Prop 8, the anti-mosque movement, anti-illegal fervor...

[Tim]

To put a sharper point on your 2 - the anti-illegal-immigration lobby in the past two years has failed to make the case that it's all for and all about LEGAL immigration. It's allowed the public perception to take root that they are just opposed to people who look different and come from different places.

This obviously isn't the case, at least not for main body of people concerned about illegal immigration. As the younger brother of two adopted ethnically Chinese immigrant brothers and the older brother of one adopted Chinese/Taiwanese sister, I'm a huge fan of robust legal immigration.

But - back to your point - the concern isn't that they "take Americans benefits" - it's simply that illegal immigration imposes costs on the state and the taxpayers, which the state and the taxpayers don't recoup. And it is very much, at the same time, that this is frequently happening with people who have little interest in - and in their defense often no chance - assimilating or embracing the civic culture of the US, as all past waves of US immigrants have done.

But for the majority of people concerned about illegal immigration - at least those that I know - there isn't the slightest bit of xenophobia or racism.

I disagree with this assertion. In the time of Italian immigration one would find large communities of Italians speaking Italian, eating Italian food, living an Italian life in America. Their children went to school, though, and grew up speaking both English and Italian. It took two or three generations for cultural integration to occur -- but the immigrant himself, unless he came at a young age, likely never became assimilated.

The same occurs with Hispanic immigrants: while the immigrant may not ever learn English, his children will go to school and become bilingual. His grandchildren will spend most of their time speaking English.

Current immigrants assimilate similarly to those who immigrated in previous generations.

[DU Ute]

I disagree with this assertion. In the time of Italian immigration one would find large communities of Italians speaking Italian, eating Italian food, living an Italian life in America. Their children went to school, though, and grew up speaking both English and Italian. It took two or three generations for cultural integration to occur -- but the immigrant himself, unless he came at a young age, likely never became assimilated.

The same occurs with Hispanic immigrants: while the immigrant may not ever learn English, his children will go to school and become bilingual. His grandchildren will spend most of their time speaking English.

Current immigrants assimilate similarly to those who immigrated in previous generations.

I agree 100%.

Claiming that today's immigrants are assimilating slower than those in the past is just not true. And who are we to dictate just how and when people should assimilate into American culture? There are huge incentives for immigrants to learn English and fit in culturally with mainstream America. Why do some people feel such a great need to force these things on people.

[oxcoug]

I agree 100%.

Claiming that today's immigrants are assimilating slower than those in the past is just not true. And who are we to dictate just how and when people should assimilate into American culture? There are huge incentives for immigrants to learn English and fit in culturally with mainstream America. Why do some people feel such a great need to force these things on people.

The evidence that you're both at least somewhat mistaken on this is in the accommodation that is made nationwide for Spanish-speaking immigrants that was never made for any other group. Once an Italian was processed at Ellis Island he/she could basically find shared cultural and linguistic community in Little Italy and a handful of tiny neighborhoods in other urban centers, but no official assistance or disincentives to the necessity of learning the civic language.

This leads to a second point which is that it's not just about the rate of assimilation, it's about volume and density of Spanish-speaking immigrant communities. If you are Latin American at this point you can go to pretty much any state and any major city in the US right now and find stores, neighborhoods and clinics where you can go right on not learning English and have a perfectly intelligible existence.

Obviously nothing like this has ever happened before and it requires a feat of imagination to believe that it's not slowing rates of assimilation by removing the sheer urgency of assimilation.

The final point factoring here is that no earlier immigrant group has nurtured or been nurtured by the idea that the land they are coming to is land that they have some historical claim to. No earlier group has had Zack de la Rocha (and national lobbies) raging in their ears about how they've been wronged and how they should take what's theirs.

It's obviously a small percentage of the total population Hispanic immigrants who hold these views - but it's still a significant point of differentiation bt Latin American immigration to the US and all previous waves, and it contains the seeds of an entitled mentality that contrasts sharply with the attitudes of past immigrant communities.

[All-American]

I disagree with this assertion. In the time of Italian immigration one would find large communities of Italians speaking Italian, eating Italian food, living an Italian life in America. Their children went to school, though, and grew up speaking both English and Italian. It took two or three generations for cultural integration to occur -- but the immigrant himself, unless he came at a young age, likely never became assimilated.

The same occurs with Hispanic immigrants: while the immigrant may not ever learn English, his children will go to school and become bilingual. His grandchildren will spend most of their time speaking English.

Current immigrants assimilate similarly to those who immigrated in previous generations.

Yeah, but Italians were white.

[wuapinmon]

I would point out that the Republican party was the force behind addressing slavery, polygamy, and granting citizenship to other races if I didn't think you were just trolling.

How they have fallen! (note: I'm NOT a Democrat)

[pellegrino]

Yeah, but Italians were white.

so that's why they got lynched alongside blacks. Now we pass as white, but back in the day us daygos were never considered to be on par with white America.

[oxcoug]

Yeah, but Italians were white.

Yeah, which is obviously what motivates Prof Peter Schuck of Yale Law to write his op-ed and the NYT to publish it. Bloody effing racist, intolerant New York Jews the lot of them.

Do you actually imagine that race factors anywhere in the thinking of mainline critics of our immigration policy? Certainly there are some racist scum at the margins of the debate. But come on.

My three adopted immigrant Chinese siblings (two of which spoke no English when they came to the US at the age of 12), now a nuclear engineer, a top corporate accountant and a startup exec piss all over the fatuous default to race that has become a substitute for substantive discussion.

[BTW, I direct that less at you - as I assume you're mostly playing - than an the people who routinely try to pretend that race is the issue for the critics of birthright citizenship].

Incidentally - none of my three Chinese siblings was born in the US and all three spent years learning English and studying in US schools before they became citizens.

[All-American]

Yeah, which is obviously what motivates Prof Peter Schuck of Yale Law to write his op-ed and the NYT to publish it. Bloody effing racist, intolerant New York Jews the lot of them.

Do you actually imagine that race factors anywhere in the thinking of mainline critics of our immigration policy? Certainly there are some racist scum at the margins of the debate. But come on.

My three adopted immigrant Chinese siblings (two of which spoke no English when they came to the US at the age of 12), now a nuclear engineer, a top corporate accountant and a startup exec piss all over the fatuous default to race that has become a substitute for substantive discussion.

[BTW, I direct that less at you - as I assume you're mostly playing - than an the people who routinely try to pretend that race is the issue for the critics of birthright citizenship].

Incidentally - none of my three Chinese siblings was born in the US and all three spent years learning English and studying in US schools before they became citizens.

I do not believe that most Americans consciously allow racism to affect questions of policy. I do believe that subconscious racial bias can skew perception of facts and make trivial problems seem bigger, or substantial concerns seem smaller, than they really are.

[LA Ute]

To put a sharper point on your 2 - the anti-illegal-immigration lobby in the past two years has failed to make the case that it's all for and all about LEGAL immigration. It's allowed the public perception to take root that they are just opposed to people who look different and come from different places.

This obviously isn't the case, at least not for main body of people concerned about illegal immigration. As the younger brother of two adopted ethnically Chinese immigrant brothers and the older brother of one adopted Chinese/Taiwanese sister, I'm a huge fan of robust legal immigration.

But - back to your point - the concern isn't that they "take Americans benefits" - it's simply that illegal immigration imposes costs on the state and the taxpayers, which the state and the taxpayers don't recoup. And it is very much, at the same time, that this is frequently happening with people who have little interest in - and in their defense often no chance - assimilating or embracing the civic culture of the US, as all past waves of US immigrants have done.

But for the majority of people concerned about illegal immigration - at least those that I know - there isn't the slightest bit of xenophobia or racism.

I think you are right. I, by the way, am considered a dangerous moderate on illegal immigration. (Serving a mission in Central American and then working with LDS immigrants - legal and illegal - in the L.A. area ever since then has made an imprint on me, I guess). I thought the Bush principles for comprehensive reform were pretty sound. Almost all of the illegals now here are here to stay, and they need to become Americans. We do need to stop the unrestricted inflow, but that's not as simple as some seem to think.