This morning the New York Times reports …
on a report. The International Migration Organization issued its annual report,
available for $60, where it looked at, among other things, public perceptions of the presence of immigrants. In Italy, where
7% of the people are foreign-born, respondents believed that a quarter of all people
were immigrants.
In the US,
respondents thought up to 39% of
Americans were immigrants. Whew! Only 14% of Americans are immigrants. Countries
like Switzerland, New Zealand, and Qatar have much higher proportions of
immigrants than the US. Switzerland?!?
In a recent study
by Harvard Business School Professor Michael Norton and Duke University
Professor Dan Ariely, public perceptions about wealth are totally different
from reality (see below, 'Estimated' is what people thought the inequality was). 82% of the wealth in the
US is held by the top 20% of the population. But people think that the top
20% own about 56% (more than a quarter less!). And in Americans’ ideal, the top 20% would own just over 30%, making it
more equitable than Sweden.
So Americans think there are more immigrants. And they think
our society is MUCH more equitable than it is. (By the way, these
misperceptions are not only American. For example, in Argentina nearly everyone
thinks they are middle class.)
Why do people have
misperceptions? Because they do not have the correct information. You could
blame this on the way school systems and textbooks do not investigate how
America’s economy is structured. You could blame it on individuals who do not
read the newspapers enough. You could blame it on the media for not making it a
bit deal. You can blame politicians for not stressing the unequal opportunities
children have. You can blame scholars for not finding a way to be more public
with their findings. Many others could be blamed as well.
Having a
well-informed public seems very democratic. If people had better
information, people would act differently. Public support for programs would shift (see the chart above for attitude shift with better information). Political participants would be
able to better make decisions that match their priorities. And so our political
system would be more responsive to the wants and needs of the people. The
tension is between being a democracy and having a capitalistic system. Do
some groups profit from masking the inequalities? Who profits from keeping the
people docile?
Next week, I'll write about the American Dream and other myths.
This morning a paper here in Paris reports a survey that has 61% of the French supporting the right to vote by non-citizens. Last night I watched a program with the last hour dedicated to a debate on this topic. A famous filmmaker, the Minister of Higher Education and Research, a philosopher, a comic, a novelist, a demographer, and a 22 year old presidential candidate argued away, usually ganging up on the conservative Minister. Can you imagine Education Secretary Arne Duncan battling it out, unscripted, with Oliver Stone, a philosopher ($5 if you can name an American philosopher), writer Edwidge Danticat and Stephen Colbert? All we get on US TV is lame one-on-one news debates (as if there were only two points of view!).
And now to the point: should non-citizens get the right to vote? The Minister argued that the start of everything political, any action, must be being French, in an eerie top-down bestowal of identity and action. Democracy is supposed to be the rule of the people. Does the government say who the people are, or do the people say who the government is? Who ‘the people’ refers to has totally changed and has been expanding, from Athenian men with military training to all white men to all white adults to all adult citizens (** to the visible exclusion of over 5 million convicted felons). Are non-citizen immigrants the new excluded? We can’t even say they’re second-class citizens.
The world is going to have more and more of these people, people who follow the source of capital to more industrialized countries (see last post) to provide a better life for their families. Should people who move (and can't or don't want to become citizens) lose their right to vote? In the US, we have an estimated 11-12 million undocumented residents and another million permanent residents who cannot vote. The comic in the French television show juxtaposed a citizen who just moved into town with the immigrant that has lived in a town for 10 years, knows all of the townspeople, but can’t vote.
Shouldn’t the immigrant at least be allowed to vote in local elections? Estonia, Ireland, and Spain allow foreigners to vote, and many countries only require that you have lived there for a certain number of years (like Venezuela, Namibia, and Hong Kong). 20 states or territories in the US used to allow foreigners to vote.
If we actually believe in what democracy is and implies, that the government is of the people that reside somewhere, then residents should have the right to vote. People who come from afar to live somewhere weave into the local fabric, into their local supermarket, park, workplace, pharmacy. They sit through long lines in their local post office, send their kids to the local school, and worry about local safety. If being locally involved makes them civically-minded, maybe the US will feel more inclusive and unified. And maybe they will help vote conservatives out of office! Which is why it probably won't pass...
