US: The Jobs Report Looks Good but Unemployment Rates Vary Widely for Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics

2015/08/10 Leave a comment

The persistence of economic differences among different groups:

For white Americans unemployment is back to pre-recession levels, or lower, in 14 states—and within 1 percentage point of pre-recession norms in another 28. African Americans, by contrast, remain the furthest away from their pre-recession levels. In Arkansas, Illinois, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, the unemployment gap is more than two and a half times as large as the rate for white Americans. In Washington D.C., it’s five times as high. This year is the first since then that the national unemployment rate for black Americans  has dipped below the double-digit mark—and that feat has only been accomplished in 11 states. The lowest state unemployment rate for black Americans—6.9 percent, in Tennessee—is equivalent to the rate of white unemployment in West Virginia, the state with the highest share of jobless white Americans in the country.

Hispanics also trail behind. In Connecticut, the Hispanic unemployment rate is more than 3 times as high as the white employment rate. In North Carolina, it’s more than 2.6 times as high, and in Pennsylvania and Nevada, it’s more than double the rate for white residents.

Racial inequality is a constant in the U.S. economy. Black and Hispanic workers consistently have a higher rate of unemployment than their white counterparts—for blacks it’s usually twice the rate of whites and for Hispanics, it’s closer to 1.5 times. (These gaps were the smallest at the peak of the recession, since so many white Americans were also losing their jobs.)

In the recovery, white unemployment numbers have improved more rapidly than minority numbers. According to Valerie Wilson, the director of the Program on Race, Ethnicity, and the Economy at the Economic Policy Institute, the recovery only really started for black and Hispanic Americans in 2014. “That’s when you saw the greatest improvements in the unemployment rate, the employment-population ratio, and labor-force participation,” she said.

To be clear, the unemployment rate between these minority groups and white Americans in most places never reached parity, and some of these states had pre-recession minority unemployment rates that were high to begin with. But the fact remains that seven years after the start of the recession, many black and Hispanic Americans are only now seeing their employment situation improve. That’s an important consideration especially when it comes to major policy decisions related to the recovery, such as  raising interest rates, which have been kept  low by the Fed after the downturn in an attempt to spur growth. Wilson says that changing things now, when the national picture looks better but just as many minorities are getting back on their feet, could dampen the long-awaited progress for these groups.

It’s also important to consider why this stubborn gap persists in the first place. Perhaps most troubling is the fact is that discrepancies in unemployment haven’t improved much over time, despite the fact that younger generations of minorities are graduating from college at higher rates. The stubbornness of the unemployment  gap points to other issues—such as systemic discrimination and racial biases—that existed long before the recession and its sluggish, unequal recovery.

The Jobs Report Looks Good but Unemployment Rates Vary Widely for Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics – The Atlantic.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

New US Poll Shows Half of Blacks Have Been Unfairly Treated by Police

2015/08/07 Leave a comment

Not surprising, likely reinforced by ongoing instances of police wrong-doing:

The AP-NORC poll shows that just a third of black Americans say they can always or often trust police to do what is right for their communities, while a large majority of whites say that. Nearly half of blacks trust the police just sometimes, and 2 in 10 trust them rarely or never.

Eight in 10 black Americans say police are too quick to use deadly force, and 7 in 10 say police officers who cause injury or death are usually treated too leniently by the criminal justice system. Just a third of whites say either of those things.

More than 8 in 10 blacks say police sometimes treat minority groups more roughly. A similar proportion says that police are more likely to use deadly force against a black person than against a white person. Most whites think race does not affect police use of deadly force.

Fifty percent of blacks, compared with just 3 percent of whites, say that they personally have felt treated unfairly by a police officer because of race. Another 15 percent of blacks and 5 percent of whites say unfair treatment by police has happened to a family member.

New Poll Shows Half of Blacks Have Been Unfairly Treated by Police | TIME.

