Asymmetrical Information

I'm generally in the pro-immigration camp, but surely you can see you've omitted two crucial details:

(1) It's one thing to have millions of immigrants arriving from across the ocean; it's quite another when they're right next door.

(2) Accepting unskilled immigrants is quite different when combined with the welfare state.

Personally, I don't think either of these issues is insoluble, and I think that even with them, immigration is still a net positive. But these are still real concerns, though, and it seems quite obnoxious to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as a bigot.

It's all been going downhill since the Brits stole
nieuw Amsterdam from the rightful owners.

You have completely left out the very important issue of legal vs. illegal immigration.

In my experience as an (legal) immigrant, much of the concern about illegal immigration centers about sheer numbers and volume.

The Amish are quaint partly because they are small in number and are not increasingly rapidly.

If Mexico was far away across the ocean and only a few thousand managed to sneak in every year, I don't think that anyone would pay much attention.

But it is right next door, and has already demonstrated its ability to send several million illegals across its shared border with the US. The illegal immigration problem is really a Mexican illegal immigration problem, since about 60 - 70% of illegals are Mexicans.

The US has been historically effective at assimilating newcomers, but there is some rate of immigration at which that ability to assimilate starts to fail.

That is really the argument.

And yes, as a brown skinned immigrant myself, I have little concern that Mexicans are brown and it is a little annoying to see you of all people trot out the race card.

If there were millions of brown skinned illegals from my own brown country, I would be concerned about that too.

There are other factors to consider, such as the economic burden of illegal aliens taking advantage of our social services without contributing enough to compensate for them, thus driving the cost to everyone else up. There's the tendency for hospitals in largely illegal-immigrant dominated neighborhoods to go under due to the increase in unfunded demand for their services. There's even the historical claims that revanchist identity-groups ideologues make on the American Southwest (Aztlan anyone?).

As for the historical success of the US at assimilating immigrants, that was then, prior to the inception of cheap cell-phones and the internet and multi-culturalist demagogues who tell the illegals that they don't *have* to assimilate, but that they are still entitled to all the rights and privileges of American citizenship.

None of which has anything to do with the skin pigmentation of the illegals.

That group is, of course, the Amish, and many of the same people complaining that Mexicans won't assimilate flock to Lancaster to take pictures of women in funny hats vending sticky-sweet food and overpriced handwork. Can someone explain this in terms that don't devolve into "But the Mexicans are brown"?

Kevin P pretty much addressed the rather obvious distinctions between the two groups but perhaps you can answer a question of mine. Where on Earth did you get the idea that the people who are concerned about ten to twelve million illegal aliens are the same people (or even that there is any meaningful overlap) who visit like visiting the Amish?

It seems to me that the people in the latter group who enjoy gawking at the Amish are more likely to be the same people who are saying “no problem here” regarding illegal immigration rather than people who are trying to secure our borders.

I can only think of one group that has managed to ruthlessly prevent assimilation, passing their strange religious customs, their language, and their clothes on generation after generation . . .

Show of hands – how many people who object to illegal immigration are against families passing along their religious beliefs, their language (so long as their kids learn English) and fashion to their children? Anyone?

a group that refuses to serve in the military,

We have an all-volunteer military so what is your point exactly?

barely pays taxes,

And barely earns anyone income to pay them?

and frequently pulls its children out of school after eighth grade to keep them from getting Americanised.

Last time I checked, parents have the right to educate their own children at home but I’m not sure that too many children in the government schools are in danger of becoming “Americanized.”

There’s another important distinction you seem to be missing (in addition to the ones Kevin P pointed out) – the Amish are doing all of these things in the context of obeying the same laws that the rest of us follow. Illegal aliens are by definition starting out by breaking the laws and asking (in some cases demanding) that we ignore our own laws, change them to accommodate their law-breaking, or grant them some sort of amnesty from obeying the law.

You might be surprised but that actually matters to a lot of people.

I was surprised to read this post. Your analysis is usually so rigorous, and you seldom impute bad motives to those who disagree with you.

