We all know that the issue of what to do about the illegal immigration issue is one of the most divisive topics among Americans these days. But as the New York Times describes, it increasingly divides citizens and politicians in Mexico as well:

A wall could dissuade illegal immigrants from their perilous journeys across the Sonora Desert and force societies on both sides to confront their dependence on an industry characterized by exploitation, they say.

The old blame game -- in which Mexico attributed illegal migration to the voracious American demand for labor and accused lawmakers of xenophobia -- has given way to a far more soul-searching discussion, at least in quarters where policies are made and influenced, about how little Mexico has done to try to keep its people home.

“For too long, Mexico has boasted about immigrants leaving, calling them national heroes, instead of describing them as actors in a national tragedy,” said Jorge Santibáñez, president of the College of the Northern Border. “And it has boasted about the growth in remittances” -- the money immigrants send home -- “as an indicator of success, when it is really an indicator of failure.”

The article also notes that Mexico’s President Vincente Fox has increasingly talked about how Mexico needs to do a better job at providing job opportunities inside Mexico to keep more of its citizens at home, rather than indirectly pushing them to illegal enter the U.S. At the same time, there is still considerable opposition among many Mexicans about the negative symbolism that a wall between the U.S. and Mexico would create.

Ultimately, I see this trend as a positive one -- that Mexican officials should spend more time and resources thinking about how to improve the social and economic conditions inside their country that would give their citizens more incentive to stay put, rather than come to the U.S. illegally.

That is, internal economic development fits well with the need for comprehensive immigration reform that includes not just strengthened border enforcement but also addressing the root causes of inequality that motivate Mexicans to become illegal immigrants.

In other words, reform can and should happen with both sides of the issue.

In the midst of divisive debates around the country centering on issues such as illegal immigration, the war on terrorism, same-sex marriage, etc., one of the issues that is easily overlooked is wealth inequality -- the growing gap between the very rich and the average citizen, let alone the poor. The Federal Reserve just came out with a new report that details just how serious the problem is:

This report and other similar studies emphasize that this wealth inequality is growing and is becoming a permanent part of our society. . . . The total net worth of all Americans in 1989 was $25 trillion (in 2004 dollars). Of that amount, the top 1 percent owned 30 percent, or $7.775 trillion. The bottom half owned 3 percent of the total, or $763 billion.

Fifteen years later, in 2004, the total wealth of all Americans had doubled to $50.25 trillion. The top 1 percent of the population now owns 33.4 percent of the total, or $16.774 trillion. At the same time, the total wealth owned by the bottom 50 percent increased to $1.278 trillion, but its percentage of total wealth declined from 3 percent to 2.5 percent in the same time period. . . .

The SCF reports that the top 5 percent of the population owns 85 percent of closely held business assets in the country, 79 percent of the publicly traded stocks and 70 percent of mutual funds. . . . the bottom 50 percent own less than 1 percent of business assets, stocks and mutual funds.

The article, written by a Professor at Hofstra University for The Nation magazine, argues that the main reason wealth inequality has increased in recent decades is because of Republican administrations’ tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations that have made it easier for the nation’s upper class to concentrate more wealth.

The problem has become so immense that no less than Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, has publicly proclaimed that rising wealth inequality threatens to destabilize democratic capitalism as we know it.

Sadly, most Americans know nothing about this increasing wealth gap. This is ironic given that the average American families has probably noticed that they are working harder than ever and barely making any progress in terms of saving for retirement, saving for college, keeping up with rising costs of living, getting out of debt, etc.

If Americans would stop for a minute to ask why is this the case, they might begin to see that it is because the rich are increasingly taking a larger share of the pie, while the rest of us fight over the crumbs left over. Ahhh, capitalism at its best -- or worse, depending on how you look at it.

The University of California college system is arguably the best public college system in the country. Its student population is also one of the most racially/ethnically diverse in the country. But a new report shows that sadly, its faculty population is not keeping up with its student demographics in terms of racial and ethnic representation:

All 10 University of California campuses need to make diversity an integral element of academic planning, faculty hiring, research agendas, curricular development and program reviews, a taskforce on improving faculty diversity recommended Tuesday.

The UC President’s Task Force on Faculty Diversity raised concerns about UC’s failure to take advantage of the growing pool of under-represented minority scholars.

While faculty diversity challenges aren’t limited to UC, the university system could do more to retain sought-after minority faculty and establish a pipeline of future faculty by boosting minority participation in doctoral programs, particularly in science and engineering.

The report notes that as of 2005, Whites are 78.6% of all UC faculty, Asians are 13.4%, Hispanic 4%, Blacks 2.5%, and Native Americans 0.4%.

For Blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans, it is clear that they are severely underrepresented as UC faculty. For Asians however, it’s a little less clear -- it depends on what population you compare them to. That is, compared to UC students, of whom about one-third are Asian, then Asian faculty are underrepresented.

But compared to California’s racial proportions, where Asians are about 12% of the state population, Asian faculty are evenly represented. And compared to the national proportions, where Asians are only 5% of the total U.S. population, Asian faculty at the UCs can be seen as overrepresented.

At any rate, the other point to consider is that university administrators can come up with all the goals and plans of increasing faculty diversity all they want, but as many professors like me will tell you, telling an academic department at any of the UCs who they should hire (or the perception of being told who they should hire) will almost always led to resistance and hostility.

In other words, goals are one thing -- overcoming organizational inertia and departmental passive-aggressive resistance is a whole other matter.

For those who follow the immigration (legal and illegal) debate, it’s becoming more apparent that it’s an issue that is very divisive for Americans in general, and in particular, for groups that are normally seen as having a liberal leaning, in this case Blacks. As with so many social issues, the dividing point comes down to jobs and economic security:

“If you drive across this city, you will see 99 percent of all construction is being done by Hispanics…. You will see no African-American males on these sites, and that is a big change,” says Mr. Vaughn, who has worked in construction for two decades.

His two oldest boys, in their early 20s, have been turned down so many times for jobs - as framers, roofers, cement layers - that they no longer apply, he says. While Los Angeles is ground zero for black-Hispanic friction these days, echoes of Vaughn’s words are rising throughout urban black America as Congress labors over immigration reform.

In cities where almost half of the young black men are unemployed, a debate is raging over whether Latinos - undocumented and not - are elbowing aside blacks for jobs in stores, restaurants, hotels, manufacturing plants, and elsewhere.

The article goes on to note that while the data and research are inconclusive on whether (or to what extent) Latino immigration has hurt the job prospects of Blacks, the reality is that the perception that it does is there and as any sociologist will tell you, the consequences of actions that result from those perceptions are very real.

In this case, the consequences of perceived competition between Latino immigrants and Blacks is a deep split among Blacks regarding immigration reform, along with rising intergroup tensions and increasing incidents of violence among Blacks and Latinos in schools, jails, and other parts of society.

This is combined with the fact that in terms of population size, Latinos have overtaken Blacks to become the country’s largest racial/ethnic minority group. That demographic shift has also led to rising levels of political power for Latinos and perhaps a waning of political power for Blacks.

From a sociological perspective, these tensions between Blacks and Latinos illustrates just how powerful economic and capitalist factors are in influencing social behavior. Normally Latinos and Blacks are seen as allies and having many historical and cultural similarities. But once economic competition comes into play, much of that cross-racial solidarity unfortunately goes out the window.

In other words, the power of capitalism, sadly, is undeniable.

This past Thursday, the Senate voted to declare English as the “National Language” of the U.S.:

The Senate first voted 63-34 to make English the national language after lawmakers who led the effort said it would promote national unity. But critics argued the move would prevent limited English speakers from getting language assistance required by an executive order enacted under President Clinton.

So the Senate also voted 58-39 to make English the nation’s “common and unifying language.” . . . “We are trying to make an assimilation statement,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. . . . Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., disputed charges that making English the national language was racist or aimed at Spanish speakers. Eleven Democrats voted for his measure.

I suppose this particular piece of legislation is different from previous “Official English” campaigns that would have forbidden government agencies from conducting any aspect of official government business in any other language besides English (i.e., government translators, official documents, voting information, etc.). So on the one hand, there does not appear to be any change in official government policy as a result.

Nonetheless, I am still disappointed that the anti-foreigner (legal and illegal) sentiment that seems to be increasing pervasive in our society continues to gain momentum. Supporters of this legislation will argue that rather than discriminating against non-English speakers, the intention here is to promote assimilation and a common culture.

However, the implicit belief behind official statements like this is that all other languages and national cultures are inherently inferior to American culture and American English. In other words, it is nothing more than another attempt to force a normative standard of what it traditionally means to be an “American” onto others, and that traditional image is implicitly White, Christian, and English-speaking.

The fact is, most immigrants already speak English rather well. Sure, some newer immigrants (particular those who may be illegal immigrants) may not, but they know that in order for them to become successful in American society in any meaningful way, they will need to learn English. Being told that their ancestral language is not welcomed in the U.S. is nothing short of a government-sanctioned slap in the face.

In other words, this is another sign of the growing the backlash against multiculturalism, multilingualism, and racial/ethnic diversity in American society. When any group is power -- in this case Whites -- begins to feel threatened, moves such as this are inevitable as they try to reassert their cultural power and dominance. Sad to see, but not entirely unexpected.

One of the many stereotypes about Asians (in this case, Asian women) is that they tend to be flat-chested, as opposed to the idealized image of the big-busted American woman. Well, that may be changing, as bra makers are finding that there is a growing demand for larger bra sizes among Chinese women:

Hong Kong-based lingerie firm Embry Group no longer produces A-cups for larger chest circumferences and has increased production of C-, D- and E-cup bras to meet pressing demand. The Beijing Institute of Clothing Technology released a report last week saying the average chest circumference of Chinese women has risen by nearly 1 cm (0.4 inch) to 83.53 cm (32.89 inches) since the early 1990s, the daily said. This phenomenon, it said, was due to women eating more nutritiously and taking part in more sport.

I’m no biologist or nutritionist, but it strikes me as a little strange that women’s chests can grow that much in a relatively short amount of time, due to just better eating habits and more exercise. I may be wrong, but I thought that chest size is almost completely due to genetics.

Whatever the case is, you can be judge about whether this trend is a positive one -- that Chinese women are defying age-old stereotypes against them, or that they are increasingly emulating American women.

As it currently stands, many (but not all) adoption agencies have no problems with gays/lesbians adopting children. Up to now, neither have foreign countries, including Asian ones. Apparently, that is starting to change as China is starting to limit the number of adoptions by gays/lesbians into the U.S.:

Adoption of babies from China declined by 17 percent in 2004 after several years of increases, the report showed. The data are the most recent available for adoptions in the state, and many agencies say they believe Massachusetts adoptions from China have continued to decline since then.

The decline is largely the result of the Chinese government’s decision to severely limit the number of single people who can adopt, local adoption officials said. They say the Chinese government enforced these rules after being troubled by publicity in the late 1990s over gay parents in the United States raising Chinese babies.

Now, agencies say, Chinese officials allow no more than 8 percent of the country’s children who are adopted to be placed with single people, and requires all applicants to sign statements that they are not gay or lesbian.

The article also speculates that the decline in Chinese adoptions in Massachusetts could also be due to a tight economy and rising adoption fees. Nonetheless, I find this to be a troubling trend. Foreign adoption can be a very emotional issue for many Asian Americans, some of whom worry that too many Asian adoptees grow up in predominantly White families without a real sense of their Asian ethnic identity.

But even beyond that, it seems as though China is increasingly following another trend popularized in America -- discriminating against gays and lesbians. Just like capitalist consumerism and unhealthy fast food, homophobic paranoia seems to be the latest export from America pervading Chinese society. Globalization at its best -- or worst, depending on how you look at it.

Here’s my take on Bush’s latest proposals on dealing with the issue of illegal immigration, an issue that has risen to the top of the national agenda in a matter of just the past few months:

Using the National Guard to Support the Border Patrol
I actually don’t have a huge problem with this particular idea because I agree that border security does need to be strengthened. However, I hope that strengthening the borders will be done in a humane way that respects the basic dignity and human rights of those who try to cross into the U.S. to find a better life for themselves and their families, rather than as a punitive measure designed to humiliate the border crossers. As to the concern about whether it will stretch the military too thin, as long as the National Guard troops are ones that have not yet served in Iraq, I don’t have a problem with it.

Allow Illegal Immigrants Already in the U.S. to Stay But Pay Fines & Back Taxes
I also happen to think that this is a fair proposal, but the fine and back taxes amounts need to be reasonable to make sure that illegal immigrants pay them, rather than skip them and continue to stay “underground.” The whole purpose of immigration reform should be to allow illegal immigrants to become legitimate members of American society, not drive them deeper into the shadows and make them even more vulnerable and society even more hostile towards them.

Temporary Guest Workers Program Using a Tamperproof Work ID Card
Again I have no problem with a guest worker program, nor with using a tamperproof work ID card, as long as illegal immigrants are given an opportunity to eventually apply for citizenship. Here is where it gets tricky because even if Bush succeeds in getting this proposal passed that allows the guest workers to ultimately apply for citizenship (not guaranteed by any means), there is already opposition from legal immigrants who feel that the illegals will be “cutting in line in front of them” as they and their family members have had to wait years, even decades for the chance to immigrate to the U.S. legally.

The solution to that particular issue is to expand current immigration quotas and allow more immigrants to enter the U.S., so that the backlog of applicants wanting to enter the U.S. is reduced and there is more opportunity for everyone to come to the U.S. legally. However, this is where opposition from conservatives is likely to be the greatest, since many of them consider family reunification provisions to be an even worse problem than illegal immigration.

Finally, there is the larger question of what to do in the long run. These proposals, if passed, may lead to some short term benefits, but the larger, structural-level factors that continue to drive illegal immigration will still be unaddressed. As I’ve written before, real, meaningful, and long-lasting reform needs to include a strategy to reduce the push factors that drive immigrants out of their home countries to work in the U.S.

Passing proposals that would address those fundamental causes would be nothing less than a miracle in my opinion. Even though many analysts and social scientists would say that it needs to be done, I just don’t see our country and our government as having the national resolve to do it. Instead, we’ll continue to reward the big multinational corporations who can take full advantage of current geopolitical and free trade economic policies to make record profits while the average citizen in places like Mexico continue to look to the U.S. for their livelihood.