Immigration as the Current Main Driver of Economic Growth in the U.S.

By Ernesto Castañeda, Edgar Aguilar, and Natalie Turkington

A new report from CLALS and the Immigration Lab finds that recent immigrants are a key driver of economic growth in the United States.

The report presents an original calculation that finds that only in 2022:

  • Immigrants who sent money home contributed over $2.2 trillion dollars to the U.S. economy.
  • This contribution by migrant labor constitutes about 8% of the U.S. GDP.
  • Remittances represent just 4% of the total output generated by immigrants, even if they add up to $81.6 billion annually, disputing the narrative that immigrants drain the U.S. economy.


Immigrants who remit contribute around $2.2 trillion annually to the U.S. economy. Despite concerns that remittances drain U.S. dollars, they only represent 4% of immigrants’ total contributions. This estimate is based on credible sources indicating that 17.5% of immigrants’ income is sent as remittances and considering a combined yearly salary of approximately $466.5 billion.  Using data from the World Bank, the Association for Central Banks of Latin America, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, however, this is just a good approximation to quantify some of the benefits of migration. Immigrants’ contributions to the economy are greater as not all send remittances through formal channels. Additionally, it overlooks the economic growth immigrants stimulate by spending their wages in the U.S., creating demand, and generating jobs. Not to say anything about the human, cultural, culinary, and creative contributions. Below are more details about this novel estimation and projections of future contributions by immigrants to the U.S. economy.

The Congressional Budget Office’s Demographic Outlook 2024-2054, which has gotten some deserved media attention, estimates that in 2034 the U.S. economic output will be $7 trillion larger due to new immigration. Tax revenues would also be higher and the deficit lower because of immigration all else equal.

The quote from the CBO Director’s press release is, “in our projections, the deficit is also smaller than it was last year because economic output is greater, partly as a result of more people working. The labor force in 2033 is larger by 5.2 million people, mostly because of higher net immigration. As a result of those changes in the labor force, we estimate that, from 2023 to 2034, GDP will be greater by about $7 trillion and revenues will be greater by about $1 trillion than they would have been otherwise.”

We estimate immigrants’ contribution to the U.S. economy between 2023 and 2034 will be greater. Using the same immigration estimates as the Congressional Budget Office’s (see graph below), we calculate new immigrants have the potential to elevate the U.S. economic output by a staggering $17 trillion just in 2034.

Net population growth is through immigration.

Source: Congressional Budget Office interactive graph here.

However, if the number of new immigrants and asylum seekers continues at the same pace as in estimated for 2024, 3.3 million per year (10,000 per day as happened in December of 2023), we calculate that the U.S. would enjoy an increased economic output of over $37 trillion just in 2034.

As the Economic Policy Institute writes, “The unemployment rate for U.S.-born workers averaged 3.6% in 2023, the lowest rate on record. Obviously, immigration is not causing high unemployment among U.S.-born workers.” They further write, “immigrants that make up 18.6% of the U.S. labor force are playing key roles in numerous industries and are employed in a mix of lower, middle, and higher-wage jobs. And as the Congressional Budget Office recently reported, immigration is contributing to strong economic growth—with future immigration forecasted to boost real gross domestic product by 2% over the next 10 years—as well as increasing government revenue. Immigrants are also complementing U.S.-born workers by contributing to overall population and workforce growth. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that if the U.S. were to have lower-than-expected immigration levels, the population would begin to decline in 20 years, and if there were suddenly zero immigration, the population would begin to decline next year, deeply harming economic growth.”

A Washington Post article states that around 50% of the growth in the labor market in 2023 was due to foreign-born workers. The same was the case in the 1990s.

In 2021, 45 million immigrants lived in the United States, accounting for 14% of the country’s population. Immigrants are integrated into American social, economic, cultural, and political life. The Immigrant Research Initiative calculates that “Immigrants account for 17 percent of the U.S. economic output (GDP), even higher than their share of the population. The United States has a $19.6 trillion economy according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis 2021 statistics, which means immigrants are conservatively responsible for $3.3 trillion of economic output.” This supports our calculation of around 2.2 trillion only from immigrants who send money abroad because many do not send remittances.

Estimates and projections vary, but what is clear is that there would be no economic growth without recent immigrant arrivals. If immigration (of all types) decreases in the following years, economic growth will most likely plummet, and inflation will rise. Furthermore, this does not only apply to the United States but to other countries as well.

You can find coverage of the report in Spanish here:

“Immigracion y Economia en EE.UU.” RTVE 24h.

“Los hispanos y el mercado laboral en EE. UU.” Y Esto No es Todo podcast on YouTube.

“Ernesto Castañeda y el mercado laboral en EE.UU.” RTVE audio.

Ernesto Castañeda is the Director of the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab.

Edgar Aguilar and Natalie Turkington are research assistants at the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies.

Full report here.

Leave a comment
by clalsstaff on March 10, 2024  •  Permalink
Posted in United States
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by clalsstaff on March 10, 2024

https://aulablog.net/2024/03/10/immigration-as-the-current-main-driver-of-economic-growth-in-the-u-s/

Vanishing Homelands

Climate Change Threatens Indigenous Communities in Panama and Mexico

Gardi Sugdub, Panama photo by Lee Bosher

Forest fire photo by Bertknot.

March 7, 2024

By Valeria Chacon

Climate change is adversely contributing to humanitarian emergencies such as heatwaves, wildfires, floods, tropical storms, and hurricanes. Unfortunately, these crises are only increasing in frequency and magnitude. For example, Indigenous communities in Panama and Mexico find themselves displaced from their ancestral lands as climate change intensifies.

Gardi Sugdub is an island situated off the coast of Panama, home to over 1,453 Guna people. It is vulnerable to rising sea levels. Life on this tiny, crowded island becomes increasingly challenging as residents experience frequent floods and storms, impacting crucial aspects of their everyday living such as housing, water, health, and education. Naila, who lives on Gardi Subdug,  describes the deteriorating conditions of her school due to flooding. The walls of her school display extensive water damage, with noticeable cracks and crumbling. These relentless challenges have forced the people of Gardi Sugdub to leave behind their ancestral homeland and onto mainland Panama.

With the support of NGOs and after many years of community-led advocacy, in 2017 the Panamanian government made the decision to construct new homes for the Gardi Sugdub community in mainland Panama. There’s just one problem: the people of Gardi Sugdub have yet to receive the keys to their new homes. As of now, no one has moved into the new relocation site. The construction timeline has been delayed three times, with the original completion date set for September 25, 2023, and then pushed back to February 29, 2023. The latest update posted on March 3, 2024, states that the construction is in its final stages, but there is doubt regarding when the new relocation site will be complete.

Much like the people of Gardi Sugdub, the indigenous people of Oaxaca, Mexico are grappling with the devastating effects of climate change as wildfires engulf acres of their ancestral land. The wildfire, which started burning on February 26, 2024, quickly spread throughout the region. Despite early warnings, the government’s response was slow, exacerbating the crisis. Emergency assistance was only dispatched after casualties were reported, two days after the initial notice. The fire has tragically claimed the lives of five individuals so far, with many more displaced.

Hindered by dry conditions and limited water resources, efforts to contain the fire remain challenging. It is reported that in 2024 alone, Oaxaca has witnessed 35 forest fires, impacting over 1,500 acres of ancestral land. Adding to the devastation, Mexican officials announced on March 4, 2024, that areas affected by the wildfires pose a risk for flash floods.

The fires in Oaxaca and floods in Gardi Sugdub reiterate the urgent need for action to address the impacts of climate change on indigenous communities. These communities will continue to face immense challenges that will leave them vulnerable and displaced if their governments continue to turn a blind eye and do not provide adequate support. Governments, NGOs, and communities need to work together to implement proactive measures to address climate change issues by planning the relocation of communities facing serious environmental degradation and prioritizing the safety and well-being of indigenous peoples.

Valeria Chacon is a Research Assistant at the Immigration Lab and studying Justice Law and Criminology at American University

Leave a comment
by clalsstaff on March 7, 2024  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized

Posted by clalsstaff on March 7, 2024

https://aulablog.net/2024/03/07/vanishing-homelands/

Invisible Deaths

The U.S. and Mexico’s Federal Strategic Plans against Migration and their Relation to Invisible Deaths

by Sofia Guerra*

March 8, 2024

A monument at the Tijuana-San Diego border for those who have died attempting to cross. Each coffin represents a year and the number of dead.
A monument at the Tijuana-San Diego border for those who have died attempting to cross. Each coffin represents a year and the number of dead. (Photo credit: © Tomas Castelazo, www.tomascastelazo.com / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 3.0)

The U.S. and Mexico have strategies to control migration that dehumanize migrants and sometimes lead to their deaths becoming invisible. The U.S. border infrastructure forces migrants to be exposed to extreme natural environments causing deaths while crossing. Some paths to the U.S. are controlled by criminal organizations making them experience violence. The lack of transparency, visibility, and care create invisible deaths.

The U.S./Mexico border has become a dangerous path for immigrants when crossing, creating thousands of deaths. An invisible death is when people die while migrating, later to be found without any form of identification and no information about who the person is and why they passed away.  Jason De Leon conducted a deep dive into invisible deaths within the U.S./Mexico border. He argues that the existing border infrastructure is the result of a federal strategic plan to deter migration that facilitates death but hides its strategy by redirecting blame to migrants.

The U.S. federal strategy pushes migrants into physically demanding natural environments like deserts, rivers, and extreme temperatures. This endangers the migrant’s lives and risks the possibility of death while crossing. USA’s federal strategy also involves developing infrastructure such as walls, militarization, ground sensors, checkpoints, and other measures to impede migrants’ passing.  These strategies cause migrants to face isolation and physiological strain,  making the migration process more challenging and leading to higher mortality rates.

Like the U.S., Mexico has an infrastructure of checkpoints and militarized immigration stations, but with increased anti-immigrant policies criminal organizations further interfere in the movement of people across “their” territories. Corruption has allowed the growth of criminal activities, affecting the safety of migrants passing through. Thus, Mexico has also developed a quiet strategic federal plan against migrants that consists of extreme violence. Mexican trials to get to the US have become a site of intense violence, exploitation, and profit-making among gang members. They encounter abuse, rape, kidnapping, dismemberment, and death. Their migrant journey is used to make a profit and form part of the strategic corruption in the criminal world. This makes the Mexican drug war members control some of the routes that immigrants take within Mexico, making migrant smuggling blend into criminal activity. Migrants’ lives are at risk when encountering the criminal world while crossing; those who die due to criminal activities are likely to have an invisible death. This is due to the lack of transparency that organized crime has with its victims. 

Although the USA and Mexico have different federal strategic plans to dissuade land migration, it becomes evident that their strategies do not favor life but instead create a systematic weapon against migrants. In the USA, migration is seen as a dangerous crisis, while in Mexico, migration is seen as an opportunity for profit. Migrants are dehumanized, and therefore, their lives are not protected, increasing the invisibility of their death.

Copyright Creative Commons. Reproduction with full attribution is possible by news media and for not-for-profit and educational purposes. Minor modifications, such as not including the “About the Study” section, are permitted. 

* Sofia Guerra is a sociology graduate student at American University. She is a research assistant at the Immigration Lab and Center of Latin American Studies at AU. She has conducted research on migration, gender studies, and the bilateral relationship between Mexico and the United States. She also has an interest in policy-making and expanding her research expertise. 

Leave a comment
by clalsstaff on March 7, 2024  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Posted by clalsstaff on March 7, 2024

https://aulablog.net/2024/03/07/invisible-deaths/

1.5- and Second-Generation Female Immigrant Experiences

by Marcela Ventura*

February 23, 2024

A young girl holds an American flag during a stand for immigrants’ rights in Chicago, May 1, 2006. Photo credit: Joseph Voves. CC GPA Photo Archive/ Creative Commons License

From its presence at Thanksgiving dinners and presidential debates, immigration is a recurrent topic of debate in the U.S. and around the world. Unfortunately, people often fail to see the full impact immigration can have. One aspect of immigration that is rarely discussed is the effect immigration has on immigrants and their families. Growing up in a diverse environment, I saw the lack of support immigrants and their children encounter in the United States. Just imagine arriving in a new country with little idea of how anything works, often being unable to ask for help due to a language barrier. 

While researching this topic, I realized that many first-generation immigrants (those born abroad) end up relying on their young children for support. Published works that shed light on the experiences of 1.5- or 2nd-generation immigrants tend to focus on the male experiences or the experiences of specific ethnic groups. Similarly, many papers researched the correlation between acculturation stress and criminal or negative behavior within immigrant groups.

To bridge this gap in research, I conducted interviews with 1.5- and 2nd-generation female immigrants to learn more about their experiences. I wanted to see if they faced acculturation stress, usually associated with first-generation immigrants. Many of the participants shared similar experiences surrounding immigration regardless of their ethnic background. Feelings of not belonging and high family responsibilities were constant among participants. 

A participant who immigrated as a child—1.5 generation—from Central America stated:

“I am held responsible for my parents because I am the English speaker, I am the translator, I am the one […] that saves them whenever they face certain scenarios that they can’t get themselves out of.”

Similarly, a participant who was born in the U.S.—2nd-generation—of South American descent, stated:

“I feel like it’s always a pressure when they tell you that you have to speak for them […] or do things for them like make appointments or go with them to help translate […] it’s going to keep happening […] sometimes it is a lot.”

The sense of responsibility that participants felt towards their parents affected the choices they made later in life. 1.5- and 2nd-generation female immigrants considered financial stability of high importance, seeing it as a means to honor the sacrifices their parents made during their immigration journey. A participant who immigrated as a child from the Caribbean stated:

“I also had to be able to provide […] get to a place where I have financial stability […] sometimes that means sacrificing what you really want to do.” 

Throughout the interview, this participant consistently mentioned how her parents never supported or approved of her creative endeavors, forcing her to let go of such passions. 

When comparing the experiences of 1.5- and 2nd-generation female immigrants to those of first-generation female immigrants, similarities were found. First-generation immigrants’ stress on the importance of financial stability coincided with that of 1.5- and 2nd-generation immigrants.  However, there were key differences among those similarities. Unlike 1.5 or 2nd generation immigrants, first-generation immigrants aimed for financial stability to achieve personal goals. First-generation female immigrants were not attempting to make their family members happy or proud; instead, they were attempting to achieve self-satisfaction. For example, a first-generation female Afghan immigrant stated:

“If I wanted to have a good career I should get out and go to the Western countries because in Afghanistan […] it was tough on women.”

These similarities and differences did not come as a surprise but as a reassurance that while immigration affects first-generation, 1.5- and 2nd-generation immigrants in unique ways, there is consistency in their experiences. Knowing this, I wonder what we can do to support our immigrant community better. There is an unfair reality in the United States, where there are generations unable to achieve their dreams knowing they will always have to look out for their parents. As a result, many participants mentioned the importance of mental health and the positive effects therapy had or could have had on them. Participants stated that they would have benefitted from mental health services as they dealt with the responsibilities placed upon them by their parents. Among the interviewees, we found some cases of first-generation immigrants who were able to receive mental health support. Nonetheless, young children of migrants often did not have the vocabulary to ask for access to mental health professionals. Parents may also be reluctant to bring their children to therapy because this could wrongly imply their failure as parents. 

A plethora of questions appear as we look deeper into the experiences of 1.5- and 2nd-generation female immigrants. Would providing counseling at school help these children navigate the burden of responsibility? Is there a way to assist first-generation parents so that the responsibility does not so fall heavily on their children? Can we aid the advancement of the United States by helping both first-, 1.5-, and 2nd-generation immigrants, are we also? Given these questions, it is important to continue research on the impact of immigration-related stress on the children of immigrants.

Copyright Creative Commons. Reproduction with full attribution is possible by news media and for not-for-profit and educational purposes. Minor modifications, such as not including the “About the Study” section, are permitted. 

* Marcela Ventura came to the United States at age 11 from Peru. She is an active of the Immigration Lab at American University, where she is also taking graduate classes. 

Leave a comment
by clalsstaff on February 23, 2024  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged ,

Posted by clalsstaff on February 23, 2024

https://aulablog.net/2024/02/23/1-5-and-second-generation-female-immigrant-experiences/

From Coup Attempt to Inauguration: Guatemala’s Tumultuous Elections

by Edgar Aguilar*

February 21, 2024

“Dia nacional de la bandera de Guatemala.” Gobierno de Guatemala. Gobierno de Guatemala. CC. / Creative Commons License

Edie Cux, director of Acción Ciudadana, local chapter of Transparency International, spoke with CLALS’ researcher Edgar Aguilar about Guatemala’s recent presidential elections. Read a synthesis of the interview below.  

What were the defining issues in Guatemala’s recent elections? 

The main problem in the social imaginary here in Guatemala was the issue of the fight against corruption. This was key after years of exposed corruption in the government by Alejandro Giammattei. The other issue was security. 

How do presidential elections work in Guatemala? 

In Guatemala, there are two electoral rounds. The first round is in June and the second is in August. In the first round, there were 24 candidates. Many of the candidates had previously run for election. In the second round, there were 2 candidates, Sandra Torres and Bernardo Arévalo. 

Why was Mr. Arévalo making it to the final round a surprise?  

Sandra Torres, a perennial politician, was expected to make it to the second round. The surprise was Bernardo Arévalo. During the first round, Arévalo was initially in ninth place but then emerged as a surprise contender.  

How much support did Mr. Arévalo receive in the second round? 

In the second round, Bernardo Arévalo received 58% of the vote while Torres received 42%. That shows that people were really hoping for a change in the country. Arévalo was a new face and a left-wing or progressive candidate. Alternatively, Torres was a former first lady and had previously run for president twice.  

How did the uncertainty surrounding the inauguration of Mr. Arévalo begin? 

It started immediately after the first round when it was known that both Bernardo Arévalo and Sandra Torres were the favorites. From there, the attacks began against Arévalo’s Semilla party and the electoral authorities. Even the Prosecutor’s Office went after the people who participated in the polling stations and municipal, electoral, and departmental boards. This began a strategy of questioning the electoral results: going through a second review of the counts.  

Who started the questioning of the results?  

The Attorney General’s office initiated legal challenges that cast doubt on the election results. Judges joined in, further amplifying the uncertainty. Other groups used social media accounts, like X and TikTok, to spread narratives questioning the outcome. These unsuccessful efforts were part of a broader attempt by identified “coup plotters,” including influential groups such as congressmen. The goal here was to prevent Bernardo Arévalo from assuming power.  

The instrumentalization of both legal and social media channels was key to their strategy. They questioned Arévalo 

 but especially focused on the election results: the transmission of data and the electoral authority. At this point, the authorities of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal were practically in exile. They were stripped of the immunity that the law gives them.  

Were there actual irregularities in the process? 

These were the most observed elections in Guatemala, maybe ever. Actors like the European Union (EU) (with over 100 observers) and civil society organizations had mechanisms (like Mirador Electoral) to watch every step of the elections. After the elections, an Organization of American States (OAS) report confirmed clean results, corroborated by other countries and civil society.  

No international or national observer questioned the elections, except the Attorney General’s office. They illegally dug into things, opened bogus cases, demanded information from the electoral tribunal, and even took ballot boxes! Basically, they stole them, which I believe is illegal. This narrative only came from them. The OAS, with 29 votes, all countries, basically said the Attorney General was trying to mess with the results and backed the results.  

Why was there uncertainty until the day of the inauguration?  

Groups within Congress continued their efforts to obstruct Arévalo’s election until the inauguration day, delaying the swearing-in process by nine hours. 

Can you tell me what the day of the inauguration was like? 

Bernardo’s inauguration victory belongs to the people, especially the indigenous communities. Their 20-day strike, continued resistance, and unwavering presence on inauguration day, with mothers and children even sleeping in the Plaza de la Constitución, were crucial. Their sacrifice overflowed the central park, keeping spirits high even amidst delays. International observers, delegations from the OAS, Spain, the U.S., and key figures like Petro solidified the legitimacy of the process, forcing the “coup groups” to stand down. The transfer of power, thanks to the people’s energy, marked a dramatic shift in Guatemala’s political climate. 

What do Guatemalans expect now that President Arévalo has been inaugurated? 

At this moment, the panorama is changing a lot; there is already an expectation of how the new government is going to develop. There is a lot of hope, and everyone is waiting. Different civil society and especially indigenous peoples, we are all waiting to see what the new government is going to be like.  

What are the key takeaways from this turbulent process? 

Guatemala’s democratic institutions have been under attack since their beginning. The institutions have never been trusted. Indigenous people maintain alternative governance, economy, and justice structures. The state of Guatemala has not enjoyed the legitimacy that has been achieved in other states. Neither has it created the representativeness of a plurinational population. What happened in Guatemala is an example, globally, of what indigenous people have done to protect a democracy that does not even represent them.  

Currently, there are several democratic crises globally. Additionally, there are many examples of the instrumentalization of public institutions, especially the justice system, to attack democracy. Guatemala has brought to light how indigenous peoples propose sustainability not only environmentally but also for democracy and politics.  

Edition: Ernesto Castañeda 

Interview and writing: Edgar Aguilar 

Transcription and translation: Aleli Nava 

Copyright Creative Commons. Reproduction with full attribution is possible by news media and for not-for-profit and educational purposes. Minor modifications, such as not including the “About the Study” section, are permitted. 

* Edgar Aguilar is an International Economics Master’s student at American University and a research assistant at the Center for Latin America and Latino Studies (CLALS). With four years of experience as a researcher and analyst, he specializes in migration, human security, energy, finance, and environmental policy. He is passionate about sustainable energy solutions that unlock prosperity in the Western Hemisphere.

X- @EdgarAAguilar

Leave a comment
by clalsstaff on February 21, 2024  •  Permalink
Posted in Chile, Guatemala
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by clalsstaff on February 21, 2024

https://aulablog.net/2024/02/21/from-coup-attempt-to-inauguration-guatemalas-tumultuous-elections/

Where Is Cuba’s Economic Policy Going?

by Ricardo Torres*

A photo of Havana, Cuba taken in December 2023 / Ernesto Castañeda / Creative Commons License

In the concluding sessions of the National Assembly in December, the Cuban Prime Minister alluded to new economic policy initiatives aimed at “correcting distortions and boosting the economy.” Subsequently, he emphasized that these reforms should not be perceived as mere continuation of previous policies. His discourse encompassed several areas, including pricing and subsidies, the role of the private sector and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), international trade and tariff regulations, investment, and the foreign exchange market, among others. In the first weeks of January, various representatives from the government elaborated on the price increases of essential goods, which has become a focal point of discussions due to the immediate impacts on people’s daily lives. This new wave of measures is being introduced against a unique context:

  • The Cuban economy’s inability to embark on a path to sustainable recovery after the economic downturn triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic is noteworthy. The year 2023 witnessed a contraction in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), marking this period as the most severe crisis encountered by Cuba since the revolution in 1959, given its widespread economic, social, and political implications.
  • The ineffectiveness of previously implemented economic policies, including the so-called “Monetary Ordering,” is evident. The Cuban authorities persistently attribute these economic adversities to external factors, notably the sanctions imposed by the United States. There is little mention of the government’s obvious mistakes.  
  • The Biden administration’s limited opening towards Cuba has narrowed the window to implement substantial measures to mitigate the island’s economic challenges. 
  • The Cuban government has continued to search for support elsewhere. For example, Russia and China have provided some economic support, and Mexico has provided cheap oil, oxygen after the pandemic, and some food. But not one country can provide all the support that Cuba needs.

The measures announced thus far appear to have limited potential in contributing to the economic recovery. The fiscal strategy focuses more on revenue collection rather than containing expenditures, as indicated by the incomplete budget data for 2024 when the deficit is set to increase. 

  • Notably, the emphasis remains on preserving the extensive public sector, including state-owned enterprises, without introducing substantial structural reforms.
  • The marginalization, or at most, a cursory mention of other structural reforms aimed at stimulating domestic supply, is significant. The criticism of the private sector and the lack of initiatives to address external debt are particularly conspicuous. 
  • The potential impact of the price increase and these newly announced measures on the fiscal deficit remains ambiguous, especially given the scant details regarding their implications for the 2024 budget. Besides, these measures will likely exacerbate inflationary pressures in the short term.

In a rather dramatic turn, Cuban authorities announced the suspension of the price increases on January 31st, citing a cyberattack, and failed to commit to a new date. Furthermore, the government reshuffled the cabinet, including the sacking of the Economy Minister. 

The challenges of runaway inflation and elevated fiscal deficits should be viewed as symptoms rather than the root cause of the economic malaise. Historical evidence from the 1970s and 1980s has demonstrated that attempts to manipulate aggregate demand to counter stagflation are futile. Cuba’s economic stagnation, however, presents a unique case, having persisted for decades and intensified due to a series of adverse external shocks commencing around 2016 with the decline of Venezuela’s economy. Superficial adjustments to economic policies are unlikely to yield significant medium-term benefits. Instead, a concerted effort towards systemic change by both the government and international stakeholders is imperative. The existence of the political will and strategic insight, both within Cuba and internationally, to enact such comprehensive reforms to the ultimate benefit of the embattled Cuban people remains an open question.

Copyright Creative Commons. Reproduction with full attribution is possible by news media and for not-for profit and educational purposes. Minor modifications, such as not including the “About the Study” section, are permitted. 

* Ricardo Torres is a Professor and Faculty Fellow in the Department of Economics, Research Fellow at American University’s Center for Latin American & Latino Studies, and Coordinator of the Red de Investigadores Cubanos (RedIC).

1 Comment
by clalsstaff on February 14, 2024  •  Permalink
Posted in Chile
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by clalsstaff on February 14, 2024

https://aulablog.net/2024/02/14/where-is-cubas-economic-policy-going/

For a Food Secure D.C.

Food Insecurity among Latinx Populations in Washington D.C. 

by Lia Sullivan*

U.S. Department of Agriculture Deputy Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services Stacy Dean and U.S. Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Rachel Levine pack food boxes with volunteers from Howard University at the Capital Area Food Bank in Washington, D.C. on Friday, October 27, 2023. The Capital Area Food Bank leads efforts to provide equitable access to food and opportunity to people struggling with hunger and food insecurity. Each year through donations and the help of volunteers, CAFB sources and distributes the food for more than 50 million meals. (USDA photo by Tom Witham)

In Washington, D.C., a culturally diverse and celebrated city, a less-discussed reality exists for minority populations. Food insecurity is at the forefront of issues for many minority communities in D.C. It is imperative to understand the unique needs and cultural characteristics of a group to ensure food insecurity issues are addressed efficiently.  

Many supplemental government assistance programs created during the COVID-19 pandemic were shut down with little warning to benefit recipients. Because of this, there was a surge in food insecurity in the district, especially amongst Hispanic and other minority populations. The economic fallout of the pandemic extended beyond food assistance programs, with the loss of full-time jobs and work hours shortened.  

The USDA defines food insecurity as “a lack of consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy lifestyle.” Extensive research by the Capital Area Food Bank revealed that 32% of metropolitan area residents experienced food insecurity between 2022 and 2023, with 27% identifying as Hispanic. These statistics compare to only 18% of food insecure residents identifying as White. Numerous factors contribute to this disparity, including cultural and language barriers and lack of access to cultural foods. 

Programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and WIC (Women, Infants & Children) exist to alleviate grocery costs for low-income families by providing monthly stipends for certain grocery items. However, these programs often exclude traditional foods and staples. Broadening the benefits for SNAP and WIC would allow for already acculturating Latinx community members to keep a piece of their home within them.  

Community organizations and city-wide initiatives play a large role in battling food insecurity for all populations. Organizations such as D.C. Hunger Solutions, Martha’s Table, DCGreens, and more exist to combat the effects of food insecurity through educational programs, outreach events, and expanding food access. However, these programs and educational materials are often offered solely in English, excluding many affected populations. Offering Spanish and other non-English options for programs, hotlines, and flyers is imperative to assisting minorities.  