In addition to what has been mentioned above, about assimilation being more difficult this time because of modern communications (cheap phone calls, Spanish-language tv, etc.), the large size of this immigrant group, and the reluctance of many people here to push assimilation these days, I can think of two other reasons this wave of illegal immigration is troubling:
1) mainly because of the US welfare state, the economics of immigration by low-skilled people seems to be different than the economics of low-skilled immigrants before the dramatic expansion of the welfare state during the New Deal and afterwards, and
2) many vocal people among this current wave of immigrants seems much less eager to assimilate. There is a vocal movement to reclaim vast chunks of this country that were taken from Mexico in the 19th century and convert it into La Republica Del Norte or Aztlan.

Some economists are trying to determine whether
illegal immigrants and their children will be a drain on the US or a net plus. I'm trying to evaluate their arguments. I'd like to see more people doing this. What I don't want to see is the debate being shut down by one side accusing its opponents of racism.

I have no problem with legal immigration of those who are law-abiding, skilled or ambitious, and willing to consider themselves "Americans" rather than hyphenations. That's pretty much what all my criteria boil down to, and I'm perfectly happy allowing easy immigration in large numbers by people willing to follow the rules.

Illegal immigration, however, is a serious problem. Why? It creates a class of people unable to follow some laws (eg, car insurance, driver licensing, taxes) without breaking others (identity theft). It creates a class of people unable to rely upon law enforcement for protection or justice, and thus people who are predisposed to use other means of dispute resolution. And it provides cover for people with nefarious intent to sneak into the country.

Here's another argument that may appeal to your inner economist: If illegal immigrants do not pay taxes, license fees, certifications, insurance, and other costs borne by legitimate businesses, can they not then undercut those businesses -- eventually forcing them to discontinue operations or adjust? I'm all for reducing the government burden on everyone, but allowing some individuals to ignore it while forcing others to comply amounts to a subsidy for illegal behavior.

I, too, am disappointed to see the race card played here. Race has nothing to do with it.

And when the Amish found violent street gangs, your analogy will be complete.

That is, btw, a pretty poor description of their effect on the society around them; "pushing their un-American agenda" doesn't describe any Amish person I met, and I married into a Pennsylvania Mennonite family. They keep to themselves; the last word anyone would use to describe them is "aggressive."

I don't usually find your posts irksome, but this one is the exception. It's too easy to tar opponents with the charge of nativist bigotry - doing so leaves aside the real issues that are at the core of the revolt against the comprehensive reform bill. People dislike rewarding illegal behavior, and they also dislike the notion (which you will see in action at firsthand when you have kids) that assimilation and the nation are obsolete notions, and that multiple and conflicting loyalties are OK - and that we ought to have no problem with a previous national loyalty trumping that to the adopted country.

It's disingenuous to pretend that these arguments don't exist, and that this is pure nativism. And having heard plenty of reactionaries make this point, I have yet to hear one so much as hint that it's a question of race or ethnicity. Do you have contradictory data points?

Would it make you feel better if I said I find Amish pacifism kinda annoying, too?

Seriously, if assimunlation is proceeding apace, that's great. The worry is that it is not. And the fact that every Wal-Mart and Lowe's in Nowheresville USA with exactly 8 English-speaking Mexicans who moved there 20 years ago has Spanish plastered all over it is evidence that it is not. Maybe bad evidence, but highly visible, and you might take the time to explain it rather than ignoring it.

100 years ago, you could find ethnic neighborhoods with foreign-language signs. Signs put there by immigrants themselves, who told their kids to learn English. Today that neighborhood is as close as a phone call to any major corporation and lots of minor ones.

So the question is: is the next generation learning English, or are they skaking by pushing 2?

To sharpen Kevin's point: the 12 million illegal immigrants themselves aren't the problem; the problem is the flow of hundreds of thousands crossing the border every year. The USA can assimilate any finite block of immigrants, given time; the USA can't, however, assimilate a perpetual flow of immigrants. You don't find signs in foreign languages all over New York today because the USA shut down the last mass immigration in the 1920's. Close the southern border, and the Spanish-only neighborhoods will fade away in a generation. Leave that border open, welcoming anyone who crosses, and we'll end up with a caste of helots, laboring for us without feeling any loyalty to us, or having much reason to. That's not just to the immigrants, setting aside what it would do to us.

Nanonymous, are Amish cocaine dealers close enough for ya?

I suppose, Jane that you wouldn't have to look very hard to find people whose primary objection (maybe unstated) is that the new wave of immigrants is "brown" as you say. To be fair, though, you also wouldn't have to look very hard to find that the majority have serious problems with illegal immigration, primarily from the U.S.'s inability to know who is coming into this country.

I would think a basic curiosity about that fact wouldn't qualify one as a bigot. What are you going to say next, that those who oppose the new bill "aren't interested in doing what's right for this country?"

Racism ultimately is simply extreme pessimism and paranoia about groups of people. It's extremely hard to reason away racism, because racism is based on assumptions, rather than simply observations and reasoning.

A racist doesn't fear Mexican immigration because the Mexicans are brown, he/she fears Mexican immigrants because he/she assumes, as a starting point, that Mexicans as a group won't be able to contribute positively to society. This basic assumption can then be defended with a host of evidence, picked and chosen from reality as a whole.

The logic of any particular piece of evidence will never be dispositive, because the basic pessimism/paranoia is not based on any particular piece of evidence; it's an underlying assumption.

So, it is extremely hard to fight racism by showing the irrationality of any particular aspect of it, because the racist can always easily move the goal posts rather than admit they're being racist.

The immigration hysteria is very similar to the racist vs. non-racist perspective on segrigation vs. integration. Racist pro-segrigationists were just extremely pessimistic and paraniod about what black people could do. And the true racists remain so, even long after civil rights laws and integration occured without destroying our society.

And pro-segrigation racists are just as pessimistic and paranoid today about black people as they were before desegrigation. Pointing out all of the positive things that black people have done since desegrigation doesn't disprove anything to them, because their pessimism and paranoia is so general. Specific positive developments are just dismissed as deviations.

You forgot that prior waves of immigrants-- my family among them-- wanted to move here and make a life. Most of the illegals I know just want to come here, make money and go back to Mexico in the winter, but don't want to do that legally.

I have to side(reluctantly) with Jane on this one. There have undoubtedly been better posts written by dumber people, but I will give Jane the benefit of the doubt. I think we share the same thoughts on this issue, but it is very difficult to articulate.

For example, people are responding like Jane doesn't understand the issue. Personally I, and I think Jane, understand all of the facts and arguments. What I do not understand is the mind frame that takes these facts and arguments and translates them into emotional responses. Can someone help?

One more curiousity. How are free trade of goods and free trade of labor qualitatively different? It seems anyone that supports free trade on it's moral principles (ie: freedom) necessarily must support free trade of labor.

>> I have no problem with legal immigration of those who are law-abiding, skilled or ambitious, and willing to consider themselves "Americans" rather than hyphenations. That's pretty much what all my criteria boil down to, and I'm perfectly happy allowing easy immigration in large numbers by people willing to follow the rules.

This is the comment that caught my attention -- because I almost never see this point addressed. Basically, a question to all people who consider themselves "anti-illegal, not anti-immigration": would you accept opening the restrictions to legal immigration (it probably means doing away with annual quotas and employment pre-certification) if they were coupled with strictest enforcement measures on the border possible? Let's assume that the annual sum total of all immigrants does not change with the new policy, but they will all be legal from now on. Is that acceptable?

Of course those who say that there are reasonable limits to assimilation are quite justified in answering "no", but there should be no qualms in calling this particular position "anti-immigration".

By the way, my hypothetical does not imply complete lack of restrictions on legal immigration, just that the status quo in terms of the flow is preserved.

Max:

Of course those who say that there are reasonable limits to assimilation are quite justified in answering "no", but there should be no qualms in calling this particular position "anti-immigration".

This is a silly argument. By way of analogy, if you are opposed to a situation where any person may buy a belt fed machine gun without any kind of background check or registration, you must be anti-gun...

For example, people are responding like Jane doesn't understand the issue.

Personally I, and I think Jane, understand all of the facts and arguments.

One more curiousity. How are free trade of goods and free trade of labor qualitatively different? It seems anyone that supports free trade on it's moral principles (ie: freedom) necessarily must support free trade of labor.

Stan:

How are free trade of goods and free trade of labor qualitatively different? It seems anyone that supports free trade on it's moral principles (ie: freedom) necessarily must support free trade of labor.

A fair question. I suppose one crucial distinction is that labor comes attached to a human being with all the advantages and disadvantages thereof.

Stan - the objections to Jane's post is not about whether you are pro- or anti- immigration, but whether being anti-immigration automatically makes you a racist.

That's where I have to call BS, and, apparently, I'm not alone.

>> This is a silly argument. By way of analogy, if you are opposed to a situation where any person may buy a belt fed machine gun without any kind of background check or registration, you must be anti-gun...

Argument about what? I was asking a question, not making an argument. Do you object to the "anti-immigration" label? In my mind it is really a shorthand for "supporting more restrictive immigration policy overall", not "being against admitting any immigrants into the country". I don't think your analogy holds: in current legislative environment, unregulated private ownership of crew served weapons is far beyond the realm of possible. On the other hand, I would call "anti-gun" a person who objects to largely unregulated private ownership of semi-automatic rifles with unlimited magazine capacity (did I have to work hard to avoid the dread term "assault rifle", or what? ;-) ).

First, never was the wave internally united by language. The speakers of Yiddish, Italian, and Greek needed a common language for intercourse between them; speakers of Spanish, Spanish, and Spanish already have one. If you replaced a third of the Mexican immigrants with, say, twice as many Filipinos and twice as many Angolans, increasing immigration by a factor of two, you'd still get something more assimilable.

Second, never was the wave connected as closely to its homeland by technology as the current one. How many of your previous waves were able to have daily contact with the families they left behind in Europe, exactly? Regular exposure to home is a counter-assimilation influence.

Third, never before have are schools been less committed to forcing children to learn English first and foremost. We can change this, but until we do, it's another assimilation problem.

Fourth, never before have immigrants to this country been logically capable of believing themselves the actual native population, and the dominant culture of the U.S. to be alien imposition of imperialist occupiers. Mexicans here in the Southwest do remember 1848, and some do justify resistance to assimilation on the grounds that this is "properly" Mexican land. How many Italian immigrants viewed Manhattan as part of Italy stolen by the United States?

Fifth, never was the wave so close geographically to its homeland in terms of either time or distance. This isn't a big factor now, when illegals have to worry about coming back into the country if they visit home regularly -- but if they're legalized, they'll be able to go back and forth freely. Regular exposure to home is a counter-assimilation influence.

As for the Amish, they're less than 0.1% of the population of the U.S. and not increasing in number very quickly. A belly button ring and a spear in the guts are both foreign object piercings, but one is a heck of a lot more dangerous than the other.

One more curiousity. How are free trade of goods and free trade of labor qualitatively different?

Just as an example, in the first case, you don't get activists in the U.S. calling for the liberation of Aztlán from the conquering Anglos and its return to Mexican rule. In the second case, you do.

The formal imperative would be "oprime"...

This is the comment that caught my attention -- because I almost never see this point addressed. Basically, a question to all people who consider themselves "anti-illegal, not anti-immigration": would you accept opening the restrictions to legal immigration (it probably means doing away with annual quotas and employment pre-certification) if they were coupled with strictest enforcement measures on the border possible? Let's assume that the annual sum total of all immigrants does not change with the new policy, but they will all be legal from now on. Is that acceptable?

I'd accept this in a red hot second, assuming that folks actually have to *immigrate*--not just visit part-time, and that a desire to overthrow the US gov'nt be an automatic no on the immigration process. There'd probably have to be some work done to deal with the number of folks coming, and various things would need to be greatly reworked to keep people from taking advantage of it.

I'm in a bad mood at the moment, so I'd throw in that showing loyalty to your prior country above the loyalty you have to your new one would be treason, make you lose your new citizenship and be tossed over the nearest border....but that's mostly my mood and odd humor.

In favor of immigration, including Mexican, but I'd name:

1) Home country is close by, many of them intend to leave to return after making their fortune here, and that leads to less assimilation. I like immigrants, but I'd prefer people who want to spend their whole lives here and become Americans to temporary guests.

2) There's a difference between lots of immigrants from lots of different countries, and lots of immigrants from all one place. Two large groups can be more of a recipe for conflict than dozens, or one large one plus dozens of small ones. (There are possible comparisons to Canada, and various other historical analogies.)

3) Mexicans do have an irredentist claim which is about as good as any out there. Then again, even more so do the American Indians. But it's hard to imagine other immigrants claiming that the land was stolen from them, or that they "were here first," as Bill Richardson has before. (Coming from an old family of New Mexico, as he does.)

4) I'd suppose that people who both a) care more about the poor than the rich but b) care specifically about poor Americans more than poor foreigners, are concerned that poor immigrants hurt poor Americans, certainly in the short run, even if the immigrants themselves benefit.

5) The welfare argument is out there, but it's not particularly backed up by evidence in the case of Mexicans. In particular, lots of Mexicans pay withholding but aren't eligible for benefits, since companies really get smacked by the IRS for not withholding in a way that they don't for hiring illegal immigrants. In general, a state that relies most on sales taxes first and property taxes second, with no income tax (like Texas) is going to do a lot better at taxing illegals than a state that depends heavily on a state income tax (like California.)

I'll also say that I've been disgusted by the effects of Irish-American support for the IRA on American politics, and would offer that as an example of a negative effect of immigration. (Outweighed by good, though.)

Gee, Jane, for someone who was convinced that invading Iraq was absolutely essential to our national security, you sure don't seem to care much about our ability to control our own borders.

"the Brits stole
nieuw Amsterdam from the rightful owners": they didn't steal it, they traded it. It's vey important to emphasise that there is at least one legal transfer of land in American history.

What's wrong with arguments based on group characteristics? If group A in the US has an average IQ of 90 and crime rates 3 times the white average while group B in the US has an average IQ of 110 and crime rates 1/3 the white average it seems sensible to encourage immigration from group B and discourage immigration from group A.

Does Jane Galt believe all immigrants are fungible, that it doesn't matter who we admit? Why shouldn't immigration policy be biased towards desirable immigrants? Why shouldn't people be concerned about a massive illegal flow of undesirable immigrants?

Can someone explain this in terms that don't devolve into "But the Mexicans are brown"?

I'm generally pro-immigration, but that's weak. The Amish are few in number, extremely law-abiding, and refuse government benefits (they even opt out of Social Security).

And then -- as for the previous groups of immigrants, it's not as if their linguistic and cultural differences never caused friction. Remember the Haymarket riots? Sacco and Vanzetti? German and Italian immigrant anarchists. And, of course, my understanding is that many German speaking communities only gave up their German as a result of the World Wars (this is when many Lutheran churches stopped offering German-language services).

Now I'm not claiming anything about the guilt of the executed anarchists -- only pointing out that earlier large waves of immigration were not without problems. We might conclude that a hundred years from now, in the long run, when we are all dead, Mexican immigration will have become a non-issue, but that doesn't mean that there won't be turbulence between now and then.

And, of course, as others have pointed out, modern technology (the internet, satellite TV, cheap long distance, cheap travel) does make a huge difference in immigrants being able to maintain contact with their original home countries and cultures and this reduces the motivation to assimilate.

Again, I think the benefits of immigration outweigh the drawbacks, but I don't think the Amish and the 19th century German immigrants form the basis for a strong argument.

Although I think that it is likely that Mexican immigrants will assimilate, I don't think that it's completely obvious. Earlier immigrants were a majority in part of a city or, rarely, a whole city.
Usually the immigrants were just one group among many. That's hardly the case with Mexicans who dominate major portions of southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

Also, immigration was greatly reduced in the 1920s. Things might not have turned out so well in America in the twentieth century if immigration had continued at the same pace it was before 1924.

I'm really not sure why we have millions of immigrants of any kind, though. The evidence is that immigrants displace native citizens from the cities where they settle. Aren't all the desirable places to live in America basically full already? Shouldn't immigration be in the range of ten thousand a year, instead?

Amish vs. Mexican is an unfair comparison. The Amish mostly obey laws, and support themselves. They are not hiding, perpetuating unsafe housing practices, nor vulnerable to gross manipulation because of isolated language (the Amish learn English) and exposure to threats of legal complaints. The Amish entered the US legally and openly purchase the land they live on.

What confuses me, is the reference to Mexicans being brown. I understood that Mexicans were either caucasion/northern European, or native indian, or 'mestizo', caucasion-native mixed ancestry. Why the parent tribes aren't organizing to protect their descendents, I don't know.

Because one thing I am convinced of, that like other waves of immigrants, the Mexican illegal immigrants will be targets of bullying and vandalism, and rights violations until they achieve fluency in English, and make their stay hear legal.

For all of the brouhaha out of Hollywood about 'Darfur', you would think there would be a bit of activism concerning that Latin American country that forced 12 million or more people out of her borders. Mexico. 12 million refugees from a nation profiting from forcing her people away. I see something wrong with this picture. As I reported to my congressman last week, in my opinion 10 people are illegal immigrants. 10 million people are refugees. Let's take care of this refugee problem by punishing the country at fault, Mexico, and establishing a program of care for the dislocated refugees.

For the whiners that buy the administrations twist on 'control the borders,' the first step is to get Mexico to address the pressures forcing the refugees out. Blocking off the refugees without addressing the problems they are escaping is not humane.

I lived in Mexico for 5 years ( ~ 1990 to 1995), married a Mexican girl (very morena ... she has darker skin than many so-called 'black' Americans.), and my children have brown skin.

I would hope that leaves me immune to being accused of 'hating brown people,' and yet I definitely count myself among those who believe that uncontrolled immigration -- and especially ILLEGAL immigration from Mexico -- is one of the greatest problems that America faces.

Previous commenters have already listed lots of good reasons, for example:

a.) Illegal immigrants are -- by definition -- CRIMINALS. And you're damned right that I (and my wife also) resent the fact that we had to spend years, and thousands of dollars jumping through all the silly, unnecessary hoops that the &%*@# Government places in the path of legal immigrants, not to mention kissing the arses of all the stupid, arrogant, obnoxious pr*cks who work for the INS (or whatever they call themselves now), while the same Government tuurns a blind eye to all the millions of illegals who ignore the rules.

b.) Previous waves of immigrants were not coming into a pre-existing Welfare State. A hundred years ago, one could be confident that anybody who went to all the effort of emigrating to America was motivated by some kind of very intense work ethic, and not just by a desire to grab the low-hanging fruit. That is undoubtedly still true of many individual immigrants, but we can no longer automativcally assume it. The Welfare State distorts everything.

c.) Other people have already mentioned the Azlan problem. Personally, I'm not sure of that's a bug or a feature. If Azlan ever comes into existence (as an independent country), and **IF** it combines the best features of Mexico with the best features of the USA, then I for one might be inclined to go live there. ... On the other hand, if it combines the worst of both cultures, then it could be Hell on Earth :-(

d.) Specifically addressing immigration from Mexico, there is one issue that nobody has mentioned yet; and yet this ought to be of especial concern to those of us with Libertarian leanings >>>

Q: Why do so many Mexicans want to leave Mexico? A: Because Mexico is a poor country.

Q: Why is Mexico a poor country? A: Because they have a corrupt, authoritarian, dysfunctional government.

Q: Why does Mexico have such a bad government? A: Well, maybe there is something in Mexican culture that encourages this, or at least tolerates it.

Q: Why are we so sure that those millions of un-assimilated immigrants are not going to eventually bring that tolerance for dysfunctional government with them, and to eventually drag the US government down to the level of the Mexican government?

Well, Jane, you've now heard a number of "purportedly educated" people offering non-racial reasons why there might be legitimate concern over mass Mexican immigration. Warmongering Lunatic and John Thacker both gave excellent lists.

But I personally don't object to Mexican (or "brown") legal immigration. Like so many others, I'm sick and tired of being branded a racist simply because I differentiate between 'legal' and 'illegal'.

What bothers me most about rewarding people who came here illegally is the thought of all the Filipinos I used to see lined up outside the US Consulate in Hong Kong and the US Embassy in Manila, trying to come here legally. I would be happy to see mass deportations of illegals combined with one new legal immigrant allowed in for each illegal that was deported. It's fundamentally unfair, in my opinion, to keep out those that followed the rules while rewarding those that broke them.

So Jane, I can see why you might have a different opinion, but how exactly is my concern based on skin color? How are Mexicans and Filipinos different in such a way that my emphasis on the rule of law is inevitably racist?

Megan,

This sort of emotional sarcastic rant is really beneath you.

You have some valid points to make, but you choose to make them in a way that presumes that those who disagree are naively ignorant ("...Little House...") or xenophobes ("...are _brown_").

There are plenty of non-stupid, non-bigoted reasons to be concerned about immigration. (They might be _wrong_, but you should argue the points.)

Reasonable people might think:
- it would be a mistake to abandon (primarily) uni-lingual America to a bi-lingual (or multi-lingual) future.
- that the culture that makes the U.S. the U.S. is not invulnerable to massive influxes of people from a single, different culture
- that income inequality is exacerbated by an influx of poor, low-skill immigrants (Kaus-ism)
- that the U.S. should focus on importing more high-skill folks from around the world

You're right that ignorance and bigotry certainly leads some folks to oppose Mexican immigration. That's a shame. Your argumentation (or lack thereof) is sadly shameful too.

--Colin

The general consensus seems to be, if I might be permitted to paraphrase, that culture is much more important than color, and we are afraid that acculturation will not take place with so many illegals.

Not stated, but which seems to me an obvious corollary, is that acculturation is at the root of the "African-American" problem. If you have ever worked or lived in Mount Vernon (New York), you know how much the Islanders and the American Blacks don't get along--and it's obviously along cultural lines, not color or race.

If the American Blacks want the benefits of the majority culture, then they need to adopt it as theirs. Sure, they can take bits and pieces of their "native" culture with them, as so many groups of former immigrants have (which certainly enriches this great "melting pot" of ours), but they can't live/accept a minority culture and then complain that they don't get the benefit of the majority culture.

The first place acculturation takes place is in learning English. I was totally dismayed a couple of years ago to see a citizenship ceremony conducted in Spanish! That judge missed the whole point of citizenship, acculturation, and acceptance of American values that is embodied in obtaining American citizenship.

That's my worry about 12 million illegals. I suspect that the majority of them are not investing in learning a new language and culture. I would be happy to accept all 12 million if they could demonstrate English proficiency, even if that upset those people who emigrated to the U.S. legally.

>> I would be happy to see mass deportations of illegals combined with one new legal immigrant allowed in for each illegal that was deported

How about going forward? If we are willing to admit as many legal immigrants as we get illegals, year after year, then surely it is not worth the effort deporting the current illegals... It is probably not even fair -- they did not _really_ have a choice to enter legally (and still don't -- given present rules).

As to resenting the illegals... I spent 7 years "jumping through hoops" before I got the GCs for me and my family. I still do not envy the people who had to cross the border on foot. Ever been to Big Bend National Park? Fancy a walk across? Truth is, they did not do it because they were so cunning and dismissive of the law but because they had no better option. This does not necessarily mean we should let them all in but there is no doubt in the world that legal immigrants have it easy compared to the illegals.

"Can someone explain this in terms that don't devolve into "But the Mexicans are brown"?"
er, Jane, can you not think of any? This is entirely market driven. Immigrants from Latin America can make so much money here, they can send it back to mexico, or honduras or wherever. