On immigration and antisemitism.
Case Made, But What’s Next?
I like what Zeke Hernandez [“The Newcomer Dividend,” Jul|Aug 2024] has to say about the positives arising from immigration; from a lifetime of personal and international work experience, I agree wholeheartedly with his well-reasoned arguments. Well done. Given that this article is (1) presented on the cover as a “Business Case for Immigration” and (2) is from the MBA school, I looked for a discussion of how Hernandez would make his vision actionable and who and what the people and institutions are that would make changes actually happen. I know what a challenge that would be from years as a CEO proposing actions to public commissions and private boards of directors. I could imagine a board’s reaction if I were to recommend a plan with the benefits 50 years hence based on the children of the children of today’s immigrants. As Hernandez says, “the future is unpredictable.” This is a tough one.
An action plan to change immigration policy would be quite the challenge for an MBA class. Great idea: Now how do we make it happen? For a board recommendation, you have the “whereas and whereas” in great shape; now we need the “therefore and therefore.” I still like the article … as far as it goes.
William G. Stead C’69 GCE’70 G’81, Chambersburg, PA
Two Myths Blown Open
The article “The Newcomer Dividend” blows open two myths about valuable foreign talent: that they can get legal permanent residency and US citizenship through employment, and that our country is attracting the best and the brightest. As an immigration lawyer for over 20 years, I represent engineers, physicians, multinational executives, and business owners. My specialty is asylum; if they could become citizens through employment, they would. Asylum cases regularly take over a decade from application to interview. During that time, asylum applicants can work in the US but are prohibited from international travel. Meaning, these foreigners may never see their parents again.
The US government offers some foreigners Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which provides a work permit and international travel permit. This is possible for some citizens of Venezuela and Syria. Neither those granted asylum nor TPS can sponsor parents, spouses, or children for a green card. The golden American ticket comes at the price of abandonment.
Elizabeth R. Blandon L’97, Miami
Far More Depth
Loved the article on immigration; far more depth that the issue usually gets, which often consists of simple minded, unbelievable one-liners: “immigrants cost us millions,” or “immigrants bring in millions!” Thanks.
Bill Mosteller C’71, Fairfax, VA
Unwelcome Message
Welcoming “newcomers”??!! Please, cry me a river. The correct term is “illegal aliens.” Maybe even “invaders.” That would be more accurate.
Basil Kopey G’76, Laurel, MD
Article Missed the Mark on Immigration Costs
While Zeke Hernandez makes several valid observations on immigration, he either misrepresents or underestimates many of the critical issues. He gets it right in discussing the ways the government mishandles legal immigration, and how recent immigrants often start businesses catering to other immigrants that can expand into the general population. When it comes to the fear of immigrants taking jobs from American citizens, the truth is a mixture of valid concerns (which he seems to dismiss), and paranoia bordering on xenophobia (which he seems to acknowledge). The obvious reason for the loss of American jobs, whether due to immigration or due to manufacturing and IT jobs being shifted overseas, is that most countries have a lower standard of living than the US. Thus, their workforce is willing to work for less money than their American counterparts. Skilled immigrants replace American workers as a cost reduction move, especially for foreign companies with offices in the US, while unskilled immigrants fill positions that Americans are unwilling to take.
Hernandez really misses the mark in grossly underestimating the costs of allowing unfettered illegal immigration. Like most liberals, he attempts to blur the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. He cites a ludicrous statistic that each immigrant costs a state a mere $1,600 over a lifetime. The City of New York spends more than that in a week to house an illegal immigrant in a hotel room. Studies indicate it costs about $4,000 per student per year to provide an illegal with a taxpayer-funded education. Add in the hidden insurance costs such as the additional premium for uninsured drivers, and the incremental healthcare costs for immigrants who use hospital emergency rooms in big cities as the family doctor (been there, seen that). Don’t forget the security costs to deal with Mexican cartels, Central American gangs such as El Salvador’s MS-13, and the tsunami of humanity flowing across the southern border.
The article mentions the oft-repeated narrative that immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than the general population. Even if this statement is true, it implies that there is an acceptable level of crime—burglaries, assaults, rapes, murders, etc.—for immigrants, even illegals. Simple math will tell you that if you allow zero illegal immigrants to enter the country, then they can commit zero crimes within our borders.
Academics and politicians should replace their lopsided, rose-colored view of immigration with a realistic one.
John H. Brand C’79, Gardnerville, NV
“Elephant in the Room” Ignored
I read with interest Trey Popp’s article “The Newcomer Dividend” about Wharton Professor Zeke Hernandez’s views concerning immigration. While his view of the contribution that past immigrants have made to the society and commerce of our nation is indisputable—and quite frankly forms the backbone of the term “melting pot”—I fear that his view also omits not only negative aspects of unfettered immigration, but also is a mischaracterization of native-born Americans’ view of immigration. “Natives” are not xenophobic concerning immigration. On the contrary, this country was built upon immigrants from its very conception—but what native-born Americans don’t like about immigration—the very thing that is not mentioned at all anywhere—is illegal immigration. And that basically is the source for this article’s expansive immigration requirement.
The article skirts the fundamental “elephant in the room” of the violation of our national sovereignty in order to justify an onslaught of illegal immigration. While the article admonishes against a policy of allowing “the brightest and most skilled” into the country; and points out the need to reassess our “immigration policy” along the lines of that infamous quote in the movie Caddyshack—that America “needs ditch diggers, too”—it is woefully vague on how to achieve that, other than the currently contentious “just walk on through” system.
While the article extols the virtue of an “open door” policy, it fails to mention any negatives, such as the loss of any drug interdiction, or criminal/ terrorist vetting that comes with an open border. Nor does it address in its case for immigration the fact that much of the taxed and non-taxed income of illegal immigrants is remanded to extended families back in their homelands, depriving the US economy of any of that monetary benefit while further indenturing these individuals into our welfare support systems until the entrepreneurial spirit of which he speaks, kicks in.
Past “immigration surges” in America’s history were made primarily by individuals who embraced the concept of the new American culture, with its safety and opportunity for prosperity. Our current surge seems to be essentially one for only safety and prosperity—time will tell how effective the “melting pot” will be in this instance.
Keith Encapera C’69, Aiken, SC
An Important Distinction
Please specify if you mean legal or illegal, as there is a huge difference. Hopefully you understand the difference and so does Professor Hernandez.
My father immigrated legally from Germany to escape Hitler, and in a way, everyone here immigrated at some point.
So of course, legal immigration is good for business. Without legal immigrants, we would not even have a country.
So is Hernandez referring to legal or illegal or both? Who knows, as I don’t think that was stated in the article or on the cover, and there is an important distinction, as you know.
Bryn Kaufman WEv’93, Kailua, HI
Key Issue Unmentioned
Zeke Hernandez makes an economic argument for immigration in “The Newcomer Dividend” without ever once mentioning the key issue of immigration: legal versus illegal. The two are anything but the same. Legal immigrants go through a vetting process whose purpose is to protect American citizens from criminals, hostiles, and terrorists. Illegal immigrants go through no such process, and this fact represents a major security threat to the entire country. Of course legal, vetted immigrants are an economic benefit to the country, but that’s not what Americans are concerned about, is it? We’re concerned about drug and human trafficking, as well as terrorists and proxies for hostile nations entering our country without notice.
And yet, Hernandez never managed to address these issues in the article, perhaps because it would detract from the “newcomer dividend.”
David A. Bailey WG’91, Bear, DE
Keith Encapera, Bryn Kaufman, and David A. Bailey raise fine points about the difference between legal and illegal immigration, but I am puzzled by their assertions that my article neglects to mention the issue. I would refer them to page 31 and 32—or, better yet, the second half of Zeke Hernandez’s book, especially “Chapter 10: But What About Illegal Immigrants?”—TP
Consider Impacts of Population Growth
Being a Wharton professor, it is understandable that Zeke Hernandez measures immigration primarily from a business lens. And as he posits in his new book, and I agree, immigrants have and continue to economically, culturally, and culinarily enrich the United States.
What he touches on, but does not fully address, is overall population growth in the United States and its consequences. Currently the total US population exceeds 340 million citizens and is growing by over 1.6 million people a year. Approximately 75 percent of that growth comes from legal immigration, and births make up roughly 25 percent. Unauthorized or illegal immigration the past four years ranges from a few hundred thousand to one million annually in addition to the above growth.
This population growth continues to affect our quality of life. In some ways positively, as Hernandez points out, primarily with business, and in others negatively.
The more people that are added to a state, a region, or a country, the more crowded it becomes, the higher cost of housing and provisioning of education, healthcare, and social services. Population growth also tends to lower wage pressure, which negatively impacts those who already live on the margins.
Additionally, unsustained growth has driven up costs of other goods, created greater regulations to manage the consumption of limited resources, and increased pollution from this growth. There is less biodiversity, with fewer forests and wild habitat, thousands upon thousands of newly extinct species, less fresh water, dried up lakes and rivers, more toxins in our depleted ecosystems, more endocrine disruptors in our blood, more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, more acidic oceans, collapsed fisheries, and many, many more symptoms of our human impact crisis.
Our country has far exceeded its carrying capacity. Every additional person, whether by birth or immigration, further degrades and pollutes our already weakened and fragile environment, exacerbates wages, housing affordability, erodes our overall quality of life, and ultimately increases our national security risks as we seek to satisfy the critical minerals, metals, energy, and biomass our society increasingly depends upon to function.
George (Terry) Spahr C’88 G’95, Hanover, NH
The writer is the executive producer of the documentary 8 Billion Angels [“Profiles,” Jan|Feb 2020].—Ed.
A Lot of Work to Do
I am glad that the University is finally addressing the alarming rise in anti-Israel and antisemitic incidents that have plagued our University in the past year and before, as described in the articles “Encampment on College Green”; “New Rules for Events and Demonstrations, Pending Open Expression Review”; and “Guidance and Goals,” on the findings of the University Task Force on Antisemitism and the Presidential Commission on Countering Hate and Building Community [“Gazetteer,” Jul|Aug 2024]. But I keep asking myself: If the encampment was against University policy, and Interim President Jameson called this out in his response and gave the protestors a deadline to remove it, then why did nothing happen? If you are breaking the law, steps should be taken, and you should be punished. I was appalled that the University let more than two weeks go by before the encampment was removed.
When I was at Penn, I was active in and ate at Hillel, had Orthodox roommates, supported pro-Israel groups, and at no time did any of us feel threatened for being Jewish and/or supporting Israel. Even when Louis Farrakhan came to speak there was no threat to the Jewish community. Today’s Penn is quite different—the Jewish population is less than half of what it was 20 years ago, and the Hillel was vandalized. It is because of this and the University’s woefully inadequate response to the alarming rise in antisemitic and anti-Israel attacks on students, staff, parents, and alumni who are Jewish and/or supporters of Israel that I am withholding any praise for the findings of the new Open Expression rules that the panel has presented. As the saying goes, “actions speak louder than words.” Penn has a lot of work to do to make Jewish and pro-Israel students, staff, and alumni feel welcome. For the sake of the entire Penn community, let’s hope our University is able to reverse its ways.
Judy Lobel C’88, White Plains, NY
Uproot the Weed of Hatred
Two articles—one honoring the composer of “The Red and Blue” and the other, “Guidance and Goals,” on how to combat antisemitism [“Gazetteer,” Jul|Aug 2024]—bring to mind a couple of things.
First, antisemitism was a strong force at Penn when I was there. The lyrics “Lift up your hearts and voices for the Royal Red and Blue” were replaced with ghastly antisemitic and anti-Black lyrics—which I heard once, at a rushing party for an unnamed fraternity I did not join—and they made me nauseated then and still do. I wish I could forget them.
Second, establishing a multidisciplinary center for the study of hate is a great idea. I hope that such a center would include a childhood education section. Children, before they learn by experience what hate is, need to know how it sneaks up on them and takes away the joy in their lives. It is not that hate is taught (apologies to Rodgers and Hammerstein) but that hate is a natural phenomenon that grows like a weed without needing cultivation. It develops such strong roots that it cannot be permanently destroyed. Once hate is established in a child, that child has learned how exciting and stimulating hate is. If that weed is not killed when it first appears, it flowers and spreads its seed everywhere. When hate takes over a life, that life is lost to decency and to creativity.
Thank you for your excellent magazine.
Frank Mitchell C’65, Seattle
Don’t Minimize Antisemitic History
As noted by Sevi Avigdor [“Letters,” Jul|Aug 2024], Penn has minimized the extent and severity of its antisemitic history. The first and most flagrant example in my personal life occurred as a freshman in 1959, when an individual (who will remain nameless) for no reason told me that “Hitler should have killed all you Jews!” Other just as awful and intimidating incidents occurred to others, forcing one acquaintance to change his last name and likely his religion.
Penn’s leaders have indeed tolerated antisemitism for many years and should own up to this and vow “never again.”
John Feibel C’63, Cincinnati
Alvin’s Avenger?
By winning four individual gold medals at the 1900 Summer Olympics in Paris, Alvin Kraenzlein D1900 became America’s first Olympic superhero. If, as noted in “Alvin and the Gold Medals” [“Old Penn,” Jul|Aug 2024], Myer Prinstein really did punch Alvin in the face, it would be in keeping with his character. While at Syracuse University, Myer was known for coming into the city and picking fights. My grandfather and namesake put an end to this.
I would like to think that at least one of Grandfather’s hits was payback for Alvin.
David B. Zwirn C’64 L’67, New Paltz, NY
Unsanitary, But Inspiring
While the “Young Franklin” statue highlighted in “A Youthful Spirit” [“Old Penn,” May|Jun 2024] does pleasantly portray Franklin boldly striding into Philadelphia to seize his unknown future, it hardly portrays the actual historic event of the disheveled and fatigued Franklin walking up Market Street with bread under his arms and shirts and stockings hanging out of his pockets depicted by Ben Franklin in his Autobiography. Nevertheless, I think the statue does rightly convey the ambition and courage of the young Franklin.
I well remember my father, Robert Ulsh W’34, describing the tradition then of freshmen lining up and kissing the toe of Franklin’s shoe, the only spot on the otherwise verdigris-covered statue that was shiny. I believe it was part of orientation week. We may no longer kiss Ben’s toe, but we certainly remain inspired by his intelligence, perception, and creativity.
Gregory Ulsh C’74, Camp Hill, PA