To effectively address and combat food insecurity, policy changes are needed to ensure equal access to food for all. In 2020, the USDA reported that 3,600 of 3,700 WIC-eligible Hispanic/Latino reporting DC residents were enrolled in the program. This data shows how integral the program is for food-insecure Hispanic groups. On January 3rd, 2024, Mayor Muriel Bowser announced plans to expand SNAP benefits for D.C. residents, passing the Give Snap a Raise Amendment Act. This $40 million expansion will allow recipients to receive an extra 10% of monthly benefits from February 17th through the end of September 2024.  

Access to plentiful and nutritious food is a fundamental human right, and approaching it requires a multifaceted approach. Washington’s residents, including minority populations, should not have to worry where their next meal will be coming from. Through involvement from community members, culturally aware programs, and effective policy, we can make significant progress in ensuring everyone has access to the food they need to learn, grow, and thrive. 

*Lia Sullivan is a student in the Sociology, Research, and Practice MA program at American University in Washington, DC. She works for a non-profit working on food insecurity issues.

Leave a comment
by clalsstaff on January 17, 2024  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized

Posted by clalsstaff on January 17, 2024

https://aulablog.net/2024/01/17/for-a-food-secure-d-c/

Ecuador: The Formation of Gangs in Prison Systems

By Erica Criollo

January 17, 2024

Solidarity rally in Queens, New York by members of the Ecuadorian diaspora. Photo by Erica Criollo 

On January 7th, 2024, José Adolfo Macías Villamar, alias“Fito,” the leader of one of Ecuador’s most prominent gangs, was found missing from his luxury prison cell the day he was meant to be transferred to a maximum-security prison to be held in isolation.

While Macías began his 34-year sentence in 2011, he remained the leader of the criminal gang, Los Choneros, due to their longstanding influence over government officials and extensive illicit drug networks. Following his escape, the country descended into chaos resulting in President Daniel Noboa declaring that the country was under “armed internal conflict” to mitigate gang wars and the killings of police officers.

This presidential declaration has prompted questions as to how Ecuador could have experienced such a sudden upsurge in gang violence. Along with government corruption, the escalation can be traced to the gradual formation of gangs dominating prison systems over several years. 

 In 2003, Los Choneros, who are associated with Mexican and Colombian cartels, took control of the drug trafficking route in the province of Manabí, Ecuador, from where drug shipments were sent to Mexico, the United States, and several European countries. Transnational networks and external groups engaged in the illicit drug trade utilized Ecuador’s coasts, leveraging its access to major shipping routes and ports to transport illicit drugs across international borders. 

Furthermore, Ecuador’s adoption of the U.S. dollar, coupled with inadequate enforcement and prevalent corruption, has facilitated money laundering by drug traffickers through industries such as real estate, illegal mining, and the illicit timber trade. This impacted the way corruption played a role in the country’s efforts to combat such illicit activities. 

When Former President Rafael Correa took office in 2007, he gained public favor through his initiative to remove the United States from the Manta military base from which the U.S. has been controlling anti-drug efforts with targets against the Colombian illicit drug trade since 1999.

However, following the U.S. withdrawal from the Manta military base, the country witnessed a worsening of drug trafficking. Former President Correa failed to stop the activities of groups like Los Choneros and other Mexican cartels, allowing the unhindered transportation of drugs to and from Ecuador.

Before Macías, Los Choneros was led by Jorge Luis Zambrano, alias “Rasquiña,” who, while incarcerated, directed orders alongside arrested gang members. By 2010, the group had transitioned to operating within prison systems and communicating with members on the outside. This operational shift steered the group away from international drug trafficking, focusing instead on micro-trafficking, contract killings, extortion, and contraband activities.

Emerging factional gangs, including Los Choneros, Gorras, Lagartos, Latin Kings, and the Cubanos, have become more extensive and aggressive, leading to deadly conflicts in prisons. In 2019, a brutal fight claimed the lives of several inmate gang members at Penitenciaria del Litoral, and in 2021, a prison riot resulted in the deaths of 119 inmates in the same facility. These deviations of gangs were also a result of government initiative in dismantling gang groups through the transfer of leaders between prisons, but it only multiplied the presence of gang wars.

Following Zambrano’s death in 2020, Macías obtained leadership, triggering an uproar of chaos and gang violence across the country as gang leaders fought to dominate. Despite being in prison, Macías remained in control. For him, communication with members was not an obstacle, as several reports indicate Macías’ prison cell had plugs to charge his cell phone and an internet router. Macías was also open to sharing his lavish living space on social media, regularly throwing parties, and having access to weapons, appliances, liquor, jewelry, and ceramics.

Ecuador has experienced a long trajectory of government corruption which has led to an escalation in gang formation and violence in prison systems. With Macías’ most recent escape, the country has been submitted to crazed gang members responsible for several car bombings, kidnappings, and slayings of prison guards and innocent civilians. In response to President Daniel Noboa’s crackdown on gang members in prisons, gang leaders on the outside have resorted to hostage-taking, capturing military and prison guards. These captives are coerced into recording messages, pleading with President Noboa to halt military operations in prisons and cease the killing of gang members. The objective behind these threats is to secure the gangs’ dominance within prisons and ensure the unrestricted proliferation of gang members. 

In one such video shared on Facebook, a gang member asserts, “Just as you safeguard the right to life of Ecuadorian citizens, we too have the right to live…we are not afraid of your tactics.” In essence, Ecuador is confronted with a formidable coalition of gangs wielding enough power to subvert the law and pursue their objectives, fueled by their substantial numbers and collective readiness to act in unison to carry out attacks. 

Currently, President Noboa’s plan to overpower gang violence is to enforce stricter regulations in prisons. However, this raises concerns for Ecuadorian citizens alarmed by several online videos featuring hostages pleading with the government for compliance to spare their lives. As events unfold, President Noboa’s actions will require careful consideration to ensure that no more civilian lives are endangered and to respect the human rights of all people. 

*Erica Criollo is a Graduate Research Assistant of the Immigration Lab at American University. 

Creative Commons license. Free to republish without changing content for news and not-for-profit purposes. 

Leave a comment
by clalsstaff on January 17, 2024  •  Permalink
Posted in Cuba, Ecuador, Immigration, North America
Tagged , ,

Posted by clalsstaff on January 17, 2024

https://aulablog.net/2024/01/17/ecuador-the-formation-of-gangs-in-prison-systems/

Blinken and Mayorkas visited Mexico to Discuss Migration

By Ernesto Castañeda

January 11, 2024

Republicans in Congress are denying funding to Ukraine and Israel over migration and border security, but the premises and assumptions used to discuss the issue fail to take the following elements into account.

It is hard to determine if numbers are really without precedent. There has been a change in that immigrants come and turn themselves in to try to come in with a legal immigration status, such as through asylum or the regularization programs available to Ukrainians, Afghans, Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, and other groups. In previous decades, many low-skilled workers knew there were no avenues to enter legally and would try to pass undetected and live undocumented in the United States. That is less common today for so-called low-skilled, recently arrived immigrants. So, an imaginary example would be to count people who once would mainly drive to New York City for the holidays and then compare them to a time when most people would arrive via plane. It would be easier to count the people arriving on planes, but that would not necessarily mean that there are more people arriving now by plane than the ones who arrived driving in the past. 

Historically, numbers are not comparable because, before Title 42, apprehensions were counted versus encounters afterward. Previously, most apprehensions would happen inside the U.S., while today, most people present themselves in groups and in a visible manner at ports of entry, along the physical border, or in front of the border wall. Another important difference is that in the past, undocumented workers relied on established family members and networks to get provisional housing and food and find a job. Many recent arrivals may not have close people in the United States and are actively asking for temporary housing and food from city governments. The U.S. does this for refugees and has done it in the past for Cubans and others escaping repressive regimes. Research and history show that these short-term expenses have been good investments, given that refugees and immigrants are more likely than U.S.-born individuals to work, start businesses, and be innovative leaders. Republicans in Congress have denied requests from the White House to provide funding to cities to cover some of these costs.

Some propose detention as deterrence, but prolonged detention in the United States is very expensive and mainly benefits the companies or workers providing and managing detention centers.

A misconception repeated in the media is that most people are immigrating illegally. That is technically incorrect because people are presenting themselves to immigration authorities. Many migrants are applying to legal programs, asking for asylum, or being placed in deportation proceedings.

The situation that we are seeing at the border and some of the solutions proposed indicate some important points that have been rarely discussed,

1) Border walls do not work. Smugglers can cut them, and people can walk around them or come in front of them on U.S. territory. 

2) People are turning themselves in, so contrary to what Trump said recently, authorities know where people are from and where they are going. They have notices to appear in immigration court, and they register an address in order to receive notices and updates if they want to continue with their asylum process and regularize their status. In the past, a great majority of people go to their migration court hearings.

3) CBP One appointments are too cumbersome to make, and there are not enough slots available, so people are showing themselves at ports of entry and between them.

4) The parole program for Haitians, Cubans, Venezuelans, and Nicaraguans is working to create a more rational and orderly process. Taking the program away —as Republicans in the Senate want—would make things worse. 

5) Putting more pressure on Mexico to deport more people and stop them from getting to the border is unsustainable. Mexico cannot manage the issue by itself unless it gets pressure and funding from the U.S. and international organizations, like Colombia does, to establish immigrant integration programs for immigrants who want to stay in Mexico, and it provides paths to citizenship for them. 

Thus, Blinken, Mayorkas, and their companions and team’s visit to Mexico is important. Mexico has been a willing partner, agreeing to take people from third countries under the Remain in Mexico and Title 42 programs, but those programs could only work temporarily. Mexico has also increased the number of deportations. However, deportation only works if people are unwilling to try multiple times. Increasing immigration surveillance, deterrence, and deportation does make arriving in the U.S. harder. It also makes it more expensive and thus attractive for organized crime to get involved in it as a business, thus getting more people to the border once they figure out the business model and logistics even with new policies in place. 

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has asked for a regularization of U.S. relations with Cuba and Venezuela. There have been positive steps with Venezuela already. This could be a good opportunity to remove Cuba from the list of states sponsoring terrorism, which would reduce some of the emigration pressure in Cuba. 

Mexican authorities have disbanded many caravans and slowed the trek of thousands of migrants. Nevertheless, people who are escaping violence and persecution or have sold everything will try to get to the United States. 

Long-term ways to address the root causes of migration are to continue providing international aid and supporting democratic institutions. One has to keep in mind human rights. The Mexican Supreme Court of Justice has found that profiling people suspected to be migrants in buses to be unconstitutional. To engage the Mexican Army is not the solution either.

The silver lining is that despite the images we see in the news and seasonal peaks, it is not as if all the world is on the way to the U.S.-Mexico border. Most people want to stay home.

Congresswoman Delia C. Ramirez (IL-03)

Congresswoman Delia C. Ramirez (IL-03) presenting immigration policies the Congress could be working on instead.

In the January 10 hearing towards impeaching DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Republicans repeated many myths, cliches, and anti-immigrant talking points but did not propose any sensible solutions. It was remarkable that Democrats in the committee saw the political nature of the exercise, and many offered actual solutions to improve the situation at the border and inside the United States in a way that makes the immigration and asylum processes more humane and above ground.

Ernesto Castañeda is the Director of the Center for Latino American and Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab at American University.

Creative Commons license. Free to republish without changing content for news and not-for-profit purposes. 

Leave a comment
by clalsstaff on January 11, 2024  •  Permalink
Posted in Cuba, Immigration, Mexico, North America
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by clalsstaff on January 11, 2024

https://aulablog.net/2024/01/11/blinken-and-mayorkas-visit-to-mexico-to-discuss-migration/

“Driven Out” Panel Synopsis

by Lily Tierney and Ernesto Castañeda* edited by Makenna Lindsay November 29, 2023

Driven Out: Global Response to the Plight of Forcibly Displaced People at Wilson Center . / Creative Commons License

On Wednesday, November 15, 2023, the Refugee and Forced Displacement Initiative (RAFDI) at the Wilson Center in Washington D.C. hosted a roundtable discussion on forced migration. The panel of experts analyzed the effectiveness of the current refugee systems to address the predicaments refugees around the world face, and the underlying causes and drivers of forced displacement. James Hollifield, professor and director of the Tower Center for Public Policy and International Affairs at SMU introduced the program. Rina Agarwala, Professor of Sociology at Johns Hopkins University, moderated the conversation. 

David Scott FitzGerald, co-chair for the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies and Professor of Sociology at UCSD, emphasized the limitations of silos within the academic bodies of knowledge that tend to think separately about migration, refugees, and conflict. FitzGerald recommends a systems approach that would look at all forms of migration and forced displacement within the same system and at the path dependencies and feedback loops that armed interventions and previous migration have on future population moves. 

Pieter Bevelander, director of Studies of Migration, Diversity, and Welfare at Malmö University, offered a European perspective to the discussion. Bevelander spoke of a new migration and asylum pact within the European Union (EU) that will hopefully be finalized next year. This pact will create new asylum and migration management regulations that will streamline procedures, create mandatory solidarity in the relocation process, and increase financial contribution to countries with many refugees. EU member states that do not wish to sign on have the option of paying 20,000 pounds per person due to solidarity reasons, however, this is still being negotiated. Bevelander also noted that the attitude towards Ukrainian refugees is more widely accepted than refugees from the “outside,” implying that refugees from non-western countries are less likely to be embraced by the EU governments.

Gerasimos Tsourapas, professor of International Relations at the University of Glasgow, works on the politics of migrants and refugees in the Middle East and the Global South. Tsourapas claims that an overlooked aspect of these discussions is how labor migration and forced migration flows are much more common in the Global South than in the Global North. Those who are forced to migrate are more likely to go from one part of the Global South to another than migrate from the Global South to the Global North. Tsourpas mentioned that it is critical to understand this point to decolonize the conversation of forced migration. He distinguishes two paradoxes: states that hosts most refugees are in the Global South and are not responsible for creating the refugee crisis because of the unwillingness of wealthy countries in the Global North, who often are the cause of the refugee crisis, Global North to accept refugees. The second paradox lies in the fact that most of the refugee-hosting states in the Global South are struggling financially and open their borders to the detriment of their economy and for the betterment of their diplomacy, most refugees are in the Global South. 

Kamal Sadiq, director at the Center for Global Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of California, Irvine, shared a shocking fact: confirmed that while “a majority of the signatories to the 1951 refugee convention are located in the Global North, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of the worlds refugees are located in states in the Global South, many of whom are not signatories to the refugee convention.” Sadiq states that the refugee regime is broken for several reasons: the first is policy uncertainty. Funding is limited, and short-term funds provide short-term services. Another flaw that Sadiq pointed out is that the refugee regime does not cooperate with non-state actors. This is highly problematic for internally displaced people living within corrupt domestic law and governance. The final weak spot of the refugee regime is documentation. Displaced persons need documentation to access formal work and services but getting documentation needed can be arduous. As a result, displaced persons have multiple documents and are uncertain as to which are legitimate. It is incredibly difficult to adjudicate between real and fake documentation because of how ubiquitous the identification paperwork has become for displaced persons. In a context where states deny documents, a market for false documents appears. 

The discussion closed out with a Q&A session where all speakers agreed on the issue of working in silos, the necessity for each state to host refugees, and the need for equitable responsibility in financing the cost of welcoming large numbers of newcomers. While some panelists and many in the media often mention that welcoming immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees entails large expenditures in terms of providing initial housing and food, we argue that this is one of the few ways that states can engage in creating economic development in the middle and long-term.

The panelists discussed the importance of differentiating refugees from economic migrants. Our view is that refugees should continue to have special protections and rights because of persecution from the state for political reasons or for belonging to a targeted social group or category. But analytically speaking, scholars should not reify these legal distinctions as they are not the most useful in terms of subjective integration, feelings of belonging, and public sentiment. Xenophobes in the streets do not care if one is a refugee, a documented, or an undocumented migrant when there is a climate of exclusion or racial profiling by the police.

Considering population growth, we are not necessarily seeing record numbers of either economic migrants, refugees, or asylum seekers. We must normalize international migration and protection. Less than 4% of the world’s population lives in a country different from the one they were born in. The countries with the largest number of foreign-born people are among the wealthiest nations. People may move to rich countries because they have more job opportunities, but in doing so, they also make those countries even richer. Supporting newcomers is a good investment.

You can watch the full panel here: Driven Out: Global Response to the Plight of Forcibly Displaced People 

 

* Lily Tierney is a student in the School of Communications ’24 at American University.

Ernesto Castañeda is the Director of the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies, Immigration Lab, and the MA in Sociology Research & Practice.

Editing by Makenna Lindsay.

Leave a comment
by clalsstaff on November 29, 2023  •  Permalink
Posted in Chile
Tagged , ,

Posted by clalsstaff on November 29, 2023

https://aulablog.net/2023/11/29/driven-out-panel-synopsis/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »