Local Level Policies Addressing Integration of Immigrants.

Exploratory Study of

Columbia and Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia, and Aiken County, South Carolina.

Katarzyna T. Steinka-Fry

Augusta State University

Masters in Public Administration Program

PADM 7050

Dr. S. Reinke

Dr. P. Harris

May 2, 2008

Abstract

A qualitative study of three county level governments in Columbia and Augusta-Richmond Counties in Georgia and Aiken County in South Carolina was conducted to investigate the local policy approaches directed at immigrants. Governmental integration policies, cooperation with non-profit organizations, and attitudes to the relevant state policies were analyzed. In-depth interviews with 22 local elected and appointed officials were conducted. In addition, content analysis of three major local newspapers was performed. The results showed that integration of immigrants was not among the goals pursued by any of the local governments. Local public opinion was predominantly hostile toward immigrants and selective in focus. The discourse in the newspapers focused on the issues of illegal immigrants and most often referred to the national, as opposed to the local level. Officials in the three counties differed in their perception of foreign-born residents. While the officials from the two Georgia counties showed a high level of indifference to the immigration topic, immigrants in Aiken County were perceived as a problem. The policy approach in the three counties ranged from passive and indifferent to selectively hostile. In the two counties in Georgia, the majority of the policies originated at the state level. The Aiken County government faced no major requirements or constraints from the state level policy. The respondents in this county perceived state and federal government involvement as insufficient. They also chose exclusionary solution, attempting to preserve the existing social structure and to externalize differences. All three counties made some steps to incorporate immigration problems into their public safety policy. Overall, however, the results indicated that the three governments were not sufficiently prepared and lacked the institutional structures designed to make the process of immigrants’ integration easier.

Background

Demographic Profile of South Carolina

      The 2000 U.S. Census recorded 115,978 foreign-born residents in the state of South Carolina. The foreign-born residents accounted for 2.9% of the state's overall population. Between 1990 and 2000 their number increased by 132.1%. The rate of increase in the foreign-born population was the 11^th highest in the country (Federation for American Immigration Reform [FAIR], 2007b). In 2000, nearly 47% of the foreign-born residents in South Carolina were from Latin America, less than 27% were from Europe and Canada, and about 22% were from Asia. According to the Pew Hispanic Center (2008b), there were 177,572 foreign-born residents in South Carolina in 2006, making up 4.1% of the population.

The Hispanic population in South Carolina has been growing about six times faster than the state's overall population. In 2006, the Hispanic population constituted 3.5% of the South Carolina residents (Pew Hispanic Center, 2008a). The Pew Hispanic Center (2008a) reported that the number of Hispanics increased by 58.4% between 2000 and 2006. The statistics do not include undocumented immigrants. Also children born to foreign residents are not considered immigrants. FAIR (2007b) calculated that in 2005 there were 56,000 undocumented immigrants residing in the state. The Pew Hispanic Center (2006) reported that the population of unauthorized migrants in South Carolina may range from 35,000 to 75,000.

Demographic Profile of Georgia

Before 1990 Georgia was rarely a destination for immigrants (Neal & Bohon, 2003). However, the 2000 Census recorded 577,273 foreign-born residents in the state. In 2000, foreign-born residents constituted 7.9% of the state's overall population and their number increased by 233.4% between 1990 and 2000 (U.S. Census, 2000; FAIR, 2007a). Georgia had the second highest proportional increase in minorities in the nation (Neal & Bohon, 2003). According to the Pew Hispanic Center (2008b), the number of Georgia foreign-born residents increased to 862,430 in 2006, making up 9.2% of the state population.

Between 1990 and 2000 the share of Georgia residents who do not speak English at home increased by more than 80%, from 4.8% to 8.8%. In 2000, over 426,000 residents of Georgia spoke Spanish at home. As of 2002, over 53% of foreign-born residents were from Latin America, 25% were from Asia and Oceania, and 13% from Europe and Canada (U.S. Census Bureau Estimates, 2002). The Hispanic population in 2006 constituted 7.4% of the overall state population, and increased by 60.1% in comparison to the year 2000 (Pew Hispanic Center, 2008a). The Pew Hispanic Center (2006) reported that the population of unauthorized migrants in Georgia may range from 350,000 to 450,000, as of 2005.

Nationally, Georgia had the greatest number of counties (25) that experienced over 50% increase in the number of immigrants in the decade 1990 to 2000 (Neal & Bohon, 2003). According to Garrett (2000), most immigrants were attracted by employment opportunities in the low-skilled work sector, especially construction, poultry processing, and carpet industries. Guthey (2001) noted that the new immigrants have become more visible, as many decided to settle permanently in their host communities. Baker and Harris (2006) argue that the current trend of the large scale immigration of Latinos will continue, mainly due to the continuing demand for low-wage labor and stagnant economies of the countries of origin. Baker and Harris (2006) also predict that the established networks of family and friends will attract new immigrants, despite the restrictions on immigration issued by Georgia General Assembly in 2006.

In 2002 there were 50,000 registered Hispanic voters in Georgia (Mohl, 2005). This number is predicted to increase to 250,000 in the following decade. Mohl (2005) noted that Hispanics in Georgia are considered liberal on social issues but conservative on economic matters. Mohl (2005, p. 87) argues that Georgia “stands on the cutting edge of Latin politicization in the region.”

Local Demographic Profiles

             The counties under study differ in demographic characteristics. The factors considered as relevant for the analysis are: the proportion of immigrants in the overall county population, the household median income, age structure, racial makeup, and the region of origin of the immigrant groups. The 2000 U.S. Census recorded 195,182 residents in Augusta-Richmond County, 142,552 in Aiken County, and 89,288 in Columbia County. According to the American Community Survey (2006), as of 2006 the population of Augusta-Richmond County decreased to 187,140, while the populations of Aiken and Columbia County grew to 151,800 and 106,887 respectively.

In the 2000 U.S. Census, shares of foreign-born residents in the three counties differed only slightly and ranged form 2.8% in Aiken to 4.8% in Columbia County (See Figure 1). The share of immigrants in Augusta-Richmond and Columbia County was lower than the state average in Georgia (7.1%). There was almost no difference between the Aiken County and South Carolina share recorded at 2.9% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Columbia County had the highest proportion of residents who speak language other than English at home (8%).

According to the American Community Survey (2006), the foreign-born population of Augusta-Richmond County decreased from 6,729 (3.4%) in the year 2000 to 5,975 (3.2%) in 2006. The foreign-born population in Columbia County increased from 4,304 to 4,944 but its relative share decreased from 4.8% to 4.6%. In the same six year period the Aiken County foreign-born population increased from 3,252 (2.3%) to 5,426 (3.6%). Only 1,836 of the Augusta-Richmond County foreign-born residents settled in the community after the year 2000. In Columbia County 1,150 new foreign-born residents arrived after the year 2000. In contrast to that, 2,828 foreign-born newcomers entered the Aiken County between the years 2000 and 2006.

Figure 1. Percentage of foreign-born residents in the three counties and of residents who do             not speak English at home.

In 2000, median household income was lowest in Augusta-Richmond County ($32,972) and highest in Columbia County ($55,682). The American Community Survey (2006) revealed a $1,432 increase in median household income in Augusta-Richmond County, a $6,239 increase in Aiken County (from $37,889 to $44,128), and a $7,013 increase in Columbia County.

The 2000 U.S. Census statistics show that the population in Augusta-Richmond County was slightly younger than in the other counties (See Figure 2). Augusta-Richmond County also had the largest share of Black and African-American population (49.8% in 2000). Columbia County had the highest share of White (82.7%) and Asian populations (3.3%), as shown in Figure 3. Asians accounted for 48% of foreign-born residents in Columbia County, while 49% of Aiken foreign-born residents were from Latin America (See Figure 4).

Figure 2. Age distribution in the populations of the three counties.

Figure 3. Racial makeup of the populations in the three counties.

Figure 4. Foreign born residents in the counties by region of origin.

Immigrants and Law in Georgia

      In April 2006, Governor Sonny Perdue signed the Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act. The act addressed a number of issues relating to the undocumented Georgia residents, for instance, employment of illegal immigrants, their access to public assistance and emergency health care, or provision of legal assistance to immigrants (Georgia General Assembly, 2006). The legislation takes effect on different dates depending on the size of the employer: (a) July 1, 2007 for employers with over 500 employees, (b) July 1, 2008 for employers with over 100 employees, and (c) July 1, 2009 for employers with less than 100 employees (Lurie & Kalmykov, 2007).

The bill prevents illegal immigrants from working in public service contracts. All public contractors and their sub-contractors who contract with the state of Georgia must verify a new hire’s work eligibility and participate in the federal employment verification program. Employers may not deduct payroll related expenses from the state income tax if they are not able to prove that an employee is authorized to work in the U.S. (Section 7b).

Furthermore, all state agencies must verify the lawful presence in the United States of any adult applying for state or local public benefits, as well as for federal public benefits administered by a state agency (Section 9a). Each state agency administering public benefits programs must provide an annual report demonstrating the compliance with the requirement. Verification of lawful presence is not required for the following (Section 9c):

1. Health care items and services necessary in an emergency medical condition.

2. Short-term, non-cash, in-kind emergency disaster relief.

3. Immunizations, testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases.

4. Soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, short-term shelter, and other programs, services, or assistance which: (a) deliver in-kind services at the community level, (b) do not condition the assistance on the recipient’s income or resources, and (c) are necessary to protect life or safety, prenatal care, or post-secondary education.

            The Act additionally sets standards of ethics for providers of immigrant assistance who are not licensed attorneys. Advertisements of services by such providers must include the statement: “I am not an attorney licensed to practice law and may not give legal advice or accept fees for legal advice” (Section 6e). The Statement must be in all languages that are used in the advertisement.

Some consider the Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act one of the toughest immigration laws in the country (Cowperthwaite, 2006). Overall, the law makes it harder to obtain or denies state services to adults residing in the state illegally. It also punishes companies knowingly hiring undocumented workers (Cowperthwaite, 2006; Gross, 2006; Lurie & Kalmykov, 2007).

Immigrants and Law in South Carolina

      In April 2007, the South Carolina Senate passed the measure which requires state and local governments’ contractors to check the legal status of their employees. It also made it a felony to harbor an illegal immigrant and barred illegal adults from public assistance (“Aiken Standard,” 2008, January 18). In January 2008, the South Carolina Senate panel approved a proposal which requires driver's license tests and other government paperwork to be in English only (Adcox, 2008, January 11). The legislation is being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Another House bill introduced prevents illegal immigrants from attending public colleges. At private schools, they could not receive state scholarships and would have to pay out-of-state tuition (“Aiken Standard,” 2008, January 18).

Literature Review

Defining Integration

Social studies refer to a number of terms to describe the experience of inclusion and adaptation of immigrants in the institutions and structures of the destination communities. Absorption, assimilation, acculturation, incorporation, multiculturalism, and integration are just a few examples of the terms used (Alba & Nee, 2005; Borrie, 1956; Eisensdtadt, 1954; Gordon, 1964; Jackson, 1969; Lockwood, 1964). This study focuses on the concept of integration as applied in practice in a local community context. In sociology, the term integration refers to “stable, cooperative relations within a clearly defined social system” (Bosswick & Heckmann, 2006, p. 2). Integration is viewed as a process that engages both the immigrant and the receiving community, and involves “an ongoing renegotiation of social, economic, and political relations and power” (Fix, Papademtriou, & Cooper, 2005, p. 3). According to Bauböck (1996), the concept of integration has a dual meaning and implies insertion and cohesion. Insertion of new elements, previously classified as belonging to an external environment, requires a social system to adapt to maintain its internal cohesion. Bauböck (1996) suggests that adaptation may be achieved in three ways: by segregation, assimilation, or accommodation. Segregation preserves the existing social structure and externalizes differences. Assimilation abolishes differences by changing the new elements to such an extent that they are indistinguishable. Accommodation means mutual adaptation of the inserted group and the structure of the larger society. The process of accommodation involves internalization of difference. Segregation, for Bauböck (1996), is an exclusionary solution, while assimilation and accommodation are considered integrative solutions.

Integration policies are generally designed to promote social mobility and inclusion. They support the proportionality of access, relations between groups, or provision of special facilities and compensatory schemes (Coussey & Christensen, 1997).         Integration policies, as defined by the Council of Europe, have to be based on the common framework of democratic rights and liberties and active participation of immigrants in a society. They have to ensure minimum standards of income, education, and accommodation, freedom of choice of religious and political beliefs, as well as cultural and sexual affiliation (Bauböck, 1994).

Overview of Integration Theories

      Assimilation Models.

Research on integration processes in the U.S. began in the 1920s in the sociological Chicago School and focused on the assimilation of immigrants. Three models of assimilation were then created: Wirth’s (1928) ecological model of immigrant inclusion and city development, Duncan’s (1933) generational cycles, and Park’s (1921, 1950) race relations cycle. According to Park (1921, 1950), the pattern of interaction among different ethnic groups passes the stages of isolation, competition, conflict, and accommodation. Initially, contact between different groups results in competition and conflict. With time, groups establish cooperation and divide labor in some spheres. Eventually, minority groups become assimilated.

In Wirth’s (1928) model of settlement, immigrants first establish urban enclaves and typically, after spending a generation or more in cities, migrate as individuals and families to suburbs. Suburbanization signifies a distinct phase in the process of acculturation and is prompted by the increase in economic status of the members of ethnic minorities. Immigrants exit from urban enclaves to more ethnically diverse suburbs, which ensures their further assimilation.

For Duncan (1933, p. 520) assimilation is a culture process involving “the acceptance of the ideas, attitudes, customs, and traditions of the new group.” In his view, assimilation is rarely a completed process and depends on the immigrant’s cultural background and conditions which he or she experiences in America. The second generation immigrants usually live in two conflicting cultural worlds, and the process of their adjustment involves the experience of conflict, disorganization, reorganization, and assimilation. Among the third generation Americans, assimilation is rapid and complete, intermarriage very common, and interest in the racial or national groups of their grandparents is low.

Critique of the Assimilation Theories.

The assimilation perspective has been questioned by a number of studies. Etzioni (1959) criticized Park’s (1921, 1950) model for vagueness. He also pointed out that Park’s (1921, 1950) concept of eventual assimilation evokes contradictory interpretations and is impossible to test. Gordon (1964) argued that theories of assimilation are rooted in ideologies of Anglo-conformity, the melting pot, and cultural pluralism. He claimed that they are more prescriptive of what the assimilation process should be than descriptive of what it actually is. Other researchers pointed out that assimilation theories do not explain incomplete assimilation of many groups and wrongly assume that the race relations cycle could apply to immigrants and racial minorities alike (Alba & Nee, 2005; Bean & Stevens, 2003; Frederking, 2007; Pedraza-Bailey, 2004).

Wirth’s (1928) model of settlement has inspired a number of studies on spatial integration processes (Alba & Nee, 2005; Alba, Logan, Stults, Marzan & Zhang, 1999; Bean & Stevens, 2003). Alba et al. (1999) found a significant relationship between the likelihood to move to suburbs and the increase in socio-economic status among Hispanic immigrants, as well as the presence of children and higher level of English proficiency in the case of White and Asian immigrants. However, the same study discovered that recent immigrants tend to settle outside of urban enclaves more often than immigrants in previous eras. Massey (1985) revealed that many immigrants settle in the suburbs directly upon arrival or after having lived in urban areas for just a short time. He concluded that Wirth’s (1928) model, developed to explain settlement patterns of non-Hispanic Whites in the early twentieth century, is no longer valid and contrasts with emerging contemporary suburban settlement patterns.

Duncan’s (1993) model of adaptation of the second and third generation has also been revised by later studies. Portes and Rumbaut (2001) distinguished three different types of acculturation processes across generations: dissonant, consonant, and selective. Consonant acculturation occurs when parents learn the new language and culture at the same speed as their children, or when this process among the youth is slowed due to the influence of the co-ethnic community. When the two generations acculturate at different paces, the process is referred to as dissonant. Selective acculturation means preservation of fluent bilingualism. Portes and Rumbaut (2001) link the latter with higher self-esteem and academic achievement of the second generation immigrants. Selective acculturation is also an alternative to generational role reversal, in which children of immigrants become “parents’ parents.” Generational role reversal undermines parental authority to control their children. As a result, children often choose counter-cultural models and refuse to conform with the American cultural mainstream (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). 

New Models of Integration.

Following the wave of criticism of the assimilation perspective, new models of immigrant incorporation have been developed, including: ethnic disadvantage model, middleman minority model, ethnic economy model, ethnic enclave economy model, ethnic niche model, and segmented assimilation model (Alba, Logan, Stults, Marzan & Zhang, 1999; Alba & Nee, 2005; Bean & Stevens, 2003; Bonacich, 1973; Etzioni, 1959; Gordon, 1964; Heisler, 2004; Light, 1979; Massey, 1985; Portes, 1995; Portes & Manning, 1986; Portes & Zhou, 1993; Waldinger, 1996). The new models, unlike assimilation theories, do not conceptualize the process of incorporation in cultural terms (Heisler, 2004). Instead, they focus on economic activity, labor markets, and socio-economic position. They emphasize the interaction between immigrants and the structure of American society rather than individual efforts of immigrants to adapt to their new environment.

For instance, ethnic disadvantage model attributes the incomplete assimilation of some groups to discrimination against immigrants and to structural and institutional barriers to their equal access to employment (Bean & Stevens, 2003). In the view of the segmented assimilation model, only some immigrants become a part of the mainstream society, while others have their pathways blocked and remain members of disadvantaged and racialized groups (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). Middleman minority model emphasizes the relationship between the systematic exclusion of some immigrants from mainstream employment and their choice to work as small-scale traders and merchants (Bonacich, 1980). According to the ethnic entrepreneur model, the very experience of immigration is a source of reactive solidarity that becomes a resource for immigrant group (Light, 1979). In the ethnic enclave economy model attention is directed to the coexistence of two separate and distinct labor markets. A primary labor market offers good jobs, satisfying wages, and security. The secondary labor market, on the other hand, is characterized by unskilled job positions, low wages, and employment insecurity (Portes & Manning, 1986). Immigrants who typically lack the necessary skills and are subject to discrimination have few opportunities for entering the primary market and for social mobility. For some groups, the ethnic enclave economy, which involves spatial concentration, within-group stratification, and sectoral specialization, provides an attractive alternative to exploitation in the secondary market. Finally, in the ethnic niche model public sector employment, along with immigrant entrepreneurship, becomes the ethnic employment niche (Waldinger, 1996).

According to Heisler (2004), ethnic niches emerge when an ethnic group is able to colonize a particular sector of employment, secure a privileged access to new job openings, and restrict the access of outsiders. Portes (1995) distinguishes strong and weak ethnic communities. Strong communities are identified based on geographic concentrations and more diversified occupational structures. Weak ethnic communities are small and comprised mainly of manual workers.

Recent Research.

Starting in the 1980s, the focus of the researchers shifted from the concepts of assimilation and labor market integration to multiculturalism, citizenship, and lately, transnationalism (Castles, 2003). Recent studies also emphasize the role of the transforming social processes in the U.S. society, especially the change from biracial to multiracial and multiethnic inter-group relations (Bean & Stevens, 2003). The new diversity allows immigrants to increase economic mobility and ensures less stereotypical approaches to the groups of newcomers. As phrased by Nee (2003, p. 497), “today, informal racism is not sufficiently powerful as a social force to create insurmountable barriers to social mobility for immigrants (…), either in higher education or in labor markets.”

      North (1990) questions the theories of assimilation and the ethnic niche models, attributing the competitive advantage and financial success to the cultural preservation rather than assimilation. Also Frerderking (2007) denies the existence of a simple link between prosperity and assimilation. The researcher notes that in some contexts prosperity coincides with or is the result of rejecting assimilation. Frerderking (2007) emphasizes that the success of integration is determined by the interaction of a particular group with the set of structural and cultural conditions of the receiving community. The integration process, as her research proves, is likely to fail in a situation of uncertainty, threat, and pressure to adapt in a short period of time. Such conditions force immigrant groups to rely on prior group interactions, and cultural and social ties. Once such pattern of interactions in a given community emerges, it becomes permanent.

Integration Typology

To date researchers distinguish several dimensions of social integration. Bosswick and Heckmann (2006) differentiate structural, cultural, interactive, and identificational integration. Structural integration refers to “the acquisition of rights and the access to position and status in the core institutions of the host community” (Bosswick & Heckmann, 2006, p. 9). The core institutions include the labor market, the education system, the housing system, welfare institutions, and political citizenship. The degree of immigrants’ structural integration determines their socio-economic status and the opportunities and resources available. The term cultural integration is often used interchangeably with the term acculturation and is measured by the acquisition of the core societal and culture competencies. Interactive integration, on the other hand, is based on the acceptance and inclusion of the immigrants in societal networks and relationships of the destination community. This form of integration is measured by the number of inter-group friendships, social networks, or voluntary organizations in which an individual participates (Bosswick & Heckmann, 2006). The feeling of belonging and identification with the goals of the community and its institutions indicates, finally, the identificational aspect of the integration process.

Ray (2002) points to a different typology of integration and distinguishes linguistic, labor market, civic, educational, and residential integration. The indicators of the linguistic integration include not only the level of competency, but also the choice of language used in public interactions, at home, and in inter-generational communication. Labor market integration is measured by the unemployment rate, labor market segmentation, female participation in the labor force, socio-professional mobility, and individual and household income among the immigrating group. Civic integration level is indicated by involvement in political parties, neighborhood associations, religious institutions and community groups, or by voting behavior. Fix et al. (2005) adds to the list of political integration indicators the frequency of interaction with policymakers, and the extent of effort made to increase the policymakers’ understanding of the immigrant community. School performance, drop-out rates, choice of schools, post-secondary education attainment, interaction with students from a host community, or parent-teacher communication measure, according to Ray (2002), the educational integration.  Finally, the residential integration is assessed depending on the degree of residential concentration or segregation, residential mobility, homeownership rates, dwelling size and crowding, as well as being subject to discrimination in rental markets (Ray, 2002). Immigrants might choose or be forced to function in an ethnic colony. That often prevents their upward mobility in the host community (Wiley, 1970).

Researchers additionally point to demographic indicators to assess the level of integration. Such indicators include mortality, fertility, and demographic changes in the immigrant population (Coussey & Chritensen, 1997; Fitzgerald, 1997). Integration can finally be measured by judicial indicators, such as rates of arrest, conviction and acquittal, discriminatory patterns in police and judicial behavior, or racially violent crimes. Bauböck (1996) emphasizes that public discourse concerning integration of immigrants should include all types of integration. Otherwise, the persistent problems stemming from disintegration in some respects will remain unexplained. In such case, immigrants are perceived as either a problem, or as victims.

Reception and Integration on a Local Level

      Most of the research and political debates relate to the implications of immigration for national and state level policies. The ways local governments approach changes in their constituencies is often overlooked. Research on local level policies gains validity especially in the view of the recent changes in U.S. settlement patterns. Recent studies indicate that immigration is no longer a regional phenomenon concentrated in a few border or gateway states like California, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Texas, or Illinois (Frey, 2005, 2006; Gozdziak & Martin, 2005; Jiménez, 2007; Portes & Rumbaut, 2006; Singer, 2004; Villarubia & Denton, 2007; Zúñiga & Hernández-León, 2005). Immigrants have started to diffuse and settle in new destinations, especially the South and Midwest, in such states as Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina, and South Carolina (Camarota & Keeley, 2001; Millard & Chapa, 2004). In the recent decade, South Carolina has experienced the 11th highest rate of increase in foreign-born population in the U.S. (Federation for American Immigration Reform, 2007b; Passel, 2005). In Georgia, the immigrant population increased by 233.4% between 1990 and 2000 and continues to grow (FAIR, 2007a; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, 2002, 2004). The shares of immigrant populations in the three counties under study have been lower than their states’ averages, but they have been increasing (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).

      Hernández-León and Zúñiga (2005) believe that studying local and regional settings becomes increasingly relevant because it allows one to observe how national policies and social processes are reshaped in local communities, characterized by unique histories, demographic traits, and intergroup dynamics. Portes (1995) identifies three levels of immigrant reception on the mid-level of the social structure: the level of government policy, the level of civil society and public opinion, and the level of immigrant community. Government policies may exclude, passively accept, or actively encourage immigration. Acceptance of the host community determines the amount and quality of intergroup interaction and the willingness of the receiving community to assist the new community members. Portes (1995) emphasizes the importance of public opinion in the receiving community. He notes that public opinion may be prejudiced, depending on the origin of the immigrants. In his opinion, government action has little impact if not supported by public opinion about immigrants in local communities. Portes (1999) further differentiates immigrant groups on the basis of four main factors: (a) the cultural history and traits, (b) the degree of compatibility of the immigrant group culture with the mainstream middle class American culture, (c) ethnic markers, and (d) the political and social capital. Portes and Rumbaut (2001) argue that the more similar the newcomers are to the community members, the more likely they are to be favorably received. Also, immigrants to well-established co-ethnic networks get considerably more assistance in accommodating themselves to a new community.

      Waters and Jiménez (2005) note that the integration processes in the new receiving communities differ from the experiences of immigrants in traditional destination areas. The authors point to differences in inter-group relations and established notions of the place of immigrants in racial, ethnic, and class hierarchies. Inter-group relations have been of particular importance in the South, where politics have been predominantly the politics of race (Fleischmann & Pierannunzi, 1997). Until recently the immigrants to the South used to come in relatively small numbers and were predominantly of European descent (Cabell, 2007). Hernández-León and Zúñiga (2005, p.252) admit that Hispanic immigrants, the largest recent group of newcomers, “do not easily fit in the racialized order” of Georgia. The study of Hispanic immigrants in rural Georgia by Studstill and Nieto-Studstill (2001) indicates that hospitality toward the newcomers outweighs hostility. However, the researchers argue that the three major ethnic groups, White, Black, and Hispanic, see themselves as distinctive entities and the convergence of interest is unlikely, especially in the event of economic downturn. The historic accounts also show an unclear place of Asian immigrants in the biracial South (Reimers, 2005). In the past, Asian newcomers were neither embraced by Whites, nor were they incorporated by African-American groups (Reimers, 2005). The study by Neal and Bohon (2003) shows a relationship between the negative perception of immigrants and age and length of residence in Georgia. The authors link hostility towards immigrants with the set notion of how the intergroup relations should be. Surprisingly, the study does not identify any ties between negative attitudes and gender, race, type of residence, political orientation, or income.

      Rich and Miranda (2005) argue that little historic intercultural experience, as well as language and culture barriers make working class Whites and Blacks uncomfortable with new Hispanic immigrants. According to Rich and Miranda (2005, p. 203), Hispanic immigrants pose a “symbolic challenge” to working class African-Americans and add to the feelings of oppression and disadvantage of the latter group. Despite the tension between Latinos and blacks, based on the notion that Hispanic immigrants take away jobs from poor Blacks, Rich and Miranda (2005) attribute the adverse attitudes towards Hispanics to non-economic factors, such as cultural racism, symbolic territory, and xenophobia. In contrast, Neal and Bohon (2003) argue that the reception context in Georgia is influenced by economic conditions and link negative attitudes to immigrants to the perceived economic threat. They note that despite the quickly expanding economy, unemployment rates in Georgia are still among the highest nationally, and more than a quarter of the state population lives at or below the poverty level (Duchon & Murphy, 2001; Neal & Bohon, 2003).

      Hernández-León and Zúñiga (2005) agree that interethnic relations have their own local and regional history and develop in conjunction with class relations. At the same time they advise against treating Whites, Blacks, and immigrant groups as monoliths, because class, gender, legal status, regional roots, and experience also play a role in intergroup relations. In their study of Dalton, Georgia the authors discern different reactions to immigrants among local groups. White political elite and middle-class professionals embrace immigrants in a “neopaternalistic” way (p.270). Dislocated low-income and working class Whites, however, feel symbolically threatened and chose to leave the community, rather than openly contest the changes brought about by the presence of large numbers of newcomers.

Waters and Jiménez (2005) suggest that, apart from inter-group relations, the size of new destination communities may affect assimilation and integration processes. They believe that small towns provide more opportunities for interaction and decrease social isolation of immigrants. However, Waters and Jiménez (2005) also admit that such new communities often lack the institutional structures designed to make the immigrant integration process easier. Seldom do the new destination communities have linguistically and culturally relevant institutions or programs assisting new immigrants with access to health care, English language acquisition, or financial, legal, and social service aid (Cabell, 2007).

      Reitz (2003) calls attention to four factors that effect the reception of immigrants in destination communities: the pre-existing ethnic and race relations, characteristics of the labor market, policies and programs targeting immigrants, and finally, globalization processes. Pre-existing relations and intergroup boundaries and hierarchies determine opportunities and constraints faced by immigrants as they influence laws, policies, practices, interests and cultural patterns. Labor markets differ, according to Reitz (2003), in the size of immigrants’ segments and niches, but also industrial relations and processes, earning dispersions, gender inequalities, or unemployment rates. Reitz (2003) also argues that attitudes towards different religious and racial groups influence the cultural context of labor markets. Reitz (1998, 2003) emphasizes the increasing role of education in labor markets. He links the economic mobility of immigrants to their access to educational institutions. According to Frederking (2007), housing and education policies define the structural context of a community and influence its transition. Globalization and global migration, on the other hand, lead to a declining sense of social cohesion and undermined support “for the provision for the collective well-being” (Reitz, 1998, p. 246). The phenomena of secondary and serial migration becomes common as immigrants move from one country to another in search of better employment opportunities.

      Researchers agree that integration of immigrants is influenced by the initial migrant experience in the new community (Donato, Stainback & Bankston, 2005). According to Donato et al. (2005) three forces are decisive in the integration of newcomers: community reception, employers, and co-ethnic networks. Early controversy and resistance from local residents or strict employer control may prevent the formation of stable and permanent immigrant community. Contract labor system and segregated housing may lead to immigrants’ entrapment, isolation, mistreatment, and discrimination. Placing houses away from the job site reduces employer’s control over workers. However, without any assistance from a co-ethnic community and services helping immigrants in their transition process, there are no mechanisms to introduce the newcomers to the community. As Donato et al. (2005) prove, provision of services and assistance by a community social worker ensures high levels of immigrant satisfaction, even when immigrants are geographically isolated from the rest of the community.

Impact of Immigrants on a Community

A number of factors influence the ability of immigrants to influence local government’s agenda and activities. This ability depends on the degree of communications between immigrants and local officials, the tendency of immigrant groups to mobilize, the representation of immigrant groups on government boards and commissions, the share of immigrants in the local community, their familiarity with the American political system and with local issues, and the perception of immigrants among the native residents and local representatives (Ramakrishnan & Lewis, 2005).

Zúñiga and Hernández-León (2001) claim that immigration of single men has minimal impact on a community. In contrast, the arrival of entire families affects schools, hospitals, churches, leisure and consumption space. The visibility and impact of immigrants depends on the size of host communities and may at times account for true social and demographic revolution. Reimer (2005) argues that Asian immigrants are changing the South’s culture as they introduce new, non-Christian religions. The numbers of Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs are growing.

Local Integration Policy in Practice

The role local governments should play in the integration of immigrants is not clear and there is no guiding set of rules to standardize local efforts (Cabell, 2007). Different studies point to several problems that are often associated with large concentrations or shares of immigrants in a community. They include housing issues, informal business, public safety problems, abuse of workers’ rights, and above all, communication limitations due to immigrants’ compromised command of English (Ramakrishnan & Lewis, 2005). Benavides and Hernández (2007) link the success of a local government to its ability to adapt to a new situation.

According to Reitz (2003), programs to assist immigrant integration may include language training, employment assistance, interpretation services, and regulation of intergroup relations or local building codes. Benavides and Hernández (2007) identify six best practices: cultural competency, translation and interpretation services, participation on boards and committees, policing services, immigrant services, and day-labor sites. Benavides and Hernández (2007, Six best practices, para. 3) argue that cultural competency “begins with the dominant culture becoming self-aware of its own customs and then being responsive to and understanding of the cultural differences of other people within a system.” The knowledge about groups and individuals translates into policies and procedures which increase the quality of the services and ensure desired outcomes. Benavides and Hernández (2007) emphasize the crucial task of the police service to gain trust and confidence of those being served. Community outreach and ability to communicate with residents in their languages becomes a necessity. Finally, immigration services link new immigrants to health services, social services, and transportation.

Benavides and Hernández (2007) describe exemplary cases of local governments responding to changing demographics in their communities. Alexandria, Virginia provides new Hispanic residents with English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) instruction and workshops about citizenship, community resources, employment, health, domestic violence, and taxes. The goal is to include Hispanic residents in the American mainstream through “sensitive” acculturation and self-sufficiency (Benavides & Hernández, 2007, Case examples, para.5). Santa Barbara, California arranges for simultaneous translation of the city council meetings. Reno, Nevada provides classes in Spanish to interested city employees. Stockton, California has a job placement within a local government agency to improve the job skills of the Southeast Asian refugees. It also works to prevent and reduce crimes targeted at the Hispanic community. To address the fears of deportation, police officers do not ask about the immigration status of the crime victims. Immigrants are also encouraged to sign up for a bank account. The local government works to convince banks to accept matrículas consulares as forms of identification. It also invites the Mexican consulate to fairs and events to enable Mexican immigrants to obtain proper documentation. Finally, Woodburn, Oregon employs a community relations officer (CRO) to translate, prepare newsletters, organize events, and promote city services and activities in local media (Brown & Tien, 2007).

      Brown and Tien (2007), after an extensive research identify key elements of successful programs addressing diverse communities. They are the following:

1. Support from the top is important to success.

2. Don’t focus on immigration status; services will not be utilized without trust.

3. Provide extensive outreach and make drop-in services easily accessible.

4. Analyze contacts to identify common issues, themes, and problems for follow up.

5. Translate written materials, city Web site information, and newsletters into the languages and dialects of diverse communities. Present not just the “what” but also the “why.” Use these materials to educate about government.

6. Use radio and television; some members of diverse and immigrant communities are not literate.

7. Cultivate local minority-owned businesses as partners in serving diverse communities.

8. Coordinate with other agencies that provide services to diverse and immigrant communities.

9. Understand the cultural differences in how meetings are conducted: meetings should be neighborhood based; start with meet-and-greet time to establish trust; provide child care; (…) have food or snacks available.

10. Implement best practices in two phases: short term for demonstrated successes; then longer-term programs.

11. Evaluate regularly the effectiveness of new best practices programs for serving diverse communities.

Purpose and Significance

Research on the integration of immigrants in non-traditional host communities with the historically limited exposure to the large scale immigration is in its initial stage. This study will contribute to the body of knowledge about the ways local governments in the South-East respond to the challenges of the increased immigration. It will focus on Aiken County in South Carolina and Columbia and Augusta-Richmond County in Georgia. The three counties were selected due to the distinct demographic and socio-economic characteristics of their population, differing racial make-up and shares of immigrants from different regions. The counties have also been influenced by different state level immigration policies.

The research is of an exploratory nature, as the information about local immigrants and immigration policies is very limited. The study is designed to answer the following research questions:

1. How have the three local governments dealt with the integration of immigrants?

2. Do the governments have any policies and programs in place concerning the integration of immigrants?

3. Do the governments cooperate with any non-profit organizations that deal with the integration of immigrants?

4. How do local governments help immigrants?

5. What are the factors that have led to implementing specific policies and programs or what accounts for the lack of such policies and programs?

6. What do local officials think about the immigration policies in their states?

For the purpose of the study, several approaches to integration will be distinguished depending on (a) the types of efforts local governments make to react to the growing number of new-coming immigrants, (b) the consistency of their efforts across different groups of immigrants, and (c) the comprehensiveness of the issues they cover. First, local government’s approach could be receptive, indifferent, or hostile to the integration of immigrants in the social, political, and economic life of a community (Portes, 1995). Receptive approach would be indicated by a government’s attempts to support immigrant groups in the problematic areas mentioned before. A government could use its own resources by assigning a coordinator targeting the needs of immigrants or cooperate with non-profit organizations addressing challenges faced by immigrants. Some examples of the receptive approach would be: interpretative services in public offices, the provision of English classes, or acceptance of Mexican Consular ID in the case of Mexican immigrants. The hostile approach to integration, on the other hand, could be exemplified by issuing regulations that punish employers for hiring illegal immigrants or otherwise exclude immigrants from policymaking, or the cultural and social life of a host community.

The approach local governments take could further be classified as active or passive. The active approach would result in initiatives that respond to local challenges associated with the recent influx of immigrants. The passive approach would be marked by a lack of reaction despite the awareness of the growing needs of new settling migrants. Moreover, the approach could be classified as selective if local policies and regulations differentiate immigrants depending on their legal status, country of origin, race, or any other characteristic. The consistent approach, on the other hand, would not distinguish between any subgroups of immigrants. Finally, the integration efforts could concentrate on a single integration issue, or address multiple concerns through a range of policies or programs. For example, the local governments might only focus on the enforcement of anti-immigrant regulations, or they could work on an overall improvement of health care, education and employment opportunities of the local immigrant groups (United Way of America, 1996).

      Defining Immigrants.

Researchers and advocacy groups differ in their classification of who is an immigrant. Some define immigrants on the basis of a person’s country of birth or citizenship, while others include in the immigrant population children of foreign-born residents (FAIR, 2007a; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). This study focuses on first generation foreign-born newcomers, regardless of their citizenship or legal status. Second and third generation immigrants are purposely excluded from the investigation. The recent wave of immigrants is of particular interest due to its scale and characteristics, and its influence on the cultural, economic, and political dynamics of the new host communities.

Methodology

Methods

The data in the study was collected with the use of the following two qualitative research methods:

a. In-depth interviews with commissioners and council members, administrators, sheriffs, and school system representatives in the three counties.

b. Content analysis of:

(a) Articles referring to the topic of local and state immigration policies in The Augusta Chronicle, The Aiken Standard, and The Columbia County News Times.

(b) Relevant agendas and minutes of meetings of commissioners and council members in the three counties.

(c) Documents provided by the county officials relevant to the immigration policy issues in the counties.

The unstructured interview format was used to allow for asking open-ended questions and for probing the key elites regarding their thoughts and attitudes to integration. The inquiry process was not constrained by pre-established categories of responses. The set of questions was modified in the course of the interviews to adjust to the county and the official interviewed, and to incorporate information accumulated in previous interviews. Considering the exploratory nature of the study, the validity and understanding of the key processes seemed more important that the reliability of the research instrument.

The qualitative interviewing process included: (a) doing the actual interviews, (b) transcribing the interviews from a voice recorder to a written text, and (c) analyzing the interviews in relation to the research questions. The interviews covered the following set of themes: (a) local immigration policies and programs employed by the counties, (b) cooperation between the governing bodies and non-profit organizations dealing with immigrants, (c) attitudes of the officials to the statewide immigration policy, (d) sources of information about the local immigrants, (e) familiarity with the problems of the local immigrants, their settlement patterns and influence on local community, and (f) perceived role of the local government in the integration of immigrants.

The second method employed, the content analysis, provided the preliminary data on the local immigration issues under debate and directed the interviewing efforts. The following steps were conducted in the content analysis process:

1. Collection of relevant articles and public records.

2. Codification of articles and public records (see Appendix) with the use of Excel program consisting of: (a) identification of specific arguments relevant to the research questions, (b) codification of these arguments, (c) analysis of the substance of the statements, and (d) description of the substance of the statements.

c. Analysis of the content of coded arguments in terms of participants, situations, their attitudes and ideas.

The content analysis was conducted with the use of an open coding frame (see Appendix) developed as a result of literature review and preliminary readings on Georgia and South Carolina’s immigration issues. Codification and analysis of the statements took into account a number of categories that were expected to help characterize the local discourse and public policy environment concerning immigrants. The analysis first distinguished the subject of an argument, whether it was a local public official, a news reporter or concerned resident, and a topic of the argument. Subsequently, a document was analyzed in terms of the expressed attitude to the integration of immigrants, whether it is receptive, hostile, or indifferent, active or passive, selective or consistent. Furthermore, the focus of the argument was scrutinized, whether it related to the economic, political, social, or cultural issues concerning immigrant groups. For instance, an economic oriented argument focused on immigrants’ contribution to the increased competition in labor market and their effect on local systems of social protection and redistribution (Bauböck, 1996). It would also discuss immigrants’ contribution to economic growth or their role in slowing down the process of outsourcing labor overseas. In an argument incorporating a political perspective, immigrants were perceived as a new group growing in political power and influence in local and regional politics. Social perspective distinguished the role of immigrant groups in the process of social change, their participation in social movements, their socio-economic status, and social mobility. Cultural perspective related to the immigrant groups’ patterns of behavior, beliefs, values, and language.

      Codification of the statements additionally included scope of arguments and signs of prejudice against immigrant groups. The scope of arguments was determined based on whether the documents related to the state or to the local immigration issues. The indicators of prejudice were tracked by noting references to immigrants’ racial or cultural differences as barriers to their integration or inclusion in the local community. The category “others” ensured the inclusion of all relevant issues not taken into account while designing the data collections and analysis.

Sampling

      Interviews.

The population for the interviews consisted of the local commissioners and council members, county administrators, sheriffs, and local school system representatives. The choice of these groups of officials stemmed from their anticipated familiarity with issues in their counties and their relative influence on the local policymaking processes. A combination of purposive and quota sampling was used to select subjects for the interviews. Non-probability sampling seemed appropriate due to the small size of the population. Also, the goal of the study was to understand the processes that have influenced the integration policymaking in the three counties, not to generalize from a sample to a wider group. Limitations on time and resources made it difficult to interview every commissioner or council member. Quota sampling ensured that such statistics as gender and race/ethnicity were distributed proportionate to the parameters that exist among council members and commissioners. Table 1 shows the racial composition of the commissions and the council as of January 2008. The respondents selected approximated the quota frame shown in Table 2 and Figure 1.

   Table 1

         Racial Makeup of the Legislative Bodies in the Three Counties

Race	Aiken	Augusta	Columbia	Total
White	8	5	5	18
African-American	1	5	-	6
Total	9	10	5	24

 Table 2

   Quota Frame for the Selection of the Commissioners and Council Members

Race	Women	Men	Total
White	12.5%	62.5%	75%
African-American	4%	21%	25%
Total	16.5%	83.5%	100%

Figure 5. Quota frame for the selection of the commissioners and council members

       from the three counties.

Half of the current 24 commissioners and council members were interviewed. The sample included 2 female representatives, 2 African-American representatives, and 8 White male representatives. It also contained 5 commissioners from Augusta-Richmond County, 4 council members from Aiken County, and 2 commissioners from Columbia County.

Purposive sampling was used to select the remaining desirable respondents. The choice was based on the positional criteria. The administrators and sheriffs in the three counties were selected due to the key positions they hold. They are publicly known and easily identifiable. Columbia and Aiken County have one administrator, and there are two administrators in Augusta-Richmond County. One administrator from each county was interviewed. Also, local school system representatives were interviewed due to their familiarity with educational programs and activities targeting immigrant adults and children in the three counties. In total the sample included 22 respondents.

      Content Analysis.

The three newspapers included in the study are the main sources of local news; they also reflect and shape public opinion in the three counties. Using purposive sampling, the articles and documents that relate to the topic of local or state immigration policies were selected. The articles, documents, agendas, and minutes of meetings analyzed referred to the current terms of office of each county’s elected governing body.

Purpose of the Research

Given the lack of sufficient information about local immigrants the study was of exploratory nature. No hypothesis on the relationships between independent and dependant variables were tested to avoid making assumptions that could hinder the qualitative interview process and compromise its validity. The study was intended to lay ground for future use of more standardized methods of inquiry.

Content Analysis

Augusta Chronicle

            The archives of the Augusta Chronicle for the years 2006 and 2007 contained 78 articles relating to immigrants and immigration issues. After preliminary screening, 35 articles were selected for the analysis and included 20 news reports, 8 editorials, and 7 letters to the editor. The majority of the letters to the editor and staff editorials analyzed were hostile towards immigrants and their integration. In contrast to that, 40% of the news reports were indifferent, while one third were receptive to immigrant integration (See Figure 6). Most of the letters and over half of the editorials and reports supported or described active government involvement in the immigration regulation on the state or local level (See Figure 7).

Figure 6. Attitudes to integration in Augusta Chronicle articles.

Figure 7. Desired or current government activeness relating to immigrants in Augusta Chronicle articles.

            All editorials, 78% of the reports, and 71% of the letters targeted selected group of immigrants: unauthorized aliens, newcomers from Mexico, or Hispanics (See Figure 8). Over 40% of the letters and editorials focused on social aspects of immigration (See Figure 9). The news reports were more frequently concerned with economic issues (31%), political processes (22%), and legal consequences of immigration bills and ordinances (11%).

Figure 8. Policy or discourse approach to different immigrant groups in Augusta Chronicle articles.

Figure 9. Focus of the immigration discourse in Augusta Chronicle articles.

            The majority of the news reports focused on local and state level immigration problems (See Figure 10). The discourse in the letters and editorials referred predominantly to the general or national scope of the immigration issue. Over half of the editorials showed signs of prejudice against selected groups of immigrants, especially Mexicans. News reports were the least prejudiced in their attitudes to immigrants (See Figure 11).

Figure 10. Scope of the arguments about immigration in Augusta Chronicle articles.

Figure 11. Indicators of prejudice present in Augusta Chronicle articles.

Letters to the Editor.

            A number of the letters to the editor emphasized the burden that illegal immigrants place on the health and educational systems, which outweighs the benefits they may bring to the economy. Authors of the letters were bothered by the fact that immigrants come to the U.S., “drain the services,” and send money home. One author urged employers to certify that they could not find any U.S. citizen before they offer a job to an immigrant.

            Other letters pointed out that illegal immigrants break laws and fill prisons, that they are criminals and should be deported. Two letters advocated that a baby born to an illegal immigrant should not be considered an American citizen. Also, some argued that immigrants should learn to speak English and to sing the national anthem in English. One student complained that learning Spanish at school does not benefit anyone.

         Editorials.

            Several editorials argued that immigrant labor allows for lower prices of products. Nevertheless it is not worth the cost, as immigrants do not contribute to taxes and Social Security, use public benefits, and send money back home. Editorials condemned Georgia protests of illegal immigrants. As it was noted, illegal immigrants “boycott schools, jobs and businesses, and try to close down cities.” Editorials were also concerned with national security threatened by “the daily flood of illegal immigration.” They considered illegal immigration to be “an act of aggression and attempt to annex the American Southwest.”

            Some editorials further pointed out that many illegal aliens are criminals and have no respect for the law. Illegal immigrants are believed to fuel drug trade, join gangs, and commit crimes. “People are afraid to walk the streets,” one of the respondents cited stated. Another source of concern was the fact that immigrants have little incentive to learn English and do not desire or need to assimilate. According to one of the editorials, “Illegal aliens disdain English and the American way of life.”

         News Reports.

            One of the news reports compared taxes paid by illegal immigrants living in Georgia with the state and federal expenditures on immigrants’ health and educational needs. It concluded that they even out. It also cited the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials representative who argued that children and grandchildren of current illegal immigrants will contribute much to the society once they start their careers with better education and earnings.

Several of the reports pointed to new business opportunities associated with the growing number of immigrants. For example, farmers start to discover the growing market of ethnic crops, a potentially profitable revenue stream. Restaurant owners also begin to target Latino customers. Georgia Employers for Immigration Reform, the coalition of 21 individual businesses and trade associations, asserts that the state’s economy depends on immigrant workers. In one report, the problem of aging of Georgia work force was raised.  Immigrants were suggested as potential replacement for future labor shortage.

            One report focused on ethnic relations and political processes associated with the growing Hispanic group. According to the report, the majority of Blacks in the South favor cutting back on legal immigration. More Blacks than Whites attribute their job loss to an immigrant. At the same time NAACP officials look into the possible coalition of African-American and Hispanic communities. Future political affiliation of the Hispanics is under debate and the influence of the new Georgia law on the support of Hispanics for Republican Party is discussed.

            The news reports also brought up social problems relating to the influx of immigrants in Georgia. They pointed to the issue of overcrowded housing and the conditions of living of Hispanic immigrants. They also called attention to robberies targeted at immigrants who carry cash and do not call police for fear of deportation. One report focused on the case of Mexican immigrants being victims of hate crimes. As the report disclosed, illegal immigrants can not buy a gun to protect themselves because they do not have an ID.

Another problem discussed was the isolation of immigrants in communities in which they reside. As it was noted, White residents do not socialize with Hispanics because of the language barrier. One report cited a Catholic Church leader who argued that immigrants came with a lot of expectations and they want to integrate as much as possible. Marginalization of immigrants was also discussed. One of the respondents cited argued that illegal immigrants, despite constituting a significant share of the U.S. population, live in the shadows, without any rights.

Two news reports, finally, described first locally organized efforts to provide services and outreach Latinos. As one disclosed, the Asociacion Latina de Servicios del CSRA organizes monthly free treatment for those who do not have medical insurance and speak little English. The care is provided by volunteer doctors, nurses or medical students. Another report described a successful campaign of recruiting Hispanics to Girls Scouts. According to the report, being a part of this organization will help immigrant children become a part of America.

Columbia County News Times

      The archives of Columbia County News Times contained 50 articles related to immigrants and immigration issues. After preliminary readings, 11 articles were selected for the analysis and included 2 news reports, 3 letters to the editor, and 6 editorials. The news reports were either indifferent or receptive to immigrants and their integration. Letters to the editor and editorials showed a more hostile approach (See Figure 12).

Figure 12. Attitudes to integration in Columbia County News Times articles.

            The majority of the editorials and letters to the editor encouraged active government involvement in the immigration problem (See Figure 13). All of the articles were uniformly selective in their focus and related to illegal immigrants (See Figure 14).

Figure 13. Desired or current government activeness relating to immigrants in Columbia

County News Times articles.

Figure 14. Policy or discourse approach to different immigrant groups in Columbia

County News Times articles.

            The news reports related to the social and cultural aspects of the local immigration. The editorials focused more on the economic and letters on the social aspects (See Figure 15). News reports focused more frequently on the local level immigration problems; the editorials raised local and state topics, while the letters were mainly concerned with the national level political solutions (See Figures 16). None of the articles was prejudiced against any group of immigrants (See Figure 17).

Figure 15. Focus of the immigration discourse in Columbia County News Times articles.

Figure 16. Scope of the arguments about immigration in Columbia County News Times articles.

Figure 17. Indicators of prejudice present in Columbia County News Times articles.

Letters to the Editor.

One of the letters commented on the Georgia initiatives to enforce state laws and concluded that there should be a strong enforceable federal law in place to stop the problem of hiring illegal immigrants. According to one author, cheap wages saved by employers should not justify increased cost of education, law enforcement, health care, and other social services that are related to illegal immigrants. In another letter, the author believed that due to immigrant influx, the sovereignty of the country is at stake. Two authors were aggravated by media coverage of the protests by illegal aliens. Finally, one claimed that the U.S. needs immigrants and shipping them back is not the answer.

Staff Editorials and Guest Columnists.

The editorials analyzed pointed to a number of economic issues relating to illegal and Hispanic immigrants. One argued that big business takes advantage of cheap workers but the fact is that American consumers enjoy the prices resulting from lower labor costs. Another blamed illegal immigrants for taking jobs which many homeless Katrina victims would accept. The impact of the new Georgia immigration law was also discussed. One editorial noted that the area's construction and agricultural industries could be seriously affected by tougher enforcement of laws against illegal immigration. One called immigration an invasion. Another focused on immigrants’ work ethics and pointed out that the newcomers do jobs that local residents will not do and in conditions that are intolerable for native residents.

Finally, reintroduction of Norwood's Clear Law Enforcement for Removal of Criminal Illegal Aliens (CLEAR) Act was greeted with applause. The legislation would give local law enforcement authorities the ability to enforce immigration laws. Articles also called for a strong enforceable federal law in place that prevents people from hiring of illegal immigrants. Georgia initiatives to enforce state laws were viewed as meaningless.

News Reports.

According to one report, the Grovetown mayor worried about the impact of new Georgia immigration law on the local Hispanic workers. As it was noted, the Hispanics wait in the city street corners in the early-morning hours for builders to pick them up for a day's work. Another report described efforts of a nonprofit organization serving local Latino community to address the problem of language barrier, which often equals a barrier to health care. Asociacion Latina de Servicios del CSRA Inc. organized a fair in Grovetown that provided screenings for chronic diseases and children's physicals, and delivered information about food stamps, HIV/AIDS, the Department of Family and Children Services, lupus, the federal WIC program and prostate health. During the fair, representatives from the Columbia County Health Department informed residents about Medicaid and Peachcare for Kids.

Aiken Standard

Aiken Standard Archives from the years 2006 and 2007 contained over 500 articles that related to immigrants and immigration issues. The final analysis included 57 articles with 39 news reports, 16 letters to the editor, and 2 staff editorials.

The majority of the letters to the editor and news reports were hostile towards immigrants and their integration or described a governmental action that was targeted against selected groups of immigrants. Out of the two editorials analyzed, one was hostile and one was indifferent towards integration of immigrants (See Figure below).

Figure 18. Attitudes to integration in Aiken Standard articles.

Roughly 63% of the letters, 69% of the news reports, and one of the two editorials called for government’s active involvement in the immigration processes or described steps current local and state governments take to act on the immigration problems (See Figure 19). The overwhelming majority of the letters (88%) and news reports (95%), and one of the two editorials focused on one selected group of immigrants: illegal immigrants, immigrants from Mexico, or Hispanics (See Figure 20).

Figure 19. Desired or current government activeness relating to immigrants in Aiken Standard.

Figure 20. Policy or discourse approach to different immigrant groups in Aiken Standard.

Figure 21. Scope of the arguments about immigration in Aiken Standard articles.

            The news reports and editorials tended to focus more on the local and state level immigration processes, while the majority of the letters refered to the general issue of immigration, without sepcifying its geographical scope (See Figure 21). Letters were related more often to social and cultural changes brought about by the recent influx of immigrants from Latin America. The news reports called more attention to economic and legal aspects of passing new state or local immigrant legislation. Editorials related to social and economical aspects of the local and state immigration (See Figure 22). Over one third of the letters to the editor contained indicators of prejudice against selected groups of immigrants. None of the editorials and 5% of the news reports was classified as prejudiced (See Figure 23).

Figure 22. Focus of the immigration discourse in Aiken Standard articles.

Figure 23. Indicators of prejudice present in Aiken Standard articles.

News Reports.

            The news reports pointed to a number of economic issues relating to illegal and Hispanic immigrants in South Carolina. According to four of the reports, illegal immigrants do not pay taxes and use public benefits. They also accept wages that locals will not, competing for jobs with White and Black low paid workers. As the reports described, educating poor and limited English students is very costly. Dependents of illegal migrant workers are blamed for the use of benefits without relevant financial input. In addition to that, newly arrived Latinos do not contribute to the local economy because they send home about 25% of their incomes. On the other side of the spectrum, Georgia and South Carolina farmers cited claim that there aren’t enough local workers to harvest peaches and pluck their chickens, so immigrants are their only option (3).

            A number of articles referred to illegal immigrants as “criminal invaders” that come to “conquer the country,” instead of becoming a part of it. Illegal aliens moving to Aiken County are not welcome for a number of reasons, including the fact that they increase numbers of people below the poverty level. Aiken residents also are worried that so little is known about the newcomers.

            The recent influx of Hispanic immigrants to South Carolina has given hate groups a new target. Crime victims rarely call the police because of their immigration status. Hate crimes have been on the rise since immigration became the issue controversial nationally. The largest neo-Nazi group in the U.S. rallied against illegal immigration at the South Carolina Statehouse.

            Statistics point to educational problems of the Hispanic immigrants in South Carolina. Only 66% of Hispanic students passed English arts tests compared with 85% of white students. Statistics also show that the median age of Mexican immigrants in South Carolina is 29, and they average eight years of schooling. They come to South Carolina directly from Mexico, unlike in the case of Georgia. More than half of them plan to return to Mexico. New problems arise with the increasing number of illegal immigrants. For example, in nine out of every ten immigrant deaths identification of the body becomes a problem.

            Experts from the University of South Carolina cited advocate on behalf of the new immigrants. They argue against marginalizing Mexican newcomers by denying them driver’s licenses and not providing places to learn English and access affordable health care. The experts warn that the new immigrants might become a new underclass.

      A lot of immigrants do not speak English, which is a source of a major concern (2). State and local legislatures in South Carolina take steps to make English the only language used in any official setting. At the same time, advocates of immigrants argue that the newcomers are trying to learn English but it is a long process and they need to be able to communicate in the meantime.

      Finally, news reports discussed the legality of the new local immigration laws, noting that the laws are not likely to be upheld by federal judges (3). Enforcement of the local ordinances concerning illegal immigrants is not only costly but also problematic. Questions arise, for example, if a chain store hires illegal aliens in one location, but not in the jurisdiction where it is forbidden, should it be penalized? According to one of the reports, the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce discouraged cities and counties from passing their own immigration ordinances to protect the prosperity of businesses in the state. Local law enforcement agencies, on the other hand, look into signing agreements with Homeland Security to allow local public safety officials enforce immigration laws. In four reports it was argued that immigration reform needs to be done at the federal or state level.

Letters to the Editor.

            Only 10% of the letters to the editor focused on economic issues, bringing up the argument that immigrants burden schools, avoid paying taxes, and that the taxpayers need to “succumb to the insatiable appetite of big business for cheap labor.” Over half of the letters drew attention to social issues relating to immigration, such as immigrant ghettos and immigrant crime. As one asserted, dozens of Americans get killed daily by illegal immigrants. Another rebutted that immigrants are less likely to be in jail or prison than other U.S. citizens. One advocated on behalf of the immigrants, portraying them as ordinary people who want to remain in the U.S. with their family. Another explained that illegal immigrants break civil law, not criminal law, and that Americans themselves break civil law regularly.

            One letter emphasized the advantage of the diversity that has made the U.S. nation powerful. Another pointed to the hypocrisy of individuals who criticize politicians, but passively accept the presence of illegal immigrants themselves. The Christian community was blamed for the lack of response to the needy groups of immigrants. One letter recommended that all immigrants who try to become American citizens should serve in the U.S. military. Another argued against giving driver’s licenses to immigrants and warned against the dangers their possession of the licenses poses.

            In one letter immigrants were praised for their work ethic. A number of them, however, expressed frustration with immigrants’ unwillingness to learn English. Authors worried that English will not survive “the conquest of inundated floods of immigrants.” They supported the regulations that make English the only language used.

Documents Analysis

Augusta-Richmond County

      Two documents were supplied by the respondents from Augusta-Richmond County that were analyzed to further the understanding of the county approach to immigrants.

1. Augusta Richmond County Voter Statistics
2. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Frequently Asked Questions

The first document contains statistics on the county voters by race or ethnicity. It reveals that Asians and Hispanics constitute 0.59% and 0.84% of all county registered voters. Referring to this document, one official explained why the needs of immigrants are not amongst issues discussed by the county commission. As the official admitted, the representatives seek political support from larger blocks of voters.

      The second document supplied by the Sheriff’s Office representative explains the organization of the Compliance Enforcement Unit (CEU) and details the cooperation between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Interpol. CEU is the national program established by ICE in 2003 that enforces nonimmigrant visa violations. It allows monitoring students, tourists, and temporary workers present in the U.S. and identifying those who violate their status and overstay their visa.

Columbia County

      Five documents were analyzed in relation to immigration policies implemented by Columbia County government.

1. Grubiak, J.F., Pridgen, K.J. Counties: Sources and Limits of Power. In B. Hudson and P. Hardy (Eds.), Handbook for Georgia County Commissioners, pp. 29-48. 
2. Columbia County Clerk of Superior Court. Use of Interpreters for Non-English Speaking Persons. Effective October 10, 2001. Including Amendments Received Through November 1, 2007.
3. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. E-Verify User Manual
4. Department of Homeland Security. Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.
5. Georgia Code, Title 42, Chapter 4, Article 1 (O.C.G.A § 42-4-14 2007)

      The first document describes the sources from which Georgia counties derive their powers. It lists purposes for which county taxes may be levied and services that counties may provide as part of their supplementary powers. It restricts commissioners in actions they take, contracts they make, and liabilities they incur to those expressly authorized by law. As one of the officials pointed out, the chapter contains no mention of immigration issues. Therefore, in the view of the official, Columbia County is not authorized to set policies that would directly relate to immigrants.

      The second document describes the statewide plan for the use of interpreters in the Courts of Georgia. The document defines “a non-English speaker” as “any party or witness who cannot readily understand or communicate in spoken English and who consequently cannot equally participate in or benefit from the proceedings.”

      The E-Verify Manual and Form I-9 were presented by the county government Human Resources personnel to explain the county government employment policies. The E-Verify is an internet based system which compares information contained on the Form I-9 with the records of Social Security Administration (SSA) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Participation in E-Verify is voluntary and allows employers to check the employment eligibility of newly hired employees.

According to the O.C.G.A § 42-4-14 2007, any detention center in Georgia must determine the nationality of the person confined and verify the lawful status of the prisoner with the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC). Should a prisoner turn out to be unlawfully admitted to the U.S., Department of Homeland Security must be notified.

Aiken County

      Three documents were analyzed in relation to immigration policies implemented by Aiken County government.

1. Ordinance No. 07-09-19 (To Enact Regulations Concerning the Employment of Unauthorized Aliens by Aiken County, Agencies Receiving County Funding and Other  Matters Relating to Unauthorized Aliens)
2. Agenda: Proposed Ordinance to Enact Regulations Concerning the Employment of Unauthorized Aliens by Aiken County, Agencies Receiving County Funding and Other  Matters Relating to Unauthorized Aliens (Rawls, Bunker) (Third Reading)
3. Gary Bunker, Aiken County Council, District 7, Comments before the Aiken County Council on the illegal immigration ordinance.

The ordinance relating to undocumented immigrants was passed by the Aiken County Council in September 2007. The document states that “the growing number of unauthorized aliens is a major problem in this country, leading to additional financial burdens (…) crime, and other issues.” The document points out that “the number of unauthorized aliens is increasing at an alarming rate,” and the Council recognizes that “many authorized aliens (…) are productive members of society and are needed to keep the economy of this county vibrant.” It further states that the County government will not employ undocumented workers. It additionally requires all registered vendors to certify that their employees are authorized to work in the U.S. It makes English the official language of Aiken County, requiring all business to be conducted in English. It allows for the use of another language in emergency situations or to protect due process rights.  It further obliges the County law enforcement to determine the status of those booked into the County Detention Center and notify the DHS of the individual’s unauthorized alien status. Finally, no agencies which receive county discretionary funding may knowingly employ or provide assistance to unauthorized aliens, except to protect civil liberties or provide emergency services.

      The agenda summarizes the discussion between Council members before passing the ordinance. Points raised by the Council members include: (a) establishing a County Business License System, (b) changes in wording of the ordinance, (c) dissent over utilization of the “slave force” in the U.S. and the opinion that a “slave force” should not be there in the first place, (d) border control, (e) problems plaguing the U.S. due to unauthorized aliens, (f) dissatisfaction with the performance of the federal government, (g) understanding of the desire to provide a better life for one’s self and one’s family, (h) cost of cheap labor to America’s economy, and finally, (i) confirmation that the ordinance addresses all unauthorized aliens, not just Mexicans. The ordinance was passed by majority vote with six council members in favor, one in opposition, and two abstaining.

The speech conducted by the Council member Gary Bunker points to the reasons why the ordinance described above should be passed. Bunker attributes the raise of millage by Aiken county to the “untold numbers of non-citizens” who “upset the critical political equation, namely who is paying for government and who is consuming the services.” Bunker points to the assimilation problem. “The wall of language inconveniently divides us today (…), the linguistic glue that holds our people together is failing (…). Our culture is under attack by those who deny the importance of language and our country's Judeo Christian heritage.” Bunker further notes that “not only is the rate of illegal immigration high, but so is the rate of legal immigration.” He suggests that the solutions are to “defend the border against further invaders,” “deny employment and social welfare benefits to those who are here,” and (…) deport illegal aliens. Finally, Bunker points to the lack of reaction of Congress and the South Carolina legislature to “the hordes of illegal aliens” and considers the Georgia passage of new state law a turning point. He notes that “if Georgia manages to export its illegals, then South Carolina would be a logical destination for them to move.” Bunker concludes that the proposed ordinance would become part of a nationwide movement, playing a constructive role in solving the issue of illegal immigration.

Interview Analysis

Augusta-Richmond County

            County Activities Targeting Immigrants.

            According to the respondents interviewed, the county government has not formally cooperated with any non-profit organizations dealing with immigrants, neither has it been addressed by any advocacy groups. However, it has supported the yearly organization of Saint Patrick’s Day, Arts in the Heart of Augusta and Hispanic Festival by providing venues and other in kind help. The county commission has not considered any ordinance relating to the local immigrants.

The county government website is available in six languages: Japanese, German, French, Italian, Korean, and Spanish. Although no translators or interpreters are hired, the county employees can access a hot line number with translation in any language. As one of the respondents admitted, he has never seen anybody use it.

The County Sheriff Office has officers that speak German, Russian, and Spanish. As one of the respondents disclosed, “Demographics worked out themselves.” Public Safety officers also call the 1-800 number whenever translation is needed. In addition to that, they are encouraged to attend survival Spanish and Spanish awareness class organized by the Georgia Police Academy once a year. The county furthermore has a procedure to follow when an illegal immigrant breaks the law. However, there has never been a table top discussion on what to do if a major number of illegal immigrants migrate into the county.

      One of the respondents noted that the county runs a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program, targeting minorities and socially or economically disadvantaged individuals. The program gives the opportunity to contract with the county for highway construction or design industries. Immigrants qualify under the minority category.

      Three schools in the county have English as a Second Language (ESL) program: Glenn Hills Elementary School, Morgan Road Middle School, and Glenn Hills High School. There are, on average, 80 to 120 students a year that are in the program. Students are assigned to the age appropriate classes. Most of the students are of Hispanic and oriental origin. Children who are sufficiently fluent in English can attend regular classes, usually in groups of four or five, and are supported by teaching assistants present during the class. There are four teachers and five teaching assistants carrying out the program in each school. Designing the program for immigrant children is the responsibility of the local school system, although the county gets federal assistance based on the number of students qualifying for the English as a Second Language program. As one of the respondents noticed, the major challenge of the program has been to design an efficient busing system for all the children. They live scattered all throughout the county and it takes several hours to get them in and back from school.

The county school system used to have “Community in Schools” program for adult learners who could not speak English. The program also provided participants with the computer labs. However, the respondent interviewed revealed that there were too few people interested to continue the program.

Several county middle schools offer Spanish as a foreign language and some elementary schools may have some foreign language classes if they secure a federal grant. However, learning a foreign language is not a part of the enforced curriculum in the majority of the elementary and middle schools.

Local Immigration Characteristics.

The county officials interviewed did not consider immigration a problem or a challenge to the local community. All admitted that Augusta has not been very heavily populated with immigrants. Some respondents were surprised by the topic of the research. “You are the first person in six years that has ever asked me this question,” one of them said. Four of the respondents interviewed noted that they have seen a small increase in the Hispanic immigration. One said that his church has introduced a strictly Hispanic mass. Another pointed out that there is a larger Hispanic community in North Augusta but it has not affected Augusta-Richmond County directly.

Immigrants in Augusta-Richmond County are not considered to be of a significant impact on the local community. One of the respondents pointed to the low proportions of Hispanic and Asian voters in comparison to other groups. “I wouldn’t necessarily campaign just to contact my Asian voters. I would rather campaign to contact Black voters in my district because they are in much larger percentage. That’s why we don’t have a lot of interest in Hispanic vote,” he said.

None of the respondents have noticed any major problems that would relate to the presence of immigrants in Augusta-Richmond County. “They conduct themselves fairly well,” one of the officials assured. Another noted that there are illegal immigrants in the county, but they are not causing problems. The same respondent explained that the county does not attract immigrants because the job marked is limited. One respondent called attention to the problem of overcrowded housing: “I always hear stories in certain areas of Augusta where you have got 20 people living in one apartment. It is the one complaint that you always hear but you don’t know if that’s just a rumor or fact.”

Opinions of the respondents were divided on whether there is an ethnic tension between African-Americans and the immigrant groups. As one White respondent said “they seem to separate themselves. I think that African-Americans realize that the Hispanic workforce is to be recognized and is to be reckoned with. The African-Americans as well as the regular American people are going to have to step up and be willing to work and be willing to go back to work in jobs that may not be light in order to combat this Hispanic movement into our workforce.” An African-American respondent refuted: “Some people do think that African-Americans are threatened because immigrants work cheaper and don’t demand that much. I don’t sense any animosity between the Black community and Hispanic community. In fact we all share something in common and that is we all came here as a minority. I think everybody has their place in a society and they have as well.”

Two respondents called attention to the employment issue.  As one of them admitted, the influx of immigrants “is good for some people, like business owners, but it is bad, for other people.” According to another, “We have seen in the last ten or fifteen years the influx of the Spanish and Mexicans coming into our country without the proper credentials and it has really upset our workforce, because they are taking jobs on the lower pay scale. It is being addressed now through the state level and national level. We too within the local community should take notice of that. Just because it is inexpensive labor, and sometimes very dependable, I have nothing against them, but in order to work in this country I think you should qualify with the proper certificate and credentials.”

Some respondents expressed ambiguity to immigrants depending on their status and contribution to the society. As one admitted, “I do have a problem when an immigrant comes in and has a health problem and goes to the hospital and we need to pay for it. But if we have an immigrant that comes in and he is contributing to the society, tries to do the right thing, he is paying taxes and having a legal job, wanting to do an American dream, I don’t have a problem with that, I really don’t.” However, as one explained, “I don’t see Augusta having the quote unquote illegal immigrants from Mexico as it is spread out throughout the rest of Georgia.”

Several respondents emphasized the benefits associated with the arrival of immigrants. As one explained, “Bringing them to the United States is very important not only for them and their countries. It is very important to the United States because of what they offer based on their culture and based on what we can learn from them. They can go back and use our methods to improve their situations. It is a win-win for everyone.” As another added, “It is good to see different cultures celebrated. I think it [immigration] has a positive effect on our local environment.”

            Attitude to the State Immigration Policy.

After the passage of the new Georgia immigration law in 2006, Augusta-Richmond County has been required to verify residency of employees hired by the county contractors. As one respondent disclosed, the new requirements have been more burdensome than useful. In his opinion, it has added to the paperwork, slowed the procurement process, and forced the county to reject a couple of bids due to the lack of sufficient certification. Another respondent revealed that the county is currently in litigation with a company that did not fill out its immigration form. “They have less than 100 employees, so they aren’t required to fill it out until next year but they didn’t check either box so they were disqualified from the contract. Now, they are trying to sue the government.”           

Other respondents were content with the comprehensive action taken by the state, although they have not seen any immediate impacts of the law on the county situation. One pointed to the weaknesses of the law. “I think the overall intent of the law is admirable- to try to regulate people coming here illegally. But is it a realistic law? When the state patrolmen sets up a roadblock and has a car with illegal immigrants from Mexico and they don’t have the identification, chances are they are going to let them go through instead of taking them because there is nothing that the system would do in deportation methods. So they are going to go in circles with the law enforcement. The state set up policy but they have not given the law enforcement tools necessary to implement the policy.”

The Perceived Role of the Government in Integration of Immigrants.

Two of the respondents were enthusiastic about the ways the local government could target immigrants. “I think we can, I think we play a role. We can be supportive of the laws and also be supportive of the people and individuals. We support the federal government rule and law of the person becoming a natural citizen of this country. So we encourage that and we want them to go through the process of becoming a natural citizen or being legally certified to be in this country.” As another said, “I think they [the government] have a role in making sure that their [immigrant] culture and safety is not harmed. If you are ever to see anybody being discriminated against, the city would have to take action. I mean, you have got to give people the right to protest, but they need to do so in an organized and respectful manner.”

Some of the respondents were skeptical about any active involvement of the county government in either integrating immigrants or discouraging them from settling in the community. As one said, “I don’t think we need to do anything special. But I don’t think we necessarily need to make it more difficult for them to settle.” Another respondent believed that that is the responsibility of the state government. “It needs to come from a state position. I don’t think the local government would have that much of an impact.”

Sources of Information.

None of the respondents has actively searched for information about local immigrants. However, they listed several sources that they would use to further their knowledge: personal observation (4), U.S. Census (2), non profit organizations, immigrant business people, state regulation, churches, voters’ registration, university, and the local government human resources department. One of the respondents admitted that he is personally befriended with several first generation immigrants of Indian origin.

Columbia County

            County Activities Targeting Immigrants.

The county has not cooperated with any non-profits or advocacy groups helping immigrants. It does not provide website information in languages other that English and does not translate documents. However, the county library system holds Spanish classes for the county residents. Columbia County Emergency Management Agency (EMA) has bilingual volunteers to assist in emergency situations. Emergency preparedness brochures are printed in Spanish and English. Also, the county court system budgets for the use of interpreters for cases when a person cannot speak English. The court transcripts are kept based on what an interpreter says. No increased need for interpreters has been identified over the recent years. 

The county employs a number of first generation immigrants of Hispanic and Asian origin. The Georgia recent immigration bill requires the county to certify that all new hires are legal residents. The Human Resources Department has used I-9 forms since 1996, but after the bill was passed, it implemented the “E-Verify” network system to check whether a person is an eligible employee. As one of the respondents explained, “E-Verify is the newest thing that we have started a few months ago. We offer the job first. The person actually has to come and work for the county before we can send off his information. The Social Security Administration or Homeland Security will contact us immediately if something is wrong.”

Columbia County has two elementary schools, two middle schools, and two high schools with ESL program. They include Stevens Creek Elementary, Grovetown Elementary and Middle School, Lakeside Middle and High, and Harlem High. Currently there are 159 students enrolled in the ESL program. They speak fourteen different languages. A number of students who qualify for the program according to the state test choose not to participate. Their parents are informed about the benefits of the program, especially the teachers’ support in addition to regular classes. However, many do not want to send children to schools distant from their home.

Most of the funding for the program is provided by the state on the basis of an established formula. There are four teachers responsible for carrying out the program. The state regulates the number of ESL students in one classroom. There can be no more than eleven students on the first, second and third grade level, fourteen students in fourth through eight grade, and eighteen students on the nine to twelve grade level. On the elementary level, ESL children are pulled from regular class segments, usually from English, Arts, or Sustained Reading Time. ELS teachers work with regular classroom teachers to coordinate the best time to pull the children out. Children have ESL instruction five times a week, one segment per day. On the high school level, ESL instruction is assigned to students in addition to their regular classes. ESL becomes the elective course that ESL program participants must choose. The County Board of Education is about to reorganize the system for high school level students to allow them attend a school where they are zoned, instead of bussing them to a distant one.

The majority of the foreign students (72) attend schools in Grovetown. The schools have secured a Title III state grant to involve parents in the ESL education. Parents and the children receive after school support. Teachers rotate to help the students with homework and teach their parents English. Classes are offered four days a week, two hours each. One of the teachers is bilingual. The program started three years ago.

One elementary school, Stevens Creek Elementary, provides classes in Spanish as a part of its curriculum. It was able to provide Spanish instruction because the school applied for funds from the state grant. Children have Spanish once a week as a part of the Art segment. The state grant was not awarded for the following year and the program might be discontinued.

Middle schools in Columbia County offer Spanish classes only for those students who are recommended by their teachers. Two years of high school Spanish, French, or Latin is an optional elective for those who want to continue their education in college.

The County Sheriff’s Office has 230 sworn officers, of which 12 speak Spanish, German, or Italian. The office cooperates with the Citizens Auxiliary Volunteers when translation in other languages is needed. In addition to that, the office organizes annually mandatory diversity training. During the three hour training, representatives of diverse cultures are invited to talk about their customs.

According to one Sheriff’s Office representative, the county illegal immigration is an issue, but not a big issue. The Office applied to participate in 297(g) program. Section 297(g) permits designated county officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions. However, there have been too few illegal immigrants identified in the Detention Center to admit Columbia County to the program.

Local Immigration Characteristics.

      Two respondents admitted that from time to time they get complaints about illegal immigrants taking away locals jobs. As they noted though, the complaints have been isolated and usually come from someone that has lost a job or has not been able to get work. “People come in the time of frustration and anger, they want to vent to somebody so they call here,” one respondent stated.

Two respondents also mentioned about the problem of overcrowded housing. “Folks in the construction trades rent a house in a neighborhood and then they put too many people in it. They create higher density in a house and traffic of cars than a normal residential neighborhood is designed for,” one respondent explained. The county has an ordinance that limits the number of family members in a residence but apartments are at the landlord discretion. “We are kind of off to the side in that issue for the most part,” one official admitted.

All respondents noted that Hispanic immigrants appear to have dominated the construction, yard maintenance and landscaping industries in the county. “I don’t know whether they are legal or illegal but they are there. They are not all Hispanics but there are an awful lot of them. And maybe other people don’t want to do that kind of work,” one respondent wondered.     All respondents called attention to the local Asian Indians who are considered to be prominent hotel owners and managers, well integrated into the local economy. As one of the county officials disclosed, “We have had several employees here that have been Chinese or Asian background and they all have been very hardworking good employees. In fact a lot of our high school graduates are Asians or Indians. They are very good students.” The respondents also observed a lot of Indians working for the Medical College and Savannah River Site. “I think they come here with a lot of capabilities and a lot of education. They have enough money that they can live wherever they want to. They also probably fall under the category of being legal because it is kind of hard to walk across the border from China.” As another respondent noticed, “legal immigrants utilize their professional skills in medical fields and engineering fields, and that’s good. That’s part of a free market system. And you should have that free flow of that back and forth.”

The respondents disapproved the illegal immigration although they did not consider it a problem in Columbia County. “It is just speculation but I think obviously we have got some illegal immigration. And I would suspect that most of that is primarily related to the building trades and masonry.” As another admitted, “I am fairly conservative so I am going to have to tell you that I am opposed to illegal immigration. If you are going to be here, be here legally, pay taxes and everything just like the rest of us.” The third respondent had a more lenient approach: “I respect anybody that works. If they are able to work, I have no problem with that.”

The Perceived Role of the Government in Integration of Immigrants.

None of the respondents thought that the local government should play a role in the immigrant integration. “Really immigration and dealing with this is not on our list of responsibilities. There is no provision in the state law for us to spend a lot of money on problems relating to immigrants like sponsoring events or outreach. State law does not provide for us to do that. But if somebody gets arrested and then goes to court and can’t speak English they will bring him an interpreter.” Another respondent confirmed that “it is not a strict government function. As a government we have not taken any steps as some governments have to either assist or I guess discourage the illegal immigrants’ situation.” According to the respondent, any outreach to immigrants should be directed from a federal or state level so that it is uniform.

The respondents distinguished between legal and illegal immigrants. One thought that the government should not take any role when it refers to illegal immigrants. “They are not here legally and we don’t have any responsibility for them.” The same respondent believed that the government has the same responsibility to legal immigrants as to any other county residents. “However, if there are language issues or there needs to be special programs relative to education, the county government should find a way to support and assimilate immigrants into the community as long as they are legal.”

The respondents agreed that no immigrant organization has addressed them or asked for support. “If they came and asked, we would have to evaluate it and again it hasn’t reached a point when people are asking for services that are not being provided. No one has presented that as a need. They haven’t showed up at a meeting, they haven’t made any requests for funds. They haven’t asked for any support.”

            Sources of Information.

All of the respondents referred to observation as their source of information about local immigrants. One of the respondents has also had contact with individual immigrants. All emphasized that the county has not had a pronounced problem with immigrants, so the government officials have not spent a lot of time researching the issue. “If we had a problem we would try to research it. But it hasn’t come to a level that we are worried about it. And it is really not the role. And if we did research it we would be limited in what we would be able to do anyway.”

Aiken County

            County Activities Targeting Immigrants.

The county does not cooperate with any immigrant associations or non-profit organizations targeting immigrants. However, the county officials have been contacted by a number of constituents that were both supportive and opposing the steps taken by the Aiken County government to discourage illegal immigration. One Council member was addressed by local churches helping immigrants. In addition to that, two organizations of Mexican immigrants contacted the County Council to lobby against anti-illegal immigration legislation.

The county government used to have a number of information brochures translated into Spanish and posted on its website. It had also cooperated with Aiken Tech to design a basic Spanish course for volunteering employees. The course was to improve communication with the county clients. However, the ordinance passed in September 2007 made English the only language to be used when contacting the county officials. As one respondent explained, now a client that does not speak English will have to bring in a translator. Another added: “The idea is to conduct business in English. How enforceable that is I don’t know. Would a Spanish speaking person be ignored? No, I would hope that our folks wouldn’t ignore him.”

In the past several years, the County Sheriff’s Office hired five Spanish speaking deputies. The last one, a female, was hired two months ago. As one official admitted, “We need to be open to one-on-one interviews with our female victims countywide, whether they are immigrants or not. Our new deputy has been very well received in our Hispanic female population.”

            The Sherriff’s office also has Spanish speaking undercover narcotic agents and investigators. While they are investigating cases such as robberies and burglaries they can reach out and speak to the Hispanic community. Spanish speaking deputies are also working in the county jail to communicate when Hispanics are brought to the detention center.

As one of the officials emphasized,

We are very proactive with Spanish speaking officers going out and talking to these people and helping them to report crimes. We also have some Hispanic immigrants that are here illegally that we have reached out to be liaison between us and those neighborhoods and they also encourage them to report. We have had some meetings with neighborhoods, with the citizens that we have created to be the liaison, and we have had the one-on-one contact with our Hispanic speaking folks. The bottom line is: if we have an illegal immigrant and he or she is a victim we will take care of the victim first. We will work the crime, try to decide who committed that crime upon this person, and make the arrest. And then we worry if they are illegal. Victims come first. However, we are not going to look the other way just because he is a victim of a crime. Everybody that is brought into our detention center that is a foreign-born person is checked on our data base to make sure that they are here legally. If they are here illegally, then we contact our ICE agent who will come down and help us start the process of deporting these folks.

The Aiken County School System is in charge of the implementation of English as a Second Language (ESL) program. ESL is a part of the federal No Child Left Behind program. It is federally mandated and sponsored in most part. Children are tested on their language proficiency and provided with additional help to master English. Aiken County has no magnet schools, as all the schools have some students that are enrolled in the program. Aiken ESL students are enrolled in classes with the rest of the students but are pulled out of the classroom for some part of the week to work on their English. The ESL teachers work with regular teachers to discuss the content of the classroom material, but they do not assist children in their regular classroom activities. Aiken schools have an “English immersion” approach, there is no bilingual instruction. There are currently 1050 students requiring ESL instruction in Aiken County. Children enrolled speak 27 languages, but they are predominantly Hispanics. There are thirteen teachers that travel from school to school, helping about 115 students each. The teachers are not bilingual. As one respondent described, “they are the mainstream teachers with a vast experience, who are willing to modify their instructional approach.”

As one of the officials complained, the funding for the ESL instruction is insufficient: “The federal government says they fund it, but they don’t, it is not enough money.” The same official noted that there are not enough teachers to match the number of ESL students. Also, the respondent pointed out that immigrant children are required to take the same standardized test as all children. However, according to the official, they are not prepared to take the test and, in consequence, lower the overall score of a school. Such school is then marked on the list of those who did not meet the standard. “Schools need more funds but parents get agitated that they would have to pay for kids that should not be here. At the end, the teacher is blamed.”

In September 2007, the County Council passed an ordinance which makes English the official language in the county, requires county contractors to check their employees’ work eligibility, and limits the county discretionary funds for agencies that assist illegal immigrants. As respondents explained, the enactment of the ordinance was a result of “the frustration that the federal government ain’t done anything about it.” As one respondents disclosed, “The goal of some of the council members is to make sure that the jobs go to the residents that are here legally or our current citizens.” Another respondent explained that the ordinance was “more of mission to try to get our leadership in Columbia take responsibility for this problem. It was a wake up call from us to our legislative delegation to do something up there or we will be forced to do something down here.” One official pointed out that the Council was “very weak as far as what we could actually enforce, because we realized that it would take the state to enforce what really needed to be done. It was just kind of a stand that we took.” Another responded added, “It affects us, and our residents, and our constituents, and our lives, and our kids, and our schools, our hospitals. So the ordinance was an attempt to send that message. And a starting point of how we deal with a massive problem that our congress and our senate and our president really have to address.” Finally, as one respondent commented, “because there has been such a debate on the issue nationally these particular council members picked up on that nationally as opposed to locally and the fact that the national government wasn’t getting anything done decided we needed to do something locally. And they knew that other communities in the country had done local immigration, undocumented alien presence ordinance.”

      The enforcement of the ordinance has not presented the local officials with any major problems. “We are still learning as we go. We haven’t done any major bidding since then. As we find things that are unenforceable or make the job too difficult and just become an obstacle we would get back to Council and say we need to tweak this and change it.” The county officials expect the ordinance to be challenged in court. “We wanted to make sure that we were not inappropriately singling out a particular group. It doesn’t say it is about the Hispanics, it is about unauthorized aliens.” As one official described, “We have had some Spanish language information taken off the county website because that was the violation of the ordinance. We have got some issues with the Assessors’ Office. It has been on the language side than anything else. You had people trying to come in not speaking English trying to do business at the Assessors’ Office. Now they have to bring translators on their own.”

Finally, as one official unveiled, “We have a number of organizations that receive funding from us. We don’t have to give this money but they perform a quasi-governmental function. I don’t know that any of these agencies are asking for identification. If they don’t ask they don’t know whether a person is or is not undocumented. And they don’t ask.”

Perceived Impact of Immigrants on the Local Community.

Immigrants are considered to have a significant impact on the Aiken County community. All respondents have noticed a large increase in Hispanic population in the county over the last ten years. The Hispanic newcomers are perceived by the respondents as mostly illegal. “There is a perception of immigration problem being Hispanic and not in general. Maybe there is a greater acceptance of immigrants from other countries other that Mexico,” one respondent admitted.

All respondents perceived illegal immigration to be the issue of the greatest concern. As one of the officials described, “It is a really hot button issue right now for us.” As another official disclosed, “All you got to do is just look around, you see the impact of that, and they are all over.” All of the officials interviewed clearly differentiated between legal and illegal immigrants. They noted that legal immigrants, employed in large number by Savannah River Site (SRS), are predominantly of Asian and European origin. “There are roughly 10,000 employees in Savannah River Site, they don’t all live in Aiken County but the folks that are coming there are generally very highly educated. SRS is paying high salaries. That supports the specialty shops and the restaurants in this small community. Not all of them are immigrant wages but there are a fair number of those that bring a level of pay to the community that the agricultural segment does not.” According to another respondent, “Legal immigrants tend to be overall beneficial to the country particularly when they are bringing useful professions or skills. There is also a large group of people that are here illegally and they are not really bringing a large amount of skills with them. They are probably more of a detriment to the community.”

 Respondents shared the view that illegal immigrants “juxtapose the system so that it doesn’t work properly.” As one of the officials described,

They span the whole gamut of issues that are concern to anybody. Medical insurance, taking away jobs, tax structure. You have no problem with legal immigrants because they have gone through the process, they have proper ID, they are paying Social Security taxes, they are paying FICA taxes, they are registering their vehicles, they are registering their houses when that is a requirement, their mobile home. But when you have illegal immigrants, they are outside of all the norms. They are scared that they can get caught and kicked out and go back to their home. Once they get into this country they start infiltrating all the aspects of the different states. I can’t blame them for trying to find an opportunity- everybody wants to improve their life. But we also have got a responsibility to the people that are here legally and we can’t overlook that because we want some cheap labor to help us with building homes or picking peaches.

Respondents brought attention to the process of becoming a legal immigrant in the U.S. As one official explained,

The people that I talk with that came here legally had to go through all kind of hoops in order to become a citizen. And they are very appreciative of being here. They don’t insist on reciting their own pledge or putting up the flag from their country as the Mexicans do. They are mad that they had to do so much and pay these fees and pass these tests to come here but yet others are allowed to come here without doing any of that.

            All respondents emphasized the economic impact of the local immigrants. One of the officials complained that there are few jobs in rural areas of the county. According to the official, Amick Farms, a large poultry processing facility in neighboring Saluda County, used to employ a lot of people from Wagner area. In the past years, Amick Farms and Graniteville mills replaced local workforce with Mexican immigrants. Also, Hispanic immigrants replaced local employees in construction business, especially roofing and paving of roads. As the official noted “they normally are paid fifteen dollars an hour. That’s cash and no taxes taken out. And that’s a very good salary. We have county employees that don’t make ten and have taxes taken out. And that has hurt a lot people that work construction jobs.”

All respondents called attention to the problem of lowering local wages.

The folks that are here illegally are willing to take the jobs at lower rates than the folks that have been here. They are undercutting wages and aren’t necessarily paying taxes because the employer may be paying them under the table. How much of that is going on I don’t know, there is probably much more than I would like to think about.

Illegal immigrants, as the officials further reported, increase costs to local government, “everything from healthcare to cost of education and even including cost of jailing and incarceration.”

Officials interviewed also pointed to the demographic changes brought about by the Hispanic immigrants, both in the community and nationally. As one respondent explained,

Many hospitals along our border have actually closed because they have so many people coming over to give birth because the child is therefore legal (…) If you compare the regular people with the illegal immigrants and look at projections (...) they do tend to have a large number of children compared to the people of the United States. Our population is going to double by 2050. We already have water shortages, our natural resources are being taxed (…) What’s going to happen when the population here is double of what it is now? Can you imagine what’s going to be the case with our water supply, food supply, and all other aspects of our life and our standard of living?

Poverty level of the newcomers was another focal point of the respondents.

When we allow the illegals to come in we are also essentially building a lower class with a lower income level. We don’t need to import so much of another so-called secondary or low- income citizens (…) I saw the projections on the Hispanic growth in the U.S. and the fact that it would surpass the Black race and that within 40 years it would be half of our population. And I think, gush, don’t people just see that? We already have our low-income 30% poverty level. And with this we are going to have maybe 50% or 60%. They are just living for today, grabbing, looking at the bottom line.

Being a border community has affected the decisions of the Aiken County officials pertaining to illegal immigration. “There is a belief that what Georgia has passed has created a push to move people to this side of the river to South Carolina because they don’t want to live in Georgia. Which is another reason why we tried to have something in place. It was driven somewhat by fear. It was a thought that if we had something similar to Georgia they would move to Lexington.”

Actions of the officials were also influenced by observation of the situation in the neighboring Saluda County.

I’ve heard a number this morning. I don’t know if this is true, but 50% of the students in Saluda County schools don’t speak English. You have a teacher that does not speak Spanish, trying to teach these kids to speak English. And they go to public school. We should give them as much education as we can, but do you require teachers to learn Spanish so that they can translate themselves? Those students may be here legally, but the practical challenge of teaching them is tough.

As another respondent commented, “The children need to be educated, they do. But they shouldn’t be here to begin with.”

Two respondents considered immigrants to contribute to the community crime problem. “We do have crime in Latino community. It is something that is being felt. When you have service providers telling you that, for instance, maybe 10% of those in jail are illegal immigrants and we are overcrowded by about 10% that tells you that we have significant problem. There is also some indication there might be MS 13, which is El Salvadoran gang.” Another respondent noticed that “Some of the illegals that come here are bringing a gang mentality with them. They are forming their own gangs and expose others into that culture that they have not been exposed before.” The crime problem was not confirmed by other respondents. “We have had increase in Hispanic population but we have not had a big increase in Hispanic crimes. The problem area is we have so many fake IDs. Most immigrants that we find coming through our detention center are involved in traffic violations; no driver’s license, no insurance, DUIs. Our gang issues are not Hispanic issues. Our gang issues are White-Black issues.” As another respondent noted, “Illegals drive but don’t have the insurance. If there is an accident they act as if they can’t speak English. Then that person ends up with all the expenses because they don’t show up in court and you can’t find them.”

One respondent noted that Hispanic immigrants often become victims of crimes themselves. “There are people taking advantage especially of the Hispanic community. And they [immigrants] probably don’t want to come to the police because they are either not legal or don’t speak English. And then, you know, the police are different in Mexico. They are not known from being honest like we are over here. So I think they have a kind of stand off approach.”

Settlement patterns and conditions of living of the immigrants was yet another issue of concern.

Hispanics are clustering, particularly in some of the rural areas. You don’t see in until winter time. When all the leaves fall off the trees and you can see the unregistered trailer that is not paying taxes that is a mile down the dirt road that has sixteen living in a trailer. A lot of them live in very substandard housing where there is no electricity, no running water; in those areas where people rent to them in a sort of no name cash basis. You have the issue of all this overcrowding, lack of water, and lack of sanitary facilities. What kind of disease pools they are creating? Some of the folks in Saluda are concerned. I have heard anecdotally, there is talk of tuberculosis spreading more in Saluda County because of what the folks are bringing.

As another respondent pointed out,

They [Hispanic immigrants] tend to all live in very close proximity. It would appear when you see ten or twelve living in one small mobile home that they have to live very crowded. I wonder how they have room to sleep. You do have almost like little village. There are a couple of trailer parks in my area. But it is most evident in the Saluda County where you have all the Amick Farms. Despite the conditions that they live in I do have to commit to them that homes although they look like they are falling down are clean outside.  And they do seem to have pride in keeping their yards clean. It does say something for them as a people.

            Respondents also pointed to the changing family structure of the newcomers. “It used to be much more single males that would come here to work for a while and they sent all the money home that they could spare. Now more and more you see the families come. And then all the children that are born are legal citizens.”

Several respondents complained about the communication difficulty associated with immigrants. As one admitted, “Really I think the language barrier is the biggest thing. It is just issue of communication.” As others pointed out, “If you come here for a job at least you can do is to speak English. I took Spanish in high school and college.” “English is our national language. If you want to become an American citizen you should take on the role of learning the English language. I don’t think it is government’s responsibility to teach you that. If you truly want to be an American citizen, you want to share the ideals, and the values, and the benefits, you have got to put some effort to that. And that effort includes learning the language of the people.” Finally, one of the respondents worried, “Unfortunately what we see is an attitude of multiculturalism that says: well if you show up- keep your old language, keep your old traditions, and maintain your nationality within this country. And that tends to be more divisive as opposed to uniting.”

Finally, the respondents talked about the changing attitudes of the community members to immigrants. “I think there is a level of animosity that has developed because of the debate at the national level. I think there is a tension. It is probably concerned more with the Hispanic population as opposed to other immigrant groups.” As another admitted, “It is sad that with the problem with the illegal immigrants and such a mass influx a lot of people have lumped them all together and now some of them seem to have different attitudes about legal immigrants. That’s a shame, that shouldn’t happen.”

            Attitudes to the State Immigration Policy.

The respondents were supportive of the active state involvement in the prevention of influx of illegal immigrants. As one said, “There is a perception here and in South Carolina that we are at a point when something can be done. I think what they are trying to do is the same thing we were doing. It is to make sure that the people that work for the state, either employees or the contractors, are properly documented. I am glad the state is taking it up. It is an issue that really needs to be taken by the state. You have a potential for 300 different ordinances. It they are not the same that makes enforcement very difficult.” Another respondent added, “I am a little disappointed that the employers are not required to have to check with the E-Verify website. They left that loophole that I wish they have closed.”

The Perceived Role of the Government in Integration of Immigrants.

None of the respondents thought the local government should play a role in integrating local immigrants into the mainstream community. Below are some of the opinions they expressed:

a. “Local government is not nearly well place to try to integrate. Really the local government shouldn’t have all that great active role. The role of government is primarily to keep the peace, to enforce contracts, and to really stay our of peoples way. If anything, the role of local government will be to Americanize as many of the immigrants as possible.”

b.  “It really is an issue that is beyond local control. It ought to be done at the federal level if it is going to be effective.”

c. “I have never really given that any thought. I think we have to treat everybody as a customer regardless of skin color or national origin. If they need to get a service from us we should provide that service.”

d.  “I don’t believe that there should be an extraordinary effort from government to single one immigrant status versus another. I don’t look at immigrants through the standpoint of selectivity. If they are legal immigrants they are Americans because they have gone through the process to infiltrate themselves into this society.”

e.  “If they are legal then I think the school system has the obligation to educate all and I don’t know necessarily that it would be county government. It would be more school system and I see a lot of community organizations and churches that help.”

f. “It is an issue that needs to be dealt with at federal level. The problem is you have the trickle- down effect to your states and your local governments.”

g. “I don’t think this is the role of a local government. It is the responsibility of the federal government. And I think they have shunned their responsibility.”

h. “The government has to take its lead from the citizens at large, the citizens that are here. If there is a desire for the county government to get more involved in acclimating people to the community as far as us offering ESL or whatever the needs may be, certainly we need to follow that because that is what the community is telling us to do. If enough people tell the County Council that they want something and they are willing to pay for it the community leaders will respond to that.”

            Sources of Information.

Most of the respondents were very active in their search for information about immigration issues. They pointed to several sources, such as U.S. Census, local charities and churches, 211 referral- info service, State Department of Revenue, the media, personal observation, personal contacts and acquaintances, internet, newspapers, University of South Carolina, federal agencies, and finally, books about immigration. The books recommended by the respondents included: "Who Are We?" by Samuel Huntington, “Alien Nation" by Peter Brimelow, and “How Eisenhower Solved Illegal Border Crossings from Mexico” by John Dillin. Also, one of the respondents contacted advocacy groups and another got in touch with national representatives.

No research on the local level was made. As one of the respondents explained, “We haven’t felt the need to do the research. We don’t try to document it yet. If we have a huge spike in services or detention center population that is Hispanic, then that may raise a red flag. And I am not sure that that’s the county’s role. It is the national role.”

In addition to that, the respondents were contacted by their constituents regarding local immigration problems. As one described, “I had some letters from people that were immigrants at some point of time themselves (…) to express on their behalf why we should find ways to integrate them into our society, assist them, help them rather than find ways to penalize them. The letters were in response to the ordinance proposal.”Another respondent said that he had many complaints from his constituents.

There is a sense that our country is being invaded. And that these people are alien in the sense that they are not of our culture, they are not of our language, not of us. That they are here, that the taxes are going up, that wage rates are remaining stagnant and yet here are all these folks who are coming here, who are enjoying the benefits of this country, and yet not be of the country. Or even by just being here they are breaking the laws, showing their disrespect for the country. I also hear from folks that came here legally and had to go through the years and years through ICE and are wondering why they were the fools for having bothered to come here legally.

Results

Integration of immigrants was not among the goals pursued by any of the local governments under the study. The interviews conducted revealed some direct and indirect ways the governments provided assistance to local immigrants. In Aiken County, the government efforts focused on public safety and included active outreach to Hispanic residents. In Columbia County, several local schools engaged in education of adult non-English speakers and the local library provided Spanish classes for interested residents. The County Sheriff’s office cooperated with voluntary translators and Emergency Management Division provided information leaflets in Spanish. Also, the officials interviewed in this county were most willing to allocate resources if approached by needy immigrant groups. Finally, the Augusta-Richmond County government supported a number of cyclical events promoting diversity and interest in different cultural and ethnic groups. It also provided website information in multiple languages and made phone translators available for the county employees. In addition, a number of programs carried out by the counties targeted immigrants indirectly; for instance the DBE program in Augusta-Richmond County and immigrant access to agencies that receive Aiken County Council discretionary funds.

The two Georgia counties were highly restrained by the state regulations concerning illegal immigrants. In fact, most of their immigration policies originated at the state level. While the new Georgia hiring and detention regulations corresponded with the past long-term practices of the Columbia County government, they turned out to be somewhat burdensome for the Augusta-Richmond County officials. In contrast, the Aiken County government faced no major requirements or constraints from the state level policy. The respondents unanimously perceived state and federal government involvement as insufficient.

Officials in the three counties differed in their perception of foreign-born residents, which seemed to correspond with the approach governments took towards immigrants. The issue of local immigrants was not present in the Augusta-Richmond County government policy-making and discourse. Immigrants’ visibility in this community was low. In Columbia County, immigrants’ visibility appeared to be higher. In neither of the two Georgia counties the issue of illegal immigration or the settlement of Hispanic and Asian communities was considered problematic. In contrast, immigration in Aiken County was perceived as a problem. Concerns that were associated with the local Hispanic residents, regarded as predominantly illegal, included their economic burden on schools, their impact on the employment situation, wages, and poverty level, their cultural and language incompatibility, and criminal and sanitary threats they pose.

Using the typology introduced by Portes (1995), the approach of the two Georgia local governments to their immigrant residents could be summarized as indifferent. Also, it was predominantly passive, unless the state and federally mandated actions are taken into account. This approach was consistent across different groups of immigrants. The local immigration discourse in the two counties focused on selected issues. Aiken County policy, on the other hand, was active and selectively hostile, with the emphasis on selected issues of illegal immigration. Actions taken by the County Council were aimed to prevent the formation of the stable and permanent community of Hispanic immigrants.  At the same time the government was indifferent and passive toward groups other than undocumented Hispanics.

Public opinion concerning immigrants was investigated by analyzing selected letters to the editor in the local press under the study. In all three counties the letters were predominantly hostile toward immigrants and selective in focus. Most of them called for active governmental involvement. Furthermore, they directed attention to social and economic issues. The letters were most often related to the national level immigration issues. No signs of prejudice were found in the letters in the Columbia County News Time; however, the analysis revealed prejudice in the Aiken Standard letters. Also, attention was called to the prejudiced tone of the Augusta Chronicle editorials.

Discussion

The study provides an example of how the three communities in the South-East respond to the new phenomena of increasing immigration, where newcomers differ from the mainstream community in culture, language, and ethnicity. It also shows the interaction of the national and state level trends with local settings with their unique histories, economic conditions, political affiliations, and demographic makeup. The results confirmed earlier observations by Waters and Jiménez (2005) that the governments of the new destination communities are often insufficiently prepared and lack the institutional structures designed to make the integration process easier.

The study examined two of the three levels of immigrant reception: the government policy and public opinion. The interview process revealed different approaches to immigrants in the three communities and a varying level of interest in the topic of immigration. In Aiken County, the level of interest and involvement in the discussion on immigration issues was considerably higher. Several explanations could be useful for a better understanding of the results. First, the scale of immigration and the visibility of the immigrants seemed to differ in the three communities. Although the 2000 U.S. Census showed that Columbia County had the largest share of immigrants, their actual visibility appeared to be the highest in Aiken County. In this community, the influx of immigrants was a relatively new trend, with over 50% of the foreign-born newcomers arriving after the year 2000. The interviews further revealed that the number of students enrolled in the ESL program in this county was markedly higher than in the two other counties.

Aiken County is characterized by a vast territory and multiple towns, cities, and unincorporated areas. With the exception of the City of Aiken and North Augusta, most of its communities are small and many are economically declining. Given these characteristics, the recent arrival of immigrants in these communities must have been noticed, especially considering the “ethnic markers” of the Latino immigrants. Clearly, the communities were not prepared for the challenges associated with the increasing number of foreign-born residents. In the two Georgia counties, with a few major population concentrations, immigrants could blend in more easily. Also the rapid growth of Columbia County may have decreased the relative visibility of the Hispanic and Asian immigrants.

Recent population and economic changes also differentiated the three counties. The interviews indicated that Hispanic immigrants in Aiken County were perceived as economic threat. As the 2000 U.S. Census revealed, Aiken had lower than Columbia County median household income and a higher than Augusta-Richmond County proportion of White residents. The interviews did not reveal any animosity between the African-American and immigrant communities. On the contrary, the African-American respondents symbolically identified themselves with the minority status immigrant groups. However, referring to Hernández-León and Zúñiga, (2005), we could hypothesize that in Aiken County dislocated, low-income Whites could feel threatened because the newcomers successfully compete with them for the local low-skills jobs. Therefore, preventing the further influx of Hispanic competitors became a popular policy. In response to that, the Aiken County government chose exclusionary solution to preserve the existing social structure and to externalize differences.

In case of Augusta-Richmond County, several factors may have decreased the excitement and the negative perceptions of immigrants. Among them could be: the actual decrease in the number of immigrants in the past six years, the large size of the community, its racial makeup, political affiliations of its leaders, long-term economic problems, as opposed to the recent downturn, relatively young population, and the ideology of diversity and tolerance espoused by the community. These factors created an environment sympathetic with immigrants, although unlikely to allocate resources to help immigrant groups.

In Columbia County, Latino construction and landscaping workers seemed to respond to the needs of the rapidly growing community, helping to catch up with the expansion of its infrastructure. Given the historic lack of a major employer in this county and high median income of its residents, immigrants are unlikely to pose an economic threat and compete with the locals for low-paid jobs. Also, in this new and growing community social ties and the perception of the right social order may not have been sufficiently formed to support the exclusion of immigrant groups.

Other factors could also be considered to comprehend the reaction of the Aiken County government to its newcomers. The interviews indicated that Hispanic immigrants, who account for the majority of the foreign-born residents in Aiken County, are not integrated with the community on neither the linguistic, educational, civic, nor residential level. The cultural and interactive integration seem also missing. We could hypothesize, following Duncan’s (1933) and Portes’s (1999) theories, that Hispanic immigrants in Aiken County are only to a small degree compatible with the mainstream local culture and are often perceived as coming with low political and social capital. As Bauböck (1996) noted, the disintegration in so many respects leads to the perception of immigrants as a problem. In addition, the pressure to adapt in a short period of time, as Frederking (2007) described, may force local Hispanics to rely even more on prior group interactions and cultural patterns, leading to their perceived and actual isolation. The Hispanic group may follow the pattern described by Park (1921, 1950) where the initial isolation and competition turns into conflict, and finally, accommodation. Fortunately, the interviews indicated that some mechanisms exist to introduce the newcomers to the new community, and they are centered in local churches.

Finally, the differences in the legal environment concerning immigration in the three counties should be noted. Most of the policies reported by the respondents from the two Georgia counties mirrored the strict state laws and regulations. In their case ambiguity in the way illegal immigrants should be approached was low. The fear of border-community effect and unclear guidelines on the reaction to the newcomers influenced the Aiken County Council decision- making process.

Limitations of the Study

It should be noted that only half of the local elected officials were included in the interview process, which may have left some opinions underrepresented. Also, the characteristics of the researcher, who is a first generation immigrant, could have biased the interviewing process, limiting respondents’ expression of extreme or unfavorable opinions considering legal immigrants. The study concentrated on the response of the local government and school system officials to the new wave of immigrants. The opinions of immigrants and immigrant organizations about the local government support were not considered and should be further investigated.

References

American Community Survey. (2006). Demographic and housing estimates. Retrieved February 10, 2008 from www.factfinder.census.gov

Adcox, S. (2008, January 11). SC Senate panel passes immigration proposals. Aiken Standard.

Aiken Standard. (2008, January 18). Immigration reform bills get key approval from House panel.

Alba R. D., Logan J. R., Stults, B. J., Marzan G., & Zhang W. (1999). Immigrant groups in the suburbs: A reexamination of suburbanization and spatial assimilation. American Sociological Review 64(3), 446-460.

Alba, R.D., & Nee, R. (2005). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.

Baker, W.E., & Harris, P.A. (2006). Unwelcome strangers to the New South: Georgia’s response to undocumented migration. In S. Baringhorst, J. Hollifield, and U. Hunger, (Eds.), Herausforderung Migration- Perspektiven der vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft: Festschrift fuer Dietrich Thraenhardt. Berlin, Lit Verlag.

Bauböck, R. (1994). The integration of immigrants. Document prepared for the Council of Europe. Strasbourg.

Bauböck, R. (1996). Social and cultural integration in a civil society. In R. Bauböck, A. Heller, and A.R. Zolberg (Eds.), The challenge of diversity. Integration and pluralism in societies of immigration. European Centre Vienna.

Bean, F., & Stevens, G. (2003). America’s newcomers and the dynamics of diversity. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Benavides, A. D., & Hernández, J. (2007, July). Serving diverse communities: Cultural competency. Public Management. Retrieved January 15, 2008 from International City/County Management Association (ICMA) database.

Bonacich, E. (1973). A theory of middleman minorities. American Sociological Review 38, 96-112.

Bonacich, E. (1980). Class approaches to ethnicity and race. Insurgent Sociologist 10, 9-23.

Borrie, W.D. (1956). Concepts and practices. In The Cultural Integration of Immigrants. UNESCO.

Bosswick, W., & Heckmann, F. (2006). Integration of migrants: Contribution of local and regional authorities. Retrieved September 29, 2007, from the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions database: www.eurofund.eu.it

Brown, J.C., & Tien, C.C.  (2007, June). Serving diverse communities: Best practices.  Public Management. Retrieved January 15, 2008 from International City/County Management Association (ICMA) database.

Cabell, M.G. (2007). Mexican immigrant integration in the U.S. Southeast: Institutional approaches to immigrant integration in Owensboro, Kentucky. Retrieved September 15, 2007, from the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies in University of California, San Diego, database: http://www.ccis-ucsd.org/PUBLICATIONS/wrkg153.pdf

Camarota, S.A., & Keeley, J. (2001, September). The new Ellis Islands: Examining non-traditional areas of immigrant settlement in the 1990s. Washington: Center for Immigration Studies.

Castles, S. (2003). Transnational communities: A new form of social relations under conditions of globalization? In J. Reitz (Ed.), Host societies and the reception of immigrants. Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California: San Diego.

Cowperthwaite, C. (2006, April). Reaction mixed on Georgia's new immigration law. Retrieved November 10, 2007 from http://www.wtoctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4783317

Coussey, M., & Christensen, E.S. (1997). Indicators of integration. In Measurement and indicators of integration. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

Donato, K.M., Stainback, M., & Bankston III, C.L. (2005). The economic incorporation of Mexican immigrants in Southern Louisiana: A tale of two cities. In V. Zúñiga and R. Hernández-León, (Eds.), New Destinations: Mexican immigration in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Duchon, D., & Murphy, A.D. (2001). Introduction: From patrone and caciques to good ole boys. In A. Murphy, C. Blanchard, and J. Hill, (Eds.), Latino workers in the contemporary South, pp. 1-9. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Duncan, H.G. (1933). Immigration and assimilation. New York.

Eisenstadt, S.N. (1954). The absorption of immigrants. London: Routledge.

Etzioni, A. (1959). The ghetto: A re-evaluation. Social Forces 37(3), 255-262.

Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). (2007a). Immigration in Georgia. Retrieved October 11, 2000, from http://www.fairus.org

Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). (2007b). Immigration in South Carolina. Retrieved October 13, 2000, from http://www.fairus.org

Fitzgerald, M. (1997). Measurement and indicators of integration. In Measurement and indicators of integration. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

Fix, M., Papademtriou, D.G., & Cooper, B. (2005). Leaving too much to chance: A roundtable on immigrant integration policy. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from the Migration Policy Institute database: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/LeavingTooMuch_Report.pdf

Fleischmann, A., & Pierannunzi, C. (1997). Politics in Georgia. Athens and London: The University of Georgia Press.

Frederking, L.C. (2007). Economic and political integration in immigrant neighborhoods. Trajectories of virtuous and vicious cycles. Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press.

Frey, W. H. (2005). Metropolitan America in the new century: Metropolitan and central city demographic shifts since 2000. Washington, DC: Brookings.

Frey, W. H. (2006). Diversity spreads out: Metropolitan shifts in the Hispanic, Asian, and Black populations since 2000. Washington, DC: Brookings.

Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Garrett, L. (2000). Latinos in Georgia: Myths and realities of the immigrant journey. Report prepared for Georgia Campaign for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention, Atlanta GA.

Georgia General Assembly. (2006, April). Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act (Senate Bill 529). Retrieved November 10, 2007 from Georgia General Assembly database.

Gozdziak, E. M., & Martin, S. F. (Eds.). (2005). Beyond the gateway: Immigrants in a

changing America. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Gross, D. (2006, March). Immigration bill (SB529) approved by Georgia Senate. Retrieved November 10, 2007 from Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials database: http://www.galeo.org/story.php?story_id=0000000891

Guthey, G. (2001). Mexican places in Southern spaces: Globalization, work, and daily life in and around the North Georgia poultry industry. In A. Murphy, C. Blanchard, and J. Hill, (Eds.), Latino workers in the contemporary South, pp. 57-67. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Heisler, B. (2004). The sociology of immigration: From assimilation to segmented integration, from  the American Experience to the Global Arena. In M. Mobasher and M. Sadri (Eds.), Migration, globalization, and ethnic relations, (pp. 307- 321). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hernández-León, R., & Zúñiga, V. (2005). Appalachia meets Aztálan: Mexican immigration and intergroup relations in Dalton, Georgia. In V. Zúñiga and R. Hernández-León, (Eds.), New Destinations: Mexican immigration in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Jackson, J.A. (Ed.). (1969). Migration. Sociological Studies 2. Cambridge University Press.

Jiménez, T.R. (2007, April). From newcomers to Americans: An integration policy for a nation of immigrants. Immigration Policy in Focus 5(11).

Light, I.H. (1979). Disadvantaged minorities in self-employment. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 20, 31-45.

Lockwood, D. (1964). Social integration and system integration. In K. Zollschan, W. Hirsch (Eds.), Explorations in Social Change. London: Routledge and Kegan.

Lurie, D.M., Kalmykov, K. (2007, August). Georgia weighs in on immigration debate by imposing stringent employment eligibility verification requirements on public employers and Contractors. Retrieved November 10, 2007, from www.gtlaw.com/pub/alerts/2007/0800b.pdf

Massey, D. (1985). Ethnic residential segregation: A theoretical synthesis and empirical review. Sociology and Social Research 69(3), 15-50.

Millard, A.V., & Chapa, J. (2004). Apple pie and enchiladas: Latin newcomers in the rural Midwest. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Mohl, R.A. (2005) Globalization, Latinization, and the Nuevo New South. In J.C. Cobb and W. Stueck, (Eds.), Globalization and the American South. The University of Georgia Press: Athens and London.

Nee, V. (2003). Institutional change and immigrant assimilation in the United States. In J. Reitz (Ed.), Host societies and the reception of immigrants. Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California, San Diego.

Neal, M., & Bohon, S.E. (2003). The dixie diaspora: Attitudes  towards immigrants in Georgia. Sociological Spectrum 23(2), 181-212. 

North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Park, R. E. (1950). Race and culture. Illinois: Glencoe, the Free Press.

Park, R., & Burgess, E.W. (1921). Introduction to the science of sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Passel, J.S. (2005, March). Estimates of the size and characteristics of the undocumented population. Retrieved September 22, 2007, from Pew Hispanic Center Database.

Pedraza-Bailey, A. (2004). Immigration research: A conceptual map. In M. Mobasher and M. Sadri (Eds.), Migration, globalization, and ethnic relations, (pp. 91- 105). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Pew Hispanic Center. (2006). Estimates of the unauthorized migrant population for states based on the March 2005 CPS. Retrieved February 10, 2008 from http://pewhispanic.org/factsheets/factsheet.php?FactsheetID=17

Pew Hispanic Center. (2008a). Statistical portrait of Hispanics in the United States, 2006. Retrieved February 10, 2008 from http://pewhispanic.org/factsheets/factsheet.php?FactsheetID=35

Pew Hispanic Center. (2008b). Statistical portrait of the foreign-born population

in the United States, 2006. Retrieved February 10, 2008 from http://pewhispanic.org/factsheets/factsheet.php?FactsheetID=36

Portes, A. (1995). Children of Immigrants: Segmented assimilation and its determinants. In A. Portes (Ed.), The Economic sociology of immigration (pp. 248-279). New York: Russel Sage.

Portes, A., & Manning, R. (1986). The immigrant enclave: Theory and empirical examples. In S. Olzak and J. Nagel (Eds.), Competitive Ethnic Relations (pp. 47-66). New York: Academic Press.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R.G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R.G. (2006). Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The second generation: segmented assimilation and its variants among post-1965 immigrant youth. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 535, 74-96.

Portes, P.R. (1999). Social and psychological factors in the academic achievement of children of immigrants: A cultural puzzle. American Research Educational Journal 36, 489-507.

Ramakrishnan S.K., & Lewis, P.G. (2005). Immigrants and local governance: The view from city hall. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.

Ray, B. (2002). Immigrant integration: Building the opportunity. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from the Migration Policy Institute database: http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=57

Reimers, D.M. (2005). Asian immigrants in the South. In J. Cobb and W. Stueck (Eds.), Globalization and the American South. The University of Georgia Press: Athens and London.

Reitz, J. (1998). Warmth of the welcome. The social causes of economic success for immigrants in different nations and cities. Colorado: Westview Press.

Reitz, J. (Ed.). (2003). Host societies and the reception of immigrants. San Diego: Center for Comparative Immigration Research, University of California.

Rich, B.L., & Miranda, M. (2005). The sociopolitical dynamics of Mexican immigration in Lexington, Kentucky, 1997 to 2002: An ambivalent community responds. In V. Zúñiga and R. Hernández-León, (Eds.), New Destinations: Mexican immigration in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Singer, A. (2004). The rise of new immigrant gateways. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Studstill, J.D. & Nieto-Studstill, L. (2001). Hospitality and hostility: Latin immigrants in Southern Georgia. In A. Murphy, C. Blanchard, and J. Hill (Eds.), Latino workers in the contemporary South. University of Georgia Press: Athens.

United Way of America. (1996). Measuring program outcomes: A practical approach. Alexandria, VA: United Way of America.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Profile of general demographic characteristics: 2000. Retrieved September 20, 2007, from http://factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Population and housing narrative profile: 2002. Retrieved September 20, 2007, from http://factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). Population and housing narrative profile: 2004. Retrieved September 20, 2007, from http://factfinder.census.gov

Villarrubia, J., & Denton, N. A. (2007). Gateway state, not gateway city: New immigrants in the Hudson Valley. Retrieved October 6, 2007, from http://paa2007.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=70987

Waldinger, R. (1996). Still a promised city? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Waters, M. C., & Jiménez T. R. (2005). Assessing immigrant assimilation: New empirical and theoretical challenges. Annual Review of Sociology 31(16), 1-21.

Wiley, N. F. (1970). The ethnic mobility trap and stratification theory. In P.I. Rose (Ed.), The study of society. New York: The Free Press.

Wirth, L. (1928). The ghetto. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Zúñiga, V., & Hernández-León, R. (2001). Latinos in Dalton. In A. Murphy, C. Blanchard, and J. Hill (Eds.), Latino workers in the contemporary South. University of Georgia Press: Athens.

Zúñiga, V., & Hernández-León, R. (Eds.) (2005). New Destinations: Mexican immigration in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.