 Author: Aleks Yakubson
Unquestionably, the events in that wonderful German town, which I had privilege to visit a decade ago during soccer world cup, and even taste its great local beer brand called Kohlsch, are lamentable, and added in the short run yet another ‘black eye’ to the ideas of globalization, migration, compassion to people from underdeveloped regions or even those suffering from outright warfare, on part of the citizens of the developed world, sometimes referred to as ‘the golden billion’. As have terror attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, Tel Aviv and many other places. STILL: History, and recent one at that, teaches about healthy society’s ability to ‘digest’ even the toughest contingents of newcomers. Perhaps, vast majority of readers of this piece have seen the great movie "Scarface’, with equally great Al Pacino in lead role. It tells the story of a Cuban mobster, ‘dumped’ by Castro’s regime onto United States in 1980, along with scores of other such ‘undesirable elements’, sprinkled among thousands of refugees, during an economic crisis on the self-proclaimed ‘Isle of Liberty’ in 1980. Yet, how did things end up in real life? Cuban Americans in general, including vast majority of those arriving with the ‘Scarface’ wave, turned out to be not just fine but some of the most loyal and passionate American citizens. And at this very moment, two of that community’s descendants are actually running for the nation’s presidency, both, curiously, on Republican side. True enough, both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are scions of families that emigrated into US in pre-Castro times, but their opposition to Castro regime is well known, as is that of majority of Cuban American community at large, and to an average person they are both ‘typical Cuban Americans’. Or let’s step yet deeper back into history. By a century and a half. Back then, United States suddenly found itself ‘besieged’ by wave after wave of immigrants from such diverse but seemingly equally ‘heathen’ backgrounds, as Scandinavia, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Poland, Czech and Slovak lands, Yugoslavia and its precursors--Serbia and Austro-Hungarian crowns of Croatia and Dalmatia, Greece, Jews from just about everywhere in Europe, and also East Asians, mainly Japanese and Chinese. Some left behind their motherlands for economic reasons, some escaped nearly sure death(which of course also met material difficulties, to put it mildly), but the fact is that among all those groups there were quite numerous politically "unreliable" and at times openly hostile and subversive elements, be it political or purely criminal. Italian, Irish, Jewish mafia, also Italian anarchists, Jewish leftists, German- and Scandinavian-American Nazi sympathizers, as well as some elements in Japanese American community that at least were perceived as more loyal to their old country, which was increasingly on collision course with their new one. Collision course, which ultimately resulted in Pacific theater of World War 2. Curiously, some of essential Nazi and fascist sympathizers back in 1930s and 1940s had put on robes of US ‘patriots’, and tried to sabotage the country’s position and essentially, if indirectly, aid Holocaust and other atrocities, under the very guise of ‘caring for America’ and ‘not wanting it to be enmeshed in a war it has no stake in’. History judged these ‘patriots’ unfavorably. That’s to put it mildly. Note also, that in vast majority of listed situations, the immigration in question was absolutely legal, yet it didn’t stop xenophobes and pseudo-patriots from opposing it, and calling out every possible wrongdoing committed by members of those questioned groups, whether real or merely ascribed one. Similar problems have existed in other developed countries, be it Jewish, Polish or Greek enclaves in England, Chinese ones in Italy, Turkish, Kurdish, Arabic, African and other such in Germany and what not. To this day, you can find places where people don’t speak their country’s language, or speak it rather poorly. Same goes for some Italian or Jewish communities of USA, especially New York City. Many of these communities of immigrants haven’t fully ‘dissolved’ in their new societies yet, and there surely are many issues and obstacle in the way of that process. Yet, has any of this changed somehow the fabric of what we proudly call ‘free society’? HARDLY AT ALL. AND PROBBALY NEVER WILL. Moreover, there are many indications and reasons to view migration as on the whole a heavily beneficial process. Many observers point out that without those at times ‘troublesome’ Turkish and Kurdish arrivals, who are known to on occasions even conflict with one another, Germany’s post-WW2 economic ‘miracle’ might not have been possible. An assertion perhaps