions?
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303847804579479932176206484
Our guest speaker on Wednesday was a self-identified Undocumented Immigrant and as we noted in class, he rather passionately blamed the GOP for blocking various measures to create immigration reform on a national scale. For example, a recently proposed bill was defeated in the House of Representatives that would allow illegal immigrants that came to this country under the age of 15 to gain citizenship through military service. Personally I find this to be an excellent solution that increases our national security, allows for amnesty in a method that benefits all parties and generally is supported by most of America, therefore I can completely understand the frustration of our guest. The Republicans’ main priority is to shrink spending and reduce the size of the government, thus any immigration reform that requires taxpayer dollars is immediately met with hesitation or straight up denial. I don’t feel this method of governing to be effective and Congress’ 12% approval rating demonstrates this. The reality of the situation is illegal immigration will not go away on its own. Constructing a fence along our Mexican border does not prevent people from overstaying their visas, however allowing citizenship through honorable military service is more than fair I believe. As a fiscally conservative, socially liberal, libertarian but not really, type of person, I value issues based on what I think, not on the mantra or rhetoric of our main two parties. Some common complaints against our undocumented immigrants include that they take our jobs and don’t contribute to our economy. However citizenship through education or military service clearly demonstrate a desire to succeed, assimilate, and thrive as an American. It benefits neither party to stalemate the issue.
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2014/04/05/gop-immigration-supporters-see-military-service-as-path-to-citizenship/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/04/house-conservatives-block-modest-gop-immigration-proposal/
In class we recently
discussed how different immigration laws and regulations have been passed depending on the agendas of different presidential administration. We mentioned
that sometimes immigration is not even truly part of the presidential agenda,as is the case with the Obama administration, because immigration has nothing to offer the nation (economically). For instance, with the Bush era immigrants were focused on and it was easier to obtain green cards because the
agricultural sector needed more labor workers (and immigrants could be more easily taken advantage of). In the U.S News’ article “Business Groups Not Backing Down on Immigration Reform”, Lauren Fox states that a new report actually demonstrates a new demand for immigrants since it is assumed that they will willingly fill in low-paying jobs. That is, there are many businesses that depend on low-skilled workers because they are willing to work for less. Furthermore, the study demonstrated the urgency of the issue by showing that there has also been a decrease in the number of Americans willing to work low-paying jobs. In fact, in the news we have recently been hearing all the demands for a raise in minimum wage. (A couple of days ago Connecticut even became the first state to raise the minimum wage.) Thus, businesses have spoken out to demonstrate that they are nothing giving up on an immigration reform because they would be the group most benefitted by the arrival of immigrants.
It seems that this issue comes up a lot in class, and I wanted to provide additional sources of information on how exactly quotas for detention beds are connected to deportation. Follow this link to see a list of recent media sources, as well as a compilation of articles.
Photo Credit: David Maung
“Broken Lives of Immigrants Deported from US to Mexico” is a short, seven-minute film documentary by Franz Strasser that captures the predicament of US deportees in Tijuana, Mexico. We discussed in class the difficulties deportees face as they return to their home countries, as they often either came to or were born in the United States at a young age. This documentary captures numerous first person accounts of deportees that both illustrate the aforementioned points and also illuminate specific experiences and challenges they face.
Rosario Vásquez, a US border patrol of the San Diego sector, describes an interesting practice in the process of deportation. He mentions how they often repatriate deportees at places different from where they originally crossed, a practice that prevents re-entry by effectively separating the deportee from smuggling organizations and their reentry points. While this practice separates the deportee from the organizations, it has various negative consequences, as repatriating immigrants at different places may increase their feelings of alienation as well as the difficulties they may have readjusting. This creates a situation that is compounded by the fact many have not returned or revisited their home country and have no family there to aid their resettlement. A deportee identified as Jose who came to the United States at the age of three describes the cultural and social challenges he experiences as he speaks broken Spanish and doesn’t know anyone there.
The documentary also mentions an area between the US-Mexico border and the outskirts of Tijuana named “El Bordo”, a dried riverbed where many deportees live in makeshift homes that range from tents to tunnel-like holes. The deportees are often blamed by local authorities for the rise in local crime. The secretary of public security of Tijuana, Alejandro Lares Valladares, captures this sentiment as he describes how the deportees engage in a “vicious cycle” of drug abuse and robbery. Activists such as Ernesto Hernandez Ruiz argue against this stigma, arguing that the local authorities either do not understand or do not want to understand the predicament of the deportees, who cross over with little to no belongings, remaining undocumented in their home country and becoming exposed to risks of gang violence, drug addiction. The CNN article “Stuck Between Two Countries” by Rosalina Nieves captures the conditions at El Border in greater detail, emphasizing how the police in Tijuana assume these deportees are criminals and drug abusers, harassing them for no reason.
Strasser’s documentary mentions that the Mexican government does help some of the deportees that are returning citizens, providing them with health insurance, an opportunity to contact relatives, a meal, and sometimes travel tickets to other parts of Mexico. However, those deported without relations or documentation struggle to restart their lives as they are met with stigmas and difficulties of readjusting, as illustrated by the documentary’s first person accounts and El Bordo. The only perspective that the documentary seems to be missing are deportees who successfully readjust after deportation. The lack of this perspective, intentional or unintentional, undoubtedly illuminates the rarity of that phenomenon, and serves to reaffirm the myriad challenges that deportees are faced with after the return to their country.
Article Links:
Documentary by Franz Strasser — http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26533046
Article by Rosalina Nieves — http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/u-s-mexico-border-purgatory/