Filed under Racism Tagged with , ,

La radicalisation des intellectuels noirs

2015/07/20 1 Comment

Interesting piece on how the views of prominent Black intellectuels have become more radical and challenging, citing Ta-Nehisi Coates as an example:

L’insistance de Ta-Nehisi Coates à parler des sujets qui fâchent le distingue nettement de la génération précédente. Les identités étaient alors pensées dans leur pluralité, et non dans leur singularité, et le multiculturalisme devait pouvoir les réconcilier. Un nouvel ordre politique devait naître de la collaboration entre minorités par la défense d’intérêts communs. La large coalition qui permit l’élection de Barack Obama, en novembre 2008, confirmait cette thèse et signait l’entrée des États-Unis dans une ère postraciale où les discriminations, sans être tout à fait vaincues, étaient du moins significativement atténuées.

Hélas, le multiculturalisme, s’il a banalisé l’idée de diversité, n’a pas mis fin au racisme. Et c’est ce que Ta-Nehisi Coates estime nécessaire de rappeler à la majorité blanche. L’égalité devant la loi, obtenue dans les années 1960 par le mouvement des droits civiques, ne suffit pas. Le rappel de cette triste vérité est au coeur du nouveau radicalisme noir. Sur le plan des idées, l’intégration politique des descendants d’esclaves passe au second plan pour revenir à une question primordiale : la dignité des personnes noires. Ta-Nehisi Coates et plusieurs intellectuels interpellent donc aujourd’hui directement l’Amérique blanche pour lui demander une pleine reconnaissance des violences subies hier comme aujourd’hui. Le philosophe Chris Lebron et le politologue Fredrick C. Harris ont tenu des positions similaires dans le New York Times et la revue Dissent. La juriste Michelle Alexander avait en quelque sorte préparé le terrain, il y a deux ans, en publiant un livre dénonçant l’incarcération massive des hommes noirs, qu’elle assimilait à une nouvelle ségrégation.

La radicalisation des intellectuels noirs | Le Devoir.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Why Are Only Three Observant Sikh Men Serving In The U.S. Military? : NPR

2015/06/09 Leave a comment

Interesting. US appears to be the exception, given Canada, UK and India all allow:

If a Muslim woman may wear a headscarf at work, as the U.S. Supreme Court has now affirmed, perhaps a Sikh man should be able to wear a turban while serving in the U.S. military.

So argues the Sikh Coalition, an advocacy organization that has long opposed a Pentagon ban on facial hair and religious headgear among service members. That campaign got at least a moral boost with this week’s court decision.

“What I’m anticipating with this decision is that we will have a move in this country to recognize the right of individuals from different religious backgrounds to live in an America that does not discriminate against them on the basis of how they appear,” says Simran Jeet Singh, the senior religion fellow for the Sikh Coalition.

As a general rule, the Department of Defense prohibits facial hair and the wearing of religious headgear among service members, though it offers “accommodation” on a case-by-case basis in recognition of “sincerely held beliefs.”

Such waivers, however, are given only when they would not undermine “military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, health and safety, or any other military requirement.”

In practice, those considerations can present major obstacles. Currently, just three observant Sikh men serve in the U.S. military, all in the Army, and all are in noncombat positions. That’s out of an active-duty military force of 1.4 million.

…Sikh men are currently allowed to serve with beards and turbans in the military services in Canada, the United Kingdom and India, among other countries, and they were permitted in the U.S. military until the early 1980s, when the policy was changed.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 1986 decision, upheld the military’s right to ban facial hair and religious headgear, finding that the military is a “specialized society separate from civilian society” and that to “accomplish its mission the military must foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment and esprit de corps.”

That ruling would suggest that this week’s court decision upholding the right of a Muslim woman to wear her hijab headscarf does not apply to observant Sikh men wishing to wear a turban in the U.S. military, but it may nonetheless hold some political significance.

“The military has shown on many occasions that it is influenced by the court of public opinion and by social change,” says Eugene Fidell, a specialist in military law at the Yale Law School.

Why Are Only Three Observant Sikh Men Serving In The U.S. Military? : NPR.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Flophouse American Diaspora Reading List

2015/06/06 Leave a comment

Victoria Ferauge’s updated American diaspora and expatriate reading list:

“Sometimes we feel we straddle two cultures; at other times, that we fall between two stools.”

Salman Rushdie, Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism 1981-1991

Time for an update of the Flophouse American Diaspora Reading List – the best books and articles I’ve read recently about American people and communities abroad.  New books are in green.  As always, please feel free to add to the list.