debatable, but worth of taking to note. Let us also not forget, that the problems similar to what happened on New Year’s night in Cologne and some other places (Stockholm etc.), are absolutely not limited to migrants or illegals. As recently as 15 years ago in our very city we had a Puerto Rican day parade sexual assault scandal, with main culprits being either ‘pure Americans’ or Puerto Ricans, whose status is unique (although the island has voted decidedly to become next US state, and to be honest, the author of this article hopes this will become a fact sometime soon). All those guilty of assaults and harassment were found out and duly punished. Thankfully, there was no anti-Puerto Rican or any other such kind of campaign, on that occasion. Speaking of campaigns and coverage, some of my contacts in Germany claim that the scandals are simultaneously played down by mainstream media, and blown out of proportion by ‘yellow’ segment of information sphere. With truth, as is often the case, being somewhere in the middle. Also of note is the fact, that in Germany’s case, xenophobic moods are much more prevalent in the country’s still developmentally lagging East, where the amount of migrants, especially of those from ‘third world’, is by far smaller than in the West part of the country. In other words, people somewhere in Leipzig have less chance to experience something similar to Cologne, yet have more fear of it. Honestly, in this case it’s difficult to explain this attitude with anything other than pre-developed hostility to strangers as such. Perhaps, also ‘aided’ by solid dose of Communist-time paranoia. Finally, let us consider tackling the problem’s very cause. The author is a firm believer that in such things as politics, geopolitics, economy, human rights and so on, the best defense is offense. In the case of current migrant crisis stemming from Middle East and Africa, it means not to abstain and be ‘cautious’, as some people, including current GOP frontrunner, essentially advocate, but actually to be more proactive. It is impossible to deny that after US not only won World War 2 but committed to Europe’s and East Asia’s rebuilding, both the nature of those societies and the nature of immigration from them to US and other developed nations, radically changed. Sure, in case of Middle East, Africa or even Latin America, this may seem much harder and even next to impossible. There are great many mental, religious, cultural and other differences, grudges and so on. Yet, there are many examples of progress even in troubled regions like Sub-Saharan Africa, which for all its ‘poor’ reputation, has made steady economic progress in recent decades, and now boasts middle class of roughly 40%. In order to stem flow of migrants seeking better life in Western nations, and upsetting the fragile balance of those societies, there’s no better remedy that to actively aid those regions and peoples in getting to better life IN THEIR OWN HOME. And if the need be, with armed force. Critics (including aforementioned Republican frontrunner) will try to point at Iraq as one such attempt which supposedly ended in ‘miserable failure’. Not so, says the author of this article. First of, we have not nearly seen as much problems with Iraq immigration, even after the rise of ISIS, as we have with Syrian, Libyan, Somali and other ones. Second, not only amount of refugees but amount of deaths caused by now 5-yr old Syrian civil war, which until a year ago had no US or other Western participation in it, is greater than amount of refugees and victims of US-led Iraq war which lasted more than twice as long. Thirdly, for all its problems, Iraq has returned to international community, economic world system, and has a chance to painstakingly crawl out to ‘solid ground’. Syria, for as long as Mr Assad, who lost his chance at being acceptable leader several times, first suppressing the ‘Syrian spring’ of 2001, then refusing to sign peace with Israel, and now bludgeoning his people, has no such chance. And we haven’t even touched upon the role played by some international players supporting the current Damascus regimes, such as those in Moscow, Beijing and Tehran--support, without which this whole Syrian exodus would not even have happened. But this, perhaps, is a subject for a whole different piece. But be as it may, the ‘buriers’ of the West and detractors of ‘plague of tolerance’ should perhaps just take a chill pill. Staying calm is always a good idea, and now especially. Those migrants guilty of rape, terror, theft and so on, will be found and punished; the rest will finely adapt to their new society, be they three times Syrian and four times Somali. And it’s also never a bad idea to remember a famous proverb about throwing rocks into neighbor’s window, while living in a glass house oneself.
