Introduction and Overview

1. Introduction and Overview Political Science 126C / Chicano/Latino Studies 163 Lecture 1 January 6, 2009

2. Course Overview • Introductions • Course themes • Course requirements and evaluation • Policy Study Groups

3. Introductions • Louis DeSipio • Email: LDESIPIO@UCI.EDU • Phone: 824-1420 • Office hours: Tuesday 4-6 and by appointment • Office: SSPB 5283 • Teaching Assistants: • Armando Ibarra • Email: ARMANDOI@UCI.EDU / Office: MPAA 428 • Office Hours: Wednesday, 1-3 • Monica Sepulveda • Email: MSEPULVE@UCI.EDU/ Office: SST 603 • Office Hours: Tuesday, 11-1

4. Course Readings • Louis DeSipio and Rodolfo O. de la Garza. 1998. Making Americans, Remaking America: Immigration and Immigrant Policy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press • Lina Newton. Illegal, Alien, or Immigrant: The Politics of Immigration Reform • Taeku Lee, S. Karthick Ramakrishnan, and Ricardo Ramirez, eds. Transforming Politics, Transforming America: The Political and Civic Incorporation of Immigrants in the United States • Several web resources on the class web page • Books also available on reserve at Langston Library

5. Course Web Page https://eee.uci.edu/09w/67170/ Syllabus Web readings Lecture outlines Extra credit opportunity notices Occasional articles and data mentioned in lecture

6. Course Objectives • To identify the elements necessary to achieve “comprehensive” immigration reform and the political interests associated with these elements: • Legal immigration (immigration to permanent residence) • Regulation of unauthorized migration, short-term legal migration, and refugee/asylee admission • Legalization of unauthorized migrants • Immigrant incorporation • With an eye to comparing the United States to other immigrant receiving nations

7. Course Requirements and Evaluation • Annotated bibliography – January 27 • 10 percent • Research Essay – February 12 • 25 percent • Exam – February 26 • 40 percent • Group presentations/responses – March 3, 5, 10, and 12 • 25 percent • Extra credit for attending campus event(s) during the quarter and writing brief summaries • 1 percent each

8. Policy Study Groups • Except for exam, assessment will focus on the area of your Policy Study Group • Before next Tuesday’s class, email me with your top three choices for study groups from 20 listed on page 3 of the syllabus • Suggest alternatives if you see a gap • Once assignment is made (after January 20), begin identifying scholarly, journalistic, and advocacy assessments of that policy study area and the current immigration reform debate • Key to assess the objectivity of your sources • You should not rely entirely on advocacy sources

9. Tips • Do readings before assigned class • Get to know someone in class and compare notes • To prepare for exam – look for recurring themes. • The exam will focus on the structure of U.S. immigration policy, rather than on comprehensive immigration reform (the topic of the group activities). • Begin to become expert in your policy study group theme early in the quarter • Ask questions!

10. Ongoing Tensions in Crafting Immigration Policy Thrace, Roman Empire 378 AD

11. Why Thrace? • Many of us have strong opinions about contemporary immigration policy in the United States • Thrace in the 300s AD offers a little distance • Like today’s debate, the facts can be interpreted in a number of ways • Offering different lessons about immigration policy

12. Thrace in the 300s Thrace today: Southern Bulgaria, North-eastern Greece, Eastern Serbia, Eastern Turkey

13. Thrace in 378 AD • Battle of Adrianople • Recorded in Western history as the beginning of the fall of the Roman empire • Goths who defeated the Romans present in the Empire after having been admitted as refugees by Emperor Valens in 376 AD • Experience led to period of Roman “anti-Barbarian” reaction that raised tensions with people to the North of the empire who ultimately overwhelmed the Western Roman Empire • Rome sacked in 410 AD and 455 AD • Western Roman empire defeated 476 AD

14. So, A Cautionary Tale About Immigration? • Perhaps • Romans on the ground suspicious about Goths being admitted in 376 AD • Followed extended period (from 369 AD) with few new migrants • Little planning done in advance of the admission • Goths angered by their treatment • Admission cut off (in response to concerns on the ground) which led to “unauthorized” Goth migration • Promises made in negotiations between Roman and Goth leaders that probably couldn’t be met for the large number of immigrants who arrived

15. But the Story May be More Complicated • Admission in 376 reflected a century-long history of movement from “barbarian” areas to Rome • Goths, in particular, were adopting many Roman customs • Roman emperors (particularly Constantine the Great in 332 AD) had entered into treaties with Goth leaders • Roman Empire had long incorporated outsiders (the nature of an empire) • So, key part of the story lost if you just look at Adrianople – Barbarians wanted to join the Roman empire, not replace it

16. Why? • Labor shortage in the Empire, particularly: • Agricultural labor • Troops • Long history of • Resettling Barbarians to low population-density areas of the Empire, where they became indentured to the land (but not slaves) • Use of Barbarians as mercenaries in Roman legions • After 25 years of service, achieved Roman citizenship, or • As mercenaries for a single campaign • Barbarians also part of Roman and Christian intellectual life

17. What Changed 376-378 AD? • Long period with no refugee admissions • Word spread among Goth tribes that admission opportunity existed • Failure to manage flow of refugees and to prepare for their resettlement • Refugee camps formed • When “legal” admissions stopped, migration continued • Feeling of betrayal by Goths who believed they had guarantees from Roman Emperor • Roman bureaucrats treated Goths as captured enemies • Resettlement march poorly managed, led to revolt

18. Lessons? • Traditional view – migrations of people very different from majority population will lead to conflict (and, in this case, the destruction of the state) • Alternative view – Incorporation was working prior to 376 AD; what failed was implementation • Either way – rapid changes to long-standing policies run risks for both migrant and receiving state