This list has three sections:  Upcoming titles – Books that have not been published yet but that I plan on reading; General books/articles – the larger view.  Some talk about specific issues (like citizenship), others are studies, portraits or serious research about Americans abroad;  Expat autobiographies – Accounts of Americans in different countries.  These are not books that tell a potential American migrant how to live abroad.   These are personal accounts that talk about what happens to American identity when it gets transplanted somewhere else for a year or two, or for a lifetime.

The Franco-American Flophouse: Flophouse American Diaspora Reading List.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

U.S. Supreme Court affirms religious rights in Abercrombie & Fitch case

2015/06/03 Leave a comment

Reasonable accommodation example. Will see how the lower court rules in terms of the specifics but at least the general principle has been confirmed:

The U.S. Supreme Court strengthened civil rights protections Monday for employees and job applicants who need special treatment in the workplace because of their religious beliefs.

The justices sided with a Muslim woman who did not get hired after she showed up to a job interview with clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch wearing a black headscarf.

The headscarf, or hijab, violated the company’s strict dress code, since changed, for employees who work in its retail stores.

Employers generally have to accommodate job applicants and employees with religious needs if the employer at least has an idea that such accommodation is necessary, Justice Antonin Scalia said in his opinion for the court.

Job applicant Samantha Elauf did not tell her interviewer she was Muslim. But Scalia said that Abercrombie “at least suspected” that Elauf wore a headscarf for religious reasons. “That is enough,” Scalia said in an opinion for seven justices.

U.S. federal civil rights law gives religious practices “favoured treatment” that forbids employers from firing or not hiring people based on their observance of religion, Scalia said. The federal civil rights law known as Title VII requires employers to make accommodations for employees’ religious beliefs in most instances. Elauf’s case turned on how employers are supposed to know when someone has a religious need to be accommodated.

The decision does not, by itself, resolve her case. Instead, it will return to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, which earlier ruled against her.

“While the Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit decision, it did not determine that [Abercrombie & Fitch] discriminated against Ms. Elauf. We will determine our next steps in the litigation,” company spokeswoman Carlene Benz said in an email.

Some business groups said Monday’s ruling will force employers to make assumptions about applicants’ religious beliefs.

“Shifting this burden to employers sets an unclear and confusing standard making business owners extremely vulnerable to inevitable discrimination lawsuits,” said Karen Harned, a top lawyer at the National Federation of Independent Business. “Whether employers ask an applicant about religious needs or not, there is a good chance they will be sued.”

Jenny Yang, chairwoman of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, praised the court for “affirming that employers may not make an applicant’s religious practice a factor in employment decisions.” The commission had sued on Elauf’s behalf.

As to the protestations of the National Federation of Independent Business, it does not appear to me too difficult to make the assumption that someone wearing a cross, a kippa, a turban or a hijab is likely doing so for religious reasons.

U.S. Supreme Court affirms religious rights in Abercrombie & Fitch case – World – CBC News.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Homeland Beckons Immigrants as Retirement Nears – NYTimes.com

2015/05/21 Leave a comment

Assume similar pattern likely exists for Canadian immigrants who decide to return to their country of origin:

No overall statistics are available for how many people return to their native countries to retire, but consultants, real estate agents and others who help immigrants make the journey say the numbers are increasing.

They leave for many reasons: They worked in menial jobs in the United States and can afford a much higher standard of living in their native countries; they want to be around their relatives as they age for emotional and practical reasons; the spouses they immigrated with or married in the United States have died or they have divorced.

Federico Mejia, the general manager of Su Vivienda Internacional, a consulting and international real estate company catering to Colombians, said his business had doubled in the last decade.

“An increasing number want to go back to Colombia to retire,” Mr. Mejia said. Demographics is one reason. One of the big waves of Colombian immigrants hit American shores in the 1970s, so most are reaching retirement age.

Also, Colombia, like some other Latin American countries, has become more economically and politically stable in recent years, so it is a more appealing place to return to. And, like many immigrants, Colombians feel a deep emotional pull.

But the economics should not be underestimated. Alfredo Padilla, director of Expresito Carga, a shipping business in New York that specializes in working with returning immigrants, said that in the last five or six years, an increasing number of retirees were moving back to Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.

On an income that can barely sustain one person in New York, “you can live like a king in Ecuador,” Mr. Padilla said.

That is because people not only have the money they have saved, but if they have paid into the Social Security system while working in the United States, they can continue to receive payments abroad. But some exceptions apply, so it is wise to check the Social Security website.

While Social Security is portable, those returning to their home country will not be eligible for Medicare, which can be a major disadvantage, Mr. Rigor said. Medicare is generally not available outside the United States and its territories, even for American citizens who have paid into the system.

“People want to be covered by the benefits they accrue,” said Mr. Rigor, who moved to the United States from the Philippines in 1982. The Center for Medicare Portability, a nonprofit research organization,lobbies to get Medicare laws changed so Americans living overseas can receive benefits.

For some, however, losing Medicare is more than offset by their native country’s health care system. Janet Todosychuk, 59, returned to Vancouver, British Columbia, last month after living in Los Angeles for 35 years. A divorce prompted the move, but the fact that most health care is almost free in Canada has been a huge relief, Ms. Todosychuk said.

“I was paying $615 a month for health insurance,” in Los Angeles, she said. “It was definitely a factor in moving.”

Paul Kurucz, an instructor of marketing at Vancouver Island University, runs a website for returning Canadian natives. It started as a hobby, and although much of the information is free, he now offers a planner and guide for $25.

He said about 50 people a year inquire about returning to Canada to retire — mostly Canadians who immigrated to the United States but some who left for other countries.

Having relatives in Canada is probably the No.1 reason older people want to return, he said, but health care is the second. And the third is fear about the future of Social Security and their retirement income if they stay in the United States into old age.

Homeland Beckons Immigrants as Retirement Nears – NYTimes.com.

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Another Front in the Fight Against FATCA: The Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty

2015/05/16 Leave a comment

Victoria Ferauge, who writes extensively about FATCA and its impact on US expatriates, provides an update on the lawsuit against the Government of Canada’s implementation of FATCA by the Alliance for the Defense of Canadian Sovereignty (ADCS):

The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act is, in its own weird way, a kind of census.  Among other things, it tells the American government where those it considers to be taxable under US law live and work and raise families.

Having tried and failed miserably at conducting an accurate census of Americans abroad, the American government looked for other ways to find those “US Persons” (a term that includes US residents and Green Card holders, as well as US citizens).  Their method was delegation – an admission of failure in a sense – because FATCA requires foreign financial institutions (FFIs) to do what the US government couldn’t manage to accomplish on its own:  to seek out all US persons in the world: their names, addresses, and account balances.

Those of you who have already been FATCAed, know all too well what that means.  Those of you who have not yet signed a W-9 or had your accounts closed, please don’t feel left out, your time will come.

Americans abroad organizations like AARO, ACA, Democrats abroad and Republicans Overseas are fighting FATCA and you can read about their efforts here.

But I would be remiss if I did not mention other efforts which are equally important.  The one I have been following (and cheering on) is the other lawsuit filed in Canada by the Alliance for the Defense of Canadian Sovereignty (ADCS).

This is a grassroots initiative that pushes back against FATCA in Canada. ADCS argues that the Canadian legislation that implements the FATCA intergovernmental agreement with the United States “violates the Canadian Constitution, Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the principles of Canadian sovereignty and democracy, and the fundamental rights of all Canadians.”

By signing an agreement to turn over the private information of Canadian citizens to a foreign government (the United States) the Canadian government is violating, they say, the rights of those whom the US is unilaterally claiming as taxable US Persons, but who consider themselves to be Canadians first and foremost.  They reject utterly the idea that another country can simply demand that Canada provide the private information of individuals who have some connection to the United States, however nebulous it may be.

The plaintiffs in the case are two Canadian women “who have never held a U.S. passport or developed any meaningful relationship with the U.S.” but who are, nonetheless, considered to be US citizens by virtue of being born in the US.”  They never consented to that citizenship and see no reason why it should be foisted on them now just because the US says so.

There are citizens in just about every country in the world right now who are in exactly the same position as the two plaintiffs:  people who thought they were “just French” living in France or “just Thai ” living in Thailand.  Many are finding out that they are indeed US Persons when they receive a note from their local banks informing them that they appear to be US citizens under US law.

I could not think of a worse way (or a worse source) for someone to learn that he or she might be a US citizen.  I find this not just shameful on the part of the US, but an extreme and worrisome delegation of sovereign power.  Foreign financial institutions should not be in any way arbiters of US citizenship or status, or be tasked with implementing a US extraterritorial national census of any sort for any purpose whatsoever.

Among the different fronts against FATCA, this is a very worthy effort because it asks a nation-state like Canada to take a stand:  Are these people claimed by the US really Canadian citizens with all the right enumerated in the Charter? Or has the Canadian government downgraded them to semi-citizenship status based on the claims of a foreign power?

Funded entirely by small donors, ADCS has miraculously raised enough money so far to hire very competent legal counsel, and on August 14, 2014 they filed their suit in Canadian Federal Court.  I back them 100% and have contributed even though I am not an “Accidental American” or even a dual.

The Franco-American Flophouse: Another Front in the Fight Against FATCA: The Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

How Chinese millionaires buy U.S. citizenship

2015/05/15 Leave a comment

US Business investor visa, another example of selling access. Expect that the numbers are smaller than State dept believes:

But what if you could buy your way to the front of the line? One visa allows investors willing to dish out half a million dollars a fast pass to a green card.

To qualify for the so-called EB-5 visa, an investor must inject $500,000 into a project or business that will create 10 new jobs in a high unemployment or rural area. The visa has become so popular among Chinese millionaires looking for a ticket to citizenship that for the first time since it was introduced 24 years ago, the government has run out of available slots… until October.

But since the EB-5 visa was created in 1990, some have seen it as selling citizenship to the highest bidder. Supporters of the visa argue it is a painless way to employ U.S. workers, stimulate the economy and create funding for American businesses. In fact, the program has generated $8.6 billion in investment and created more than 57,000 jobs since 1990, according to the State department.

Still, critics say the government needs to keep a closer eye on investors applying for the visa to ensure they have met the employment requirements adequately. Investments built in high-end neighborhoods that employ workers from poorer areas often fulfill the visa’s rural and low-income job quota. With vthe isa up for renewal this September, some are urging Congress to reconsider.

How Chinese millionaires buy U.S. citizenship.

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

USA: Citizenship for Sale

2015/05/14 Leave a comment

On the US business immigration program. Similar issues as in the previous Canadian program:

Now let’s turn to the United States. Under the EB-5 visa program, foreigners can obtain a green card and then citizenship by making a small investment—$1 million, or $500,000 if it’s in an area with high unemployment—that will create or preserve 10 jobs for U.S. workers. Foreign investors can funnel their funds through “regional centers,” which are private organizations that finance commercial projects. These centers spare investors the trouble of figuring out for themselves whether an area suffers from high unemployment and whether a specific investment would generate the requisite 10 jobs.
The program is a mess. The government “is unable to demonstrate the benefits of foreign investment into the U.S. economy” under the program, in the words of the Inspector General of Homeland Security. Among other things, it’s almost impossible to figure out whether a specific investment generates jobs rather than reshuffles them from one place to another. There have also been examples of outright fraud and political cronyism. Part of the problem is a lack of documentation but the real problem is that the program is misconceived.
When we think about investment, the starting point is that investors don’t need citizenship or any other inducement to put money into a project when they will earn higher than the market rate of return. So given the risk and other opportunities, someone will invest $1 million or more in a mall complex or housing development if the expected return is, say, 10 or 15 percent. Many foreigners make such investments, and the vast majority of them make them not to obtain citizenship but to make money. In 2013, they ponied up $236 billion. Meanwhile, Americans invested another $2.5 trillion in the economy. At most $10 billion can be attributed to foreigners who seek visas, and probably a lot less.
The EB-5 program, then, just pumps up aggregate foreign investment in the United States by a few tenths of a percent per year. Given the size and liquidity of capital markets, the program has reduced the cost of capital by an infinitesimal amount, basically zero. A tiny reduction in the cost of capital might produce a tiny increase in the number of jobs, but most likely it will produce a tiny increase in profits for other investors or tiny reductions in price for consumers. It’s a bit like saying that you can immigrate to the United States if you buy a few cars from a domestic auto dealer at a price slightly higher than what the dealer is charging.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2015/05/eb_5_visa_program_for_immigrant_investors_this_path_to_citizenship_is_a.html 

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →