Rural Areas Need to Embrace Immigrants

I will be contending that rural areas should shift their values to embrace and welcome immigrants as immigrants can both directly and indirectly revitalize rural economies. - A recent idea for America's rural brain drain problem being quietly muttered by a few concerned citizens is the embracement of those coming from rural Mexico and Latin America, those who may not be citizens themselves: immigrants. Rural brain drain is a casual term representing the gradual, yet accumulatively mass exodus of young people from rural America. The resultant effects include aging populations and severe population loss, but also extensive consequences developing from those obvious outcomes, such as failing local economies, rife unemployment, shrinking wages and benefits, low school enrollment, unsustainable development, lack of good teachers and health care providers, and few companies to invest in local infrastructure like internet, libraries and recreational facilities. One in four rural counties lost over five percent of their population from 1990 to 2000 (McGranahan and Beale 2002) and, thus, that subsequent growth from those families. When young people move to colleges and universities, likely urban centers, they are exposed to economic opportunities, conveniences and services inaccessible in their rural origin. The now educated youth stay in urban America, even encouraged by their families to not return to the increasingly ghost-like rural hometowns. (Though the same story is true of rural Mexico and Latin America, except youth flee to both urban centers and north to the United States, I will only be talking about rural brain in the United States.) Though the exchange of ideas in these urban areas is crucial to economic progress and progress in general, maintaining towns in rural America and Mexico is crucial for food production, natural resource preservation and employment, thus a truly vital economy and a unified nation. In addition, future developments in renewable energy and sustainable agriculture necessitate the huge land tracts, as well as the history and expertise of rural areas. Rural areas are necessary, so it is necessary to address rural brain drain. Anyone who has spent a decent amount of time in a rural area can observe tension between the local population and immigrants, a foreign, usually Spanish-speaking population – the "speak English" bumper sticker, etc. I think is fair to say immigrants are not currently embraced in most rural towns. The main reason for this is the shaky assumption that immigrants, the majority of indeed present illegally from Latin America, create a reserve pool of labor that keeps wages suppressed in agricultural jobs and jobs from American citizens in general. However, the real situation seems to be that these jobs are so dangerous and laborious that very few Americans are willing to do them. Evidence can be seen in the government's H2A guestworker program, where farm owners are required to pay agricultural "guest workers" federal minimum wage with free housing and transport to and from their home country. Many Americans work for minimum wage, without free housing, yet farm owners must use these programs to fill the labor shortages. American citizens won't take these jobs. Until Americans take these jobs, like it or not, immigrant current and increasing presence in rural areas is fixed. With populations low in rural areas and schools in need of more children simply to keep the doors open, why not embrace immigrants? Immigrants provide immediate population growth to rural areas, children to keep local schools open, and a larger customer base for local businesses. Some states, such as Iowa, already see embracement of immigrants as a way to address the effects of rural brain drain. One of their mottos for comprehensively transforming rural economies has become "talent, technology and tolerance" (Carr and Kefalas 2009: 122). Though immigrants can simply provide population growth to these rural areas and reduce rural brain drain in this manner, they also have a unique ability to do even more. If rural areas also become more accepting, more people -- young Americans -- will consider these communities good places to live. They will begin to return to their hometowns to start their families and businesses. They will attract better health providers and teachers, which will in turn lead to better infrastructure for things like parks and libraries and allow towns to progress. Sociologists often break down successful progression and vitality of a community into an abundance of several forms of capital, one of the most foundational being social capital, or simply how willingly people move beyond self and familial interest to think about the future and well-being of the entire community. Social capital is collaboration by all to make community decisions and has two halves to its whole: bonding social capital and bridging social capital. Bonding is networks between individuals and groups with homogenous backgrounds and goals. Bridging is connections between all groups, even groups outside the community, resulting in heterogeneity and inclusive decision-making. Rural towns are considered by sociologists to have "strong boundaries" because of their high bonding social capital paired with low bridging capital. Rural communities are homogenous communities that view outsiders with suspicion of change they represent. In this situation, only insiders are trusted and thus only insiders are given opportunities or included in community planning. This causes exclusion of newcomers, immigrants or not. You can see how it would be difficult to move back to such an "exclusive" community after being exposed to university or urban life. In communities with both bonding and bridging, such as urban centers or college towns, "progressive participation" occurs, in which the future and prosperity of all interests are taken into account. With both, collaborative action occurs and this high social capital spurs subsequent financial, built, natural, political, cultural and human capital, i.e. progress… the progress necessary to stop rural brain drain, to make rural areas just as desirable to live in as urban centers. If rural areas have "progressive participation," they could progress! That being said, it will be no easy task for rural communities to become more accepting and it will be no easy task for immigrants to suddenly feel welcome in the community where they were first received with hostility and hate. Immigrants within these communities have neither bonding or bridging social capital because of this way were first treated by their neighbors, employers and the community at large. This causes them to be "extreme individualists," where they may perpetuate inequalities by apathy for this originally hostile community. We need programs and initiatives focused on outreach and cultural appreciation. We need a value shift in rural areas. We also need policy makers and planners in these rural areas to see that immigrants have equal and approachable access to such things as high-quality education, recreational facilities and public programs. Assuring equal access, outreach and reverse of symbolic laws will reduce apathy of immigrants in rural areas and encourage collaboration. Because immigrants often work in factories and farms, they have long hours, so policy makers should set meetings at times and places they can afford to attend. Immigrants are the new class of Americans. They can help us save the rural Heartland. Let us embrace them. It will be better for everyone.