Making Sense of the Illegal Immigration Debate ...

The national debate is forceful and confusing.  Both parties advance flawed solutions and talking points pandering to their faithful.   One side paints the other as heartless; the other attacks in turn suggesting that political benefits are behind the talking points.  One side emphasizes humane treatment while the other emphasizes  border security.

Rome is burning and the politicians are playing the fiddle …

The illegal immigration is not just an American problem.  The same is playing out in the European Union as thousands of people are flooding in from North Africa in rickety and overcrowded boats.  Many die in transit due to inclement weather, leaky boats, and unscrupulous traffickers.  So far, about 90,000 have reached the Southern borders.  Many more are ready to come from Syria, Libya, Tunisia and other parts of the Maghreb.  Most come from sub-Sahara Africa, the Middle and Far East.  They are escaping flash points, dire straits, and inhuman situations.  Some are born during the crossing, while others come as toddlers.  A few are young unaccompanied men and women.  They are exploited, like their distant cousins crossing the Rio Grande.

They are our brothers and sisters. 

They come in search of a safer and better life.  Yet they are easily demonized and unwelcome by many. 

It has been estimated that 45% of the world’s population lives on two dollars a day.  A $ 100 donation, for example, feeds one meal to 250 people in impoverished parts of India.  Philanthropic initiatives abound, but they are not making much of a dent on world poverty.   Billions in government grants are sent to poor countries, but they do not seem to reach the poor.  Somehow most find their way to the bank accounts of despots and unscrupulous government officials.

There are, I am told, over 200 million people all over the world in transit, in search of a better life, displaced by famines, wars, and despotic regimes. 

What drives this illegal immigration to the European Union? The same one that what drives illegal immigration to the U.S.: the lure of more opportunity, more freedom, and more safety.

Our Response to the Crisis?

The administration has sent a request to Congress for $ 3.7 billion to finance the influx’s handling until September 2014.  There is a backlog of 400,000 immigrants waiting their day in court already.  Most will wait 2-3 years before their case comes up for judicial review.  The backlog is increasing on a daily basis.  According to current law, unaccompanied minors have to be released to HHS for placement after 72 hours.  Most wind up joining family members, who might also be undocumented, dispersed throughout the country; most will never show up for their judicial review. 

There are 225 judges at the border handling this enormous surge.  How much of the $ 3.7 billion request is set aside for increasing judicial capacity?  Just enough money is ear marked for about 40 additional judges.  You do the math.  Almost half a million cases for 260 judges already.   Ludicrous!!!

Long Term Versus Short Term

In the short term, we need to address the humanitarian crisis.  There are two suggestions on the table: (1) make sure people are processed humanely and in keeping with our values, and (2) beef up enforcement by updating the 2008 law that gives authorities the option of repatriating folks more quickly, but in a humane way.   

Both merit our support.

In the long term, the USA must help improve the economic situation of our neighbors to the South.  Not, in the way we have done it in the past with dismal results, but in ways that get to the root cause of the problem.   

But first, existing immigration laws need to be changed.  Quotas for family reunification must be more realistic. Temporary and seasonal workers must be allowed to come in as needed.  The number of HB-1 visas must be aligned with the business needs of the country.  Current law-abiding undocumented immigrants, who have been in the country for more than 10 years, should be allowed to stay but pay penalties for having violated US laws.   A national identification system must be devised.  We are the only country in the world that I know of that does not have one.  Employers must be given the tools to verify legal residence.

Archaic procedures must be replaced with modern ones.  Key components of the revised law must look forward to the country’s needs of say 25-50 years from now, rather than just fix “leaks” in the existing law.  Undocumented immigrants entering the country should be quickly processed, say, in less than 72 hours.  The number of judges must be increased sufficiently to whittle down the enormous backlog.

The US cannot afford to periodically grant amnesty to those who violate its borders.  This makes a mockery of the law.   Any loopholes will be exploited to gain access to the country.

Borders need to be more secure.  Although they are not going to stop all those intent on trespassing, they eliminate the perceptual problem that we are defenseless.

Observation on Globalization

We talk about globalization and its benefits.  The truth is that only 35% of the world’s economy is globalized, the rest is pretty much local or regional. 

Who has benefitted the most from globalization?  I believe that it is the developed countries.  They can buy things at a much lower price, and in a faster turn around cycle.  It is the developing countries that set prices on the commodities from under developed countries. And, they obviously set them as low as possible.  

So the jury is still out!  Some question whether it will deliver the promised benefits.  I am one of those skeptics!