0 Comments
 By Ilya Galak and Michael Califra
Staten Island, NY “Not only the wealth, but the independence and security of a country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufacturers. Every nation, with a view to those great objects, ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing, and defense” – Alexander Hamilton NYC and New York State should use their spending power to bring back manufacturing and revive the middle class. Once the envy of the world and the great engine of prosperity that drove our national economy to new heights, the American middle class has been under pressure for more than thirty years. The offshoring of good-paying manufacturing jobs along with decades of stagnant wages and soaring costs of everything from energy to health care and a college education has left millions of Americans one economic shock away from tumbling out of the middle class. Every time an American job is outsourced to China or other slave-wage counties the American economy loses the spending power that worker’s job generated. Every time an American worker is forced into a low-paying service job, that worker’s disposable income shrinks, making it harder to stay in the middle class and decreasing demand across the economy. The result is a middle class that has been hollowed out, is mired in debt, and a national economy that grows through the formation of asset bubbles instead of growing wages. When those bubbles pop, as they inevitably do, more middle class wealth is destroyed and more people are thrown into the ranks of the working poor. All this has made the United States the country with the highest income inequality of any advanced nation; a country where the gap between the wealthiest and everyone is else larger than it’s been since the Gilded Age. The loss of manufacturing has been particularly brutal for New York State. Between 1970 and 2011 the Empire State seen a more than 75 percent decline in manufacturing jobs – from 1.8 million to 458,000. New York City experienced the hollowing out of its manufacturing base even earlier than the rest of the nation as those jobs fled to the open spaces of Long Island or other states as early as the 1950s. Yet the exodus continues still. Since the year 2000, NYC has lost more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs. What does that mean for the middle class or people aspiring to it? According the New York State Department of Labor, the average annual wage for a manufacturing worker is over $53,000, compared to $36,000 for retail work and $24,500 for employment in food service. In other words, a plunging standard of living. For residents of NYC that increasingly means being forced out of the city they love and have always called home. The time has come to decide what kind of city New York wants to be. Will we be a home for all who want to live here, or will we become a city exclusively of and for the wealthy? The further concentration of wealth at the top income brackets combined with the shipping of our middle class prosperity abroad, often to countries with regimes known for abusing their own people, are not good for our democracy and just as toxic for the democratic ideal of New York City. If we are to continue to be a place where people can raise families; a place that invites everyone to pursue their dreams, no matter who they are or where they come from, it is time to address the economic inequality that has taken hold here. And there is simply no way to address these issues without bringing back manufacturing or a developing a plan to replace lost jobs with new industries. There is good news: more and more companies are finding out that making it in the USA is good for businesses. An often-cited 2011 study by the consulting firm Accenture, which included a survey of 287 major companies, found that nearly half are plagued by “cycle or delivery time” problems and quality issues due to offshoring. An advantage of “Made in the USA” is that domestic production makes companies more nimble and better equipped to meet their customers’ needs. For example, instead of shipping more cars from Germany and Japan to meet growing U.S. demand, it made sense for BMW and Nissan to build plants in South Carolina and Tennessee. Those economic realities have meant a mini renaissance for American manufacturing. But while manufacturing gained about 530,000 jobs nationally between January 2010 and December 2012, America is still 7.5 million manufacturing jobs down from its last peak in 1979. Much needs to be done, especially in New York. New Yorkers are tired of watching helplessly as manufacturing comes to the US only to bypass our state and city and settle elsewhere. If we can’t compete with South Carolina and Tennessee, how can we hope to compete with the Chinese? Yet Albany seems to have thrown in the towel. As New Yorkers, we should not be satisfied with a slow return to the label, Made in the USA; our goal should be the label, Made in New York by New Yorkers. New York’s focus on tax-free enterprise zones is misguided and weak. Considering the size of the task ahead the city and state must take bold initiatives and not simply rely on stale policies, which have never produced adequate results anywhere they been tried. We have developed the following policy recommendations, which are centered on using the purchasing power of New York to meet the goal of reviving manufacturing, starting with NYC while at the same time saving taxpayer money. How can we bring manufacturing back the Big Apple? 