The Commission's framework also presupposes the national labor market is sufficiently flexible to fill local needs through internal migration, or by employing those who are currently unemployed or out of the labor force. Possibly in the long run, native-born New Yorkers could be trained to fill the niches skilled immigrants occupy in the labor market. If immigration is successfully curtailed in the manner proposed by the Commission, however, the city's population and employment base are more likely to shrink permanently and the supposed opportunities for the native-born may never materialize. In closing, I urge the participants in tonight's and tomorrow's discussions to celebrate the achievements of New York's immigrants and their importance to sustaining the population and economy of New York City. But anti-immigrant sentiments thrive in an atmosphere of economic uncertainty.
Natives accept immigrants when their own employment and incomes seem secure.
In hard times, scapegoats may be sought among immigrants, and evidence that immigrants adversely affect natives will never be entirely lacking. It is also important to be watchful of proposals that are billed as efforts to contain costs when, in effect, these are attempts to alter the very basis of what it means to be an immigrant. For example, several proposals before Congress fail to distinguish properly documented from undocumented immigrants or create distinctions between legal permanent residents and naturalized citizens. Blurring the demarcations that form the principle of a coherent immigration policy may undermine our capacity to create and sustain effective policy. New York City has perhaps the most pro-immigrant political culture of any major city in the country, to its great credit.