Win-Lose Eventually Turns Into Lose-Lose

Recently I ran into one of the six essays I wrote during the change program I attended at Oxford/HEC Paris, 2007-2008.  I was intrigued by a lecture by professor Keithe Ruddle based on his article In Pursuit of Agility.   During the lecture, professor Ruddle commented on “transformational” change and some of the traits of the CEOs who drive it. He labeled them “heroic” leaders; leaders different from those he labeled “command and control”, more often recognized by their “plumber” approach, you know, fixers of organizational leaks.   Professor Ruddle made a case for a new leadership approach that he labeled “adaptive leadership”, a distant cousin of the “situational leadership” taught by Ken Blanchard et al.   Heroic leaders are moved by a sense of destiny and hunger for an enduring legacy.

Transformational change is a power coercive change strategy camouflaged by language in vogue during the past quarter century.  As with any other power coercive strategy, that is, it is top-down and driven by a critical selected few.  Change strategies that gain their strength from power include the dictator, the economic, and the political strategies.   There is one big upside to these strategies: speed.  On the downside, they tend to litter the organizational landscape with “losers”, who work hard to turn the “win-lose” approach to speed into a “lose-lose” outcome during the implementation phase.  Also, “losers” have a way of getting even with the “winners”.

Recently, perusing an online conversation in LinkedIn, I noticed an African proverb quoted by Terrance H. Seaman, a professional change management consultant: If you want to go fast go alone, if you want to go far go together.

The quotation and the wisdom behind it have stayed with me for days. 

I have been a student of change for the past 40 years, and I am still learning.  Change is a very complex subject.  The larger the organization, the more complex change management becomes.  There are no short cuts along the way, only lessons from our experience.  Beware of those bearing the false promise of the magic bullet.  There are none.

The problem with humans is that often they forget history (experience), condemning them to repeat their mistakes.  Yogi Berra, in his inimitable style, would say: Déjà vu all over again. 

The Washington experience of the last five years is a classic case study.  In 2008, Democrats won the Presidency, The Senate, and the House of Representatives.  As a result, they had the political power to enact any legislation they deemed “transformational” without consulting or involving the Republicans.  And so they did with Affordable Health Care or Obamacare – a comprehensive overhaul of our healthcare system.  Arrogantly, they refused to divulge the contents of the law before putting it to a vote.  Those asking what was in the law were admonished to vote for it if they wanted to know what was in it. 

Two years later, the Republicans gained control of the House.  For some reason, the electorate saw to it that checks and balance needed to be placed over the Democrats.  As Obamacare moved into the implementation face a number of issues (leaks in the plumbing jargon) began to surface.  To fix these issues, the collaboration of the Republican-controlled House plumbers was needed.  Guess what, it was not there!  Instead, they would stand stubbornly pat on the need to repeal the law they did not participate in formulating, a law they did not “own”, and a process they saw fueled by the arrogance of those who had won the election in 2008.  The indignant Democrats asked the Republicans for compromise when none was offered by them during the drafting of the law in the first place.   The wisdom of the African proverb was surely missed by both sides. 

The sad part about this experience is that Republicans too favor streamlining of the healthcare system, not necessarily in the way it was adopted into law, but possibly like the one that slowly is emerging during the implementation debacle with special provisions, timetables, exclusions, and so on. 

Views on Immigration Policies

Last week, CNN featured a documentary, Documented, a film that lasted several hours.  In one segment, it followed the plight of a young Filipino man, who came to America illegally when he was barely 12 years old, smuggled in by his grandparents.  His story was a gut wrenching one.  He was separated from his mother for so many years that after a while he stopped corresponding with her.  It was too painful for him to reconcile the notion that his mother had consented to his being shipped over to America at such young age.

This 30-year-old man became an avid advocate for the legalization of the youth who came to America illegally through no fault of their own.  Kids who grew up in America, and who, for all purposes, see themselves as Americans.  He was overjoyed when he heard about the Dreamer executive decision by President Obama to stop deporting those young people who had come here illegally prior to 2007.  The cut-off age was 29 years old.  One can imagine the disappointment of this young man when he realized that he had missed the cut-off by mere months.

The documentary pointed out to me many squalid performances by our politicians.  Some examples:

·   They send misleading or erroneous signals to wannabe Americans

·     They selectively enforce existing laws

·     They are ambivalent about securing our borders

·     They overlook the plight of defenseless border States

·     They manipulate the national consensus

·     They pass laws with incredibly tough family reunification quotas

·     They fail to differentiate between economic and political  reasons

·     They make it possible for coyotes and scoundrels to victimize desperate people

Who Are the Undocumented?

There are a number of categories.  One size does not fit all.  Twelve million people leaving in the shadows, afraid to come out, insecure about their future, willing to accept a precarious situation in order to stay in America.  Nativists like to call them illegal; the politically correct prefer to call them the undocumented. Regardless of the name, their situation remains desperate.

Most are driven by dismal economic conditions they face back home.  Some are minors brought across by their parents.  Others are escapees from totalitarian regimes or unsafe conditions.  Some are lured by higher pay scales – these tend to be mostly, but not exclusively, highly educated. Many are students who came on a student visa and decided to stay.  Some come to rejoin their family. Most come from Mexico, but they also come from Central and South America, Asia, Africa, Europe, and Oceania.  

Currently, a surge of young, unaccompanied youth from Central America, estimated at around 60 thousand, has invaded the Southern border, creating a catastrophic human dilemma.  They come because their parents are under the impression that America will not deport unaccompanied children.  They come because parents think the time window will soon close. 

There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the US immigration laws are flawed or broken.  Many want the borders secured before other steps are implemented.  Some folks believe that any changes in the law will be implemented selectively by the current Administration.  Others view the issue through different lens.  They believe that the magnet is the unscrupulous employer who takes advantage of the undocumented by paying them low wages and providing them with dismal working conditions.  Some advocate that a stronger verification process should be forced on employers.  A minority believes that all undocumented should be deported for violating US laws.  

Rome is burning while politicians seem to be playing the fiddle …

Immigration has been a hot potato in America for more than 150 years.  Imagine the following factoids:

A Little History Lesson

• Immigration was almost impossible until the 1960’s from many countries or continents, e.g., Africa, Asia, and parts of Southern and Eastern Europe, and South and Central America.
• Immigration from Northern (Western) Europe was encouraged, while immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe was subject to strict quotas (until the 1960’s).  The latter were seen as less desirable.
• Immigrants from Ireland, Italy, Greece, Russia, and other Eastern European countries  were subjected to inhuman detention upon arrival, up until WWII.
• Following some disturbances, “foreigners” were routinely accused of crimes they might have not committed, and a few were even lynched.
• Stereotypes abound that immigrants are mostly lazy, uneducated, untrustworthy, and in the country lured by welfare assistance.

We talk about the American Dream – someone comes to the US and becomes rich and famous.  That is a very small percentage.  Many languish in entry-level jobs, are poorly paid, and have difficulty assimilating.  The main difference is that, in America, you have fewer barriers to success and many more opportunities, if you are willing to work hard, and advance your education.  The “system", albeit imperfect, is much more friendly, business-wise, than elsewhere.

My Own History as An Immigrant

I came to this country at age 18-year-old in 1955, documented (legally) on a look and see mission with my parents, siblings and paternal grandmother.  After 2 years in 1958, my father chose to return to Italy with my mother, youngest brother (Angelo) and grandmother.  He did not adjust easily to the American lifestyle and did not agree with many of its practices.

My brother Carmelo (by then, 18 years old then) and I (by then, 20 years old) decided to stay.  Why?  We are both entrepreneurs and adventurers by nature, and we saw many opportunities and some intriguing aspects to the American way of life.  Our family has had a love affair with America for over 100 years.  Both of my grandfathers came to America at the turn of the 20^th century.  One, grandpa Carmelo, stayed a couple years, and the other, grandpa Antonio, did not return home, except for a brief period during WWI, when he served in the Italian military.  He is now  buried in New London, Connecticut.

Our family was an atypical immigrant family.  We were middle class, reasonably educated, and property owners.  We came because my father’s brother, who lived in Connecticut, invited us to come.  I remember father saying to me: Let’s go and see, and if we like what we find, we stay, if not we come back. 

I was attending the classical lyceum, a tough program for the intellectually capable young elite.  Coming to America was not my goal.  I was, more or less, assured that my future would be a good one in Italy.  However, if I did not choose to come with my family at that time, I faced potentially separation for the rest of my life.  In those days, when people emigrated, it was lights out in terms of reunification.  My father’s visa was for his wife and minor (younger than 21) children.  He had weighed 5 years to receive his visa.   

Carmelo and I have done well in America through hard work and dedication.  Neither one of the two of us had notions of grandeur.  We were brought up to work to live, and not live to work.  America did change us.  We have done well for America too.  I volunteered to serve in the US Army (proud to say that to any nativist who has not done so).  We obey our laws, pay our taxes, and mind our own business.  Neither one of us has ever been a burden on the State.  People tell us that we have lived the American dream.  They are mistaken.  We were both at the right place at the right time doing something that we loved and that others valued. 