1- City Hall should unleash its purchasing power on the City. NYC spends billions of dollars each and every year on construction projects. We should require that all procurement contracts go first to NYC or NYS businesses through a transparent bidding process. If there are no businesses in the City or State that can fulfill the contracts we should mandate that out-of-state manufactures set up shop in the City if they want our business. If a company located in Texas, for example, wants a NYC contract, they should be required to open a manufacturing facility here and produce everything for in NY, or at a minimum assemble it here. 2- NYC and NYS needs to shamelessly court companies – domestic and foreign – to get them to set up shop in the state and help them expand when they get here. Other states do this. Alabama recently lured Airbus for its new North American assembly plant. Did New York State, with its proud aerospace heritage, which includes the design and manufacture on Long Island of the only craft ever to land humans on another world, even try bringing Airbus here? We should not be celebrating the creation of low-paying service jobs that casinos bring when foreign industrial corporations are setting up large manufacturing facilities in other parts of the country. Yes, competing against the South and Midwest is tough, but there is more to attracting industries than low wages. Just look at Germany’s manufacturing success. That country’s manufacturing sector is among the world’s best, employing one-fifth of German workers while paying an average of $46 an hour (versus $33 an hour here). New York offers access to great universities and the educated labor force they produce in addition to our world-class research facilities and fine shipping infrastructure just to name a few of our advantages. Albany has been touting a decade of tax relief for companies that set up shop in certain areas of the state. NYC should become one big tax-free zone if manufacturing is involved. 3- Attack the “dark side” – business practices such as bid rigging, outright extortion and other illegal practices that drive up the costs of doing business in New York. If we are going to revive manufacturing here, we must not only be prepared to upset established business practices that have been producing headwinds for investment, but also revise the State’s antiquated and complex procurement laws and regulations, which prohibit many companies from competing to do work with the NYS and local governments. Construction regulations, too, need to be reformed. Contractors should be required to conform to, but not exceed, local building, electrical and fire codes. In circumstances where a project might not be covered by local codes, the US code should apply. It is also important for NYC, and all other cities in the State, to revamp complex, arcane, and redundant construction codes that have grown voluminous over decades, yet add nothing to safety. These unnecessary regulations drive up construction costs, which are then passed on in the form of higher rents, giving businesses, and people, yet one more excuse to locate elsewhere. 4- New York should end the practice of contracting foreign companies to do the work American companies can do, as the MTA did when it contracted Chinese companies for the Verrazano Bridge and Staten Island Expressway projects. 5- Bring MARS to NY. Establish an independent, privately-financed agency: New York Made in America Rating System* (MARS) to develop minimum standards qualifying products as Made in USA, and/or NYS, for all companies doing business here. MARS would be similar to the UL rating of manufacturing companies and to the LEED rating system for sustainable buildings. A minimum rating should be a required for public construction projects in NYC. Full transparency and the requirement that MARS be a strictly independent rating agency are crucial. Its board of directors should include representatives from taxpayers’ organizations, manufacturers, trade unions, developers and City and State officials. Ratings should include minimum content provisions to qualify for the label “Made in NYS” and “Made in USA” and products earning those labels should be preferred in NYS. 6- More efficient use of state subsidies. A recent report by the Alliance for a Greater New York showed subsidy spending is largely uncoordinated and inefficient, with the state’s regional economic development councils coordinating only about 6 percent of the $7 billion spent each year in New York on corporate tax subsidies. According to the findings, big businesses were most likely to take advantage of multiple, uncoordinated subsidy programs. For example, Target Corp. is currently receiving 14 separate subsidies across New York for their retail stores and warehouses, and this only takes into account the seven programs with regional data. Only a tiny fraction of New York’s businesses are accessing economic development subsidies. The report determined that 96 percent of businesses are shouldering the tax burden for the 4 percent that get the subsidies. That is not only unfair, it is unproductive. The State should not be spending so much to subsidize low-wage service jobs; it should be using that money to invest in new industries such as renewable energy that will generate the good-paying manufacturing jobs we need. And what is true for the State is also true for the City. Tax breaks should not be granted to companies like Fresh Direct whenever they simply threaten to move to New Jersey, even if the basic economics of such are blatantly nonsensical. By ARKADIY FRIDMAN and ILYA GALAK
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. — In the end, the vote was overwhelming. “For far too long, dozens of thousands of the Russian-American senior citizens of New York have been shut out of the voting process unfairly because of the language barrier,” pontificated State Sen. Carl Kruger when he introduced the legislation. Passed by the New York state Senate 48 to14 on May 28, the bill, known as S. 552 - An act to amend the election law in relation to providing Russian-language voting materials” passed the state Assembly with only 23 members dissenting out of 132 votes cast. Russian was thereby added to the list of existing alternate languages in which election material must be printed, the others being Spanish, Chinese and Korean. Those who argued for the passage of the law — and New York’s City Hall was not among them because of the tremendous expense complying with the law would entail — pointed to the 1 to 1.5 million Russian-speaking residents of the New York metropolitan area; part of a community in which 320,000 were born in Russia or other countries of the Soviet Union. Some districts boasted Russian-speaking populations of more than 20 percent, who the politicians felt were being disenfranchised by the lack of Russian language voting materials. Those officials felt that they weren’t being given an opportunity to represent ALL citizens in their district, because those who could not read English could not register to vote. The act purported to enfranchise “another of [New York’s] culturally diverse immigrant populations, like many that have come before it.” A CLOSER LOOK Questions arise, however, about whether the bill was justifiable in these tough economic times — or even necessary. Those who are even more skeptical will point to such a bill and call it a bribe, buying the votes of a growing and powerful minority. What other reason could there be to spend money on such a bill, when unemployment hovers around 10 percent and deficits stretch as far as the eye can see? There are other reasons to oppose this bill. Political writer and founder of the Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly, reminds us that to become a citizen our laws require that you demonstrate “an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write and speak ... simple words and phrases ... in ordinary usage in the English language.” When discussing the wisdom of translating election material, Schlafly issued a stern warning: “Printing ballots in foreign languages is fundamentally anti-democratic because fair elections depend on public debate on the issues and candidates. People who don’t understand the public debate are subject to manipulation by political-action groups that can mislead them in language translations and then tell them how to vote.” The underlying theme here is to accept or reject the value of assimilation; the willingness of a minority population to cast off the culture of his or her birth and embrace the culture of their newly-chosen country. One could argue that the America that was the great “Melting Pot” produced the strongest and greatest country in the world, as diverse populations and ethnicities melded to form a people with a strong, blue-collar work ethic, a belief in the importance of education and advancement, a love of democracy that would keep Europe free through two world wars, and a willingness to create a military that would be the liberators of millions. RIGHT TO THE POINT Perhaps no one has ever said it more elegantly, and more directly, than President Theodore Roosevelt. He wrote these words in a letter to the president of the American Defense Society on January 3, 1919, just three days before he died: “In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American. ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language. ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” As Teddy Roosevelt grew older, he increasingly seized on the theme of “Americanization.” He warned of the dangers of “hyphenated-Americans” and predicted disaster for the United State if it were to become a “tangle of squabbling nationalities” He wanted the English language to become compulsory learning. “Every immigrant who comes here,” he said, “should be required within five years to learn English or to leave the country.” In a statement to the Kansas City Star in 1918 he said, “English should be the only language taught or used in the public schools.” He also insisted, on more than one occasion, that America has no room for what he called “fifty-fifty allegiance.” In a speech made in 1917 he said, “It is our boast that we admit the immigrant to full fellowship and equality with the native-born. In return we demand that he shall share our undivided allegiance to the one flag which floats over all of us.” AN INFORMAL SURVEY In an effort to gauge the feelings of the Russian community, I engaged people on the streets of Brighton Beach in Brooklyn, one of the oldest Russian enclaves in New York, and still as vibrant and thriving as ever. I followed a simple methodology: I went out on the street, introduced myself as a journalist and began to ask elderly people, for whom this law was passed, what they felt about the bill. Admittedly, I did not act by all the rules of statistical science, but it didn’t take long for the attitude of those I interviewed to become clear. The first thing I realized was that pride was a factor in those who applauded the measure — perhaps even more so than necessity. The passage of the bill was a sign of “respect” to some of those I interviewed, a manifestation of political clout, recognition that the Russian community was a force to be reckoned with — or at least paid attention to. But many saw the bill as disrespectful and hypocritical. When asked if the law was necessary, a common answer was, simply, “No.” After all they speak English — and they are the OVERWHELMING majority. Doctors, lawyers, programmers, engineers, government employees, skilled workers, policemen — why do they need any of this? More than that, I feel bad for our children. With the instatement of this law, in a way, they become second class citizens. I doubt that those people born in the U.S. will treat them better after this. On the contrary, the society presently is very politicized and all are watching how government money is appropriated. And by so much noise being made out of something like this, then by passing this law, our children are being thrown under the bus. Even the elderly, who have a difficult time learning a new language, have outlets from which they get their news and current events: We have the privately owned Russian-speaking Davidson radio, oriented especially toward those people who speak English poorly. This radio copes perfectly with those functions, which the politicians want to take upon themselves. This radio, at the cost of its owners, informs us regarding all local political news. Here politicians present their pre-election speeches, accounting for the work they have done. That is where everything is explained to us, I would even say — everything relative to an election is broken down to its smallest components. A SIMPLE CONCLUSION In conclusion, we don’t really have a need for these translations. I don’t know who is going to be reading them, when all this can be heard on the radio in a form that is a lot more interesting and less officious. Other than that, I have never had any problems at the voting polls. Respectful Russian–speaking volunteers showed and explained everything. It appears that the motivation behind this bill was painfully transparent — it was a dishonest and disrespectful misjudging of the Russian community by the politicians. “In my humble opinion, I just don’t understand real purpose of this bill,” immigrant Boris Borovoy states flatly. “The majority of politically active Russian-Americans are fluent in English and have no need for a Russian translation; to me it’s another pork barrel, another waste of taxpayers’ money for a mostly symbolic purpose. And for hard-working, middle-class Russian-Americans it’s real slap in a face. “Want to make some important political decisions? Learn English, comrade. That’s as simple as it gets”. Lucy Gunderson translated an article title “Voluntary Segregation” by Yevgeny Novitsky, published in the newspaper Russian Bazaar. In the article, Novitsky analyzes the bill and laments that “lack of English completely cuts people off from the real America. They are forced to communicate with people who have a very limited range of interests.” Novitsky’s analysis cuts like a knife to the heart of the matter, expressing his pity at those who would consider the bill to be an historic event. And in a final declaration of the independent American people of Russian descent, he cries: “I would be far happier if one fine day New York officials were to announce that the Russian-speaking community no longer existed. Then Gov. Paterson would say something like, ‘Russian-speaking immigrants have melded so seamlessly into American life that it is no longer possible to separate them into a distinct ethnic enclave. We can now proudly call them Americans of Russian descent.’ “Then the group of loud enthusiasts who call themselves ‘community leaders’ would stop speaking on behalf of the entire Russian-language community. Redundant associations and coalitions that exist mostly because of the language barrier would disappear. And to the proposals by officials to translate materials into Russian, every one of ‘our’ U.S. citizens would answer indignantly but proudly, “Who do you take me for? I AM AN AMERICAN.” Arkadiy Fridman , a former Soviet Army officer who came to the United States in 1992, heads the not-for-profit Staten Island Community Center in Dongan Hills and is the president of Citizens magazine. Ilya Galak, an electrical engineer, has been in the United States since 1989 and is on the staff of Citizens magazine.  Milton Friedman (July 31, 1912 – November 16, 2006) was an American economist, statistician, and a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. He is best known among scholars for his theoretical and empirical re-search, especially consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy He was an economic advisor to U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Over time, many governments practiced his restatement of a political philosophy that extolled the virtues of a free market economic system with little intervention by government. Born in Brooklyn, NY. |