PAGE 5

Tuesday, January 14, 1997

Immigrants are an asset, not a liability

From: D.N. Rahni, Ph.D. <rahni@pacevm.dac.pace.edu>
Professor of Chemistry
Director of Graduate Program in Environmental Science
PACE UNIVERSITY
Pleasantville, New York

Enclosed herewith please find a statement in unequivocal support of a recent article by Dr. Eli Pearce, and in response to the current activity pursued by the American Chemical Society Board of Directors' Task Force on Immigration issues.

If you realte to the content of the letter, please forward it to all "foreign" born American friends (Iranian, Indian, Chinese, etc)for further dissemination.

Those who are chemists, should write a similar letter to the ACS Board Members and Chemical & Engineering News, while others shoould consider doing the same to their respective professional societies, since many of them are engaged in a similar venture.

Respectfully submitted,

Davood N. Rahni

NATURALIZED CITIZEN AMERICAN CHEMISTS: CONTRIBUTIONS, PERCEPTIONS, AND CHALLENGES

This is in support of a recent article on "Globalization, Immigration and R&D [Research & Development] Policy," by Eli M. Pearce (Chemical & Engineering Magazine, December 23, 1996, page 32), and the recent meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS) Board of Directors' Task Force on Immigration Policy held in conjunction with the ACS national meeting in Orlando, FL in August.

As the only observer, I attended the above "closed" meeting on the ACS development of a new "Policy Statement on Immigration." After having carefully examined the current ACS draft of the immigration statement and its comparison with the two pieces of pending legislation in the Congress, I am somewhat astonished and dismayed as to the lack of depth and breadth in understanding, proactive vision, and perception of some of the ACS Task Force Members.

Claims have been made that the focus of the proposed "revised policy on immigration" is on the future; I disagree, since its ramifications will adversely affect many of the naturalized American citizens who have already lived in this country for up to fifty years.

Furthermore, as the founder of the Persian-American Chemists' Association in the mid-1980’s with a current membership coverage of several hundred ACS members, I have been in communication with the leadership of many other similar naturalized American chemists and scientific groups; it is amazing how close our concerns are in reference to the above ACS stance, and how we unanimously share the same level of disillusionment. I must inform the ACS leadership that a great many of ACS members are full-heartedly in accord with Dr. Pearces' position.

Furthermore, we are categorically against both the undemocratic secretive process by which the current "ACS Immigration Policy" is being drafted and its content. I would, therefore, ask for immediate "damage control," by reconsidering the ACS Board policy in this regard to avoid further deterioration of moral, disenfranchisement and divisiveness among members. I would present the following facts in order to further support the above position:

As large corporations are increasingly becoming transnational in not only sales and marketing strategies, but also in research, development, and manufacturing, the United States is in a superb position to benefit tremendously from its diverse intellectual human resources for further enhancement of its global economic and scientific competitiveness.

Naturalized, assimilated American citizens continue to maintain cultural and professional ties with both their former homes and many other overseas countries. This enables them to take pivotal roles in promoting business and scientific enterprises on behalf of their "adopted" home, the United States, well into the next century.

For example, I have personally been fortunate to have benefited from numerous research collaborations and visiting professorships, such as a J. William Fulbright Senior Fellowship in Denmark, and Universities at Oxford, Rome, Florence, and Mexico. Moreover, international students who attend American schools contribute immensely toward scholarly advances, and upon graduation return to their respective countries to continue this quest, influencing favorably the economic and scientific ties with the US in their respective countries and regions.

I would, henceforth, contend that having international students in American schools has, and continues to be a "win--win" situation for all parties engaged; this includes American colleges, corporations and the US society at-large on one hand, and the international students and their countries, on the other.

Lastly, certain graduate student slots in American schools have thus far, been filled with international students mainly due to lack of interest by the US-born students. It is, however, anticipated that the trend may shift toward more Americans demonstrating interests in the pursuit of science and engineering.

Having interacted with faculty colleagues in many graduate schools nationwide, we have tried to do our best to attract US-born students into the graduate programs. I cannot think of an incidence where a US-born applicant was denied admission, while favoring an international student.

On the contrary if anything, the standards imposed on, and expected from international student applicants, in many instances, far exceed the general admission requirements for entrance into many graduate programs. In other words, it’s obviously prudent and well-deserving to first give top priority to American applicants to pursue academic degrees in the sciences and engineering fields.

One still hopes that the American Chemical Society recognizes its global leadership and responsibilities in the chemical sciences (ACS international membership and the overseas use of its products are growing at a much faster pace than the national rate).

It is, however, shortsighted to put it mildly, for the ACS leadership to react to a temporary unemployment problem by putting the entire blame on "international students" and the recent "underdog" professional naturalized citizens, thereby overlooking many other fundamental factors (e.g. corporate mergers, acquisitions, downsizing, outsourcing, and short-sighted drastic R&D cut-backs, lack of long-term responsible corporate and national R&D strategy, to name a few examples; perhaps, these are the far more vital issues that the ACS must develop "policy statements" and "lobby" for).

If such an objective is further pursued in its current format, it will not only have serious, adverse effects on the American status in the chemical and scientific arenas globally, but it will also promote discriminatory ramifications in the ACS membership.

The ACS policy on immigration in its current format will adversely affect the already curtailed professional opportunities and career path developments of those naturalized American citizens currently numbering in tens of thousands within the ACS membership alone, an intellectual human resource to be recognized and reckoned with.

After all, it is rather difficult to find a US corporate or academic department which can currently function effectively without the presence and substantive contribution of naturalized citizens who are working down in the trenches while keeping a low profile. In addition, almost all scientific articles and patents have at a minimum one "foreign" co-author.

Have such vast contributions thus far resulted in the realization of and equitable career development and advancement for such individuals, and their just representation in government offices and professional societies-- such as the ACS--that the ACS leadership has now charged itself to make it even harder for naturalized citizens by lobbying on "Immigration Reform?"

Isn't the immigration sensationalism by mass media not sufficient that a professional society has to join the popular media--perhaps inadvertently, one wonders-- to bash first generation Americans? Doesn’t data collected by the Federal government indicate that foreign born Americans constitute from one to two third of the academic faculty in the sciences and engineering fields?

After such media hype, so many of us have felt discrimination deep in our bones simply because our name was not "John Smith" or our curriculum vitae exhibited some of our "foreign" academic credentials. After all, these are the same chemists/scientists who have mostly arrived in this country with, minimum, a college degree and substantial financial resources (brain and capital drains from the so-called Third World developing countries).

They have further received terminal degrees in this country, completed postdoctorates in far longer time periods than native US citizens (I know of a sixteen-year case before the candidate finally secured a permanent position with FDA!), and continue to contribute phenomenally contributions to the welfare of science and our society.

They have earned their American citizenship through a rather long, costly and competitive process with federal scrutiny (which among others includes many stages of security and health clearances), and nationally-advertised searches for positions demonstrating that a "native" citizen was not found, before an "alien" would be considered.

The ACS and its leadership should be careful not to become what I would refer to as "The beaker hotter than the aqueous solution inside!", i.e. an over-zealous ACS when compared to the Federal Government, and the society at-large.

Ironically, immigration has historically been regarded a great asset for this country during waves of economic expansions; however, name and blame calling, and immigrant bashing have been perpetrated greatly by the media among others when there is an economic stagnation. Let me assure you that the skilled, intellectual labor force who has immigrated to this country during the past fifty years, and has contributed greatly to the betterment of this society will not remain in vain, and will speak out: Loud and Clear.

The current immigration laws including the Immigration Reform Act of 1990, if implemented properly by the Federal Government, would sufficiently and justifiably protect the rights and privileges of US-born citizens. The ACS leadership should avoid any position that may be divisive among its membership, detrimental to its professional and scholarly endeavors, and, therefore contradictory with its charter and mission statement.

The ACS leadership could instead charge itself, with far overdue "lobbying" for equitable financial, professional, and societal recognition for all its membership, which incidentally remain ever increasingly inferior when compared to those achieved by other professional groups (e.g. physicians, dentists, lawyers, engineers) within the society.

Undoubtedly, by taking a positive, proactive approach, the ACS Board of Directors could avoid this time, a real "ambient nuclear fission!" among its membership by eliminating divisive disillusionment, and promoting empowerment.

D.N. Rahni, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemistry
Director of Graduate Program in Environmental Science
PACE UNIVERSITY
Pleasantville, New York
<rahni@pacevm.dac.pace.edu>

Back to top