On a personal basis, with my education, work ethic, and social skills, I believe that I would have had success in Italy as well, had I decided to go back.

Carmelo and I are proud dual citizens.  Why dual?  We are proud and fond of our birthplace. How can you cancel your own heritage?  How can you expunge your own memories?  We love both countries, for different reasons, of course.  But, America is our home now.  Our kids were born in America.

Who is an American Anyway?

Some people believe that the ‘real’ Americans are those who are born on American soil.  I disagree!  They are Americans by accident. Naturalized citizens are Americans by choice.  Carmelo and I fall in the latter category.  Our kids in the former.

True Americans are those who value the American principles: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  There are many such Americans, perhaps millions, who are not American citizens, who live elsewhere, who do not aspire to come here, but who believe in the founding principles of this nation. 

What are your thoughts?  

Wealth in America -- Factoids and Observations

Class warfare is not a new phenomenon.  The poor versus the rich is not new either.  Politicians, philosophers, economists, clergy and others have used it as a wedge issue for years to bolster their argument or point of view.

Some Interesting Factoids

Who are the rich, anyway?   357 Americans have a net worth of $ 1 or more billions.  They represent 1/100 of 1% of the population, and they constitute the super-super rich.  There are over 500,000 Americans with a net worth of over $ 10 millions.  A little over 1% of Americans or approximately 1.3 million earn more than $ 300,000 per year.  

There are many Americans with assets over $ 1 million, but when you subtract their liabilities, most wind up with less than $ 1 million in net worth. For most, their home is their primary asset.  Since they live in it, the home does not produce income. Net worth, outside one’s own residence, can generate income through dividends, interest, rentals, etc.

Seven of the 10 richest US Senators are democrats; while 7 of the richest US House of Representatives are republicans.  The difference?  Most of the rich US Senators became rich through inheritance; while, the richest members of House of Representatives are self-made millionaires.  Although people tend to view the Republican Party as the party of the rich, the Democratic Party has many rich members as well. 

The rich enjoy more tax benefits.  Income generated from state and federal bonds can be exempt from taxation.  Dividends are treated differently than regular income.  Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate as well.  Many loopholes permit sheltering certain income from taxation.  They have also more and quicker access to capital, should they want to invest, build, or flip assets. 

The 1% pays 60% of the revenues collected by the IRS.  The top 52% pay the rest.  47% of Americans do not pay any income tax, but they do pay many other taxes e.g., sales tax, property taxes, etc. 

Those earning below the poverty line ($ 23,850 in 2014) receive each year a tax rebate, ranging from $ 496 to $ 6,143, depending on number of dependents.  18.1% of the US population lives below the poverty line; most of them in Southern states.  A mother of two children on welfare can receive from a low of around $ 37,500 up to $ 61,500 in tax-free compensation and benefits, depending on the State they live in.  The most generous States are: Hawaii, New York, and California.

Becoming Rich

How do you become rich anyway?  The simplest way is to inherit wealth.  It requires little or no effort of your own to become a millionaire – just the right lineage or benefactor.  The most difficult way is to make it on your own.  Experience has shown that it is very difficult to become rich from wages and salaries, although earning a high salary and bonus, over several years, can provide you with the seed capital to make investments.  Stock options’ and real estate investments’ appreciation can accelerate wealth accumulation.  Some entrepreneurs become wealthy by building successful companies.  However, there are no magic formulae per se. 

Wealth Redistribution

For historical reasons, America has always looked down on the rich by inheritance.  A relic from the British extravagance of yesteryear, for years the practice of taxing inheritances has had many proponents.  Except for short interludes, the tax man/woman in 2014 will take 40% of any estate in excess of $ 5 million (the amount rises slightly every year).  This taxation is especially painful for family enterprises and farms.  How many Americans have the ability to keep a business or farm valued at $ 10 million? Not many!  The tax man/woman demands $ 2 million in cash within 12 months of the death of the benefactor.  The very wealthy can afford to hire expert tax lawyers who can devise legal stratagems to reduce the amount of money due to IRS, but the average, middle class person cannot.

My Own View

Bashing the wealthy is fashionable these days.  Sure, some might be heartless and greedy, but the great majority is generous, witness the number of foundations in America dedicated to worthy projects all over the world.  A few super wealthy give most, if not all, of their money away in order not to spoil their progeny.

I have never met or heard of a person that prefers being poor to being rich.  In fact, we celebrate those who achieve the so-called American dream.  So, why do we hear this double talk?  Why do we engage in divisive dialog?  Envy? Jealousy? You are the judge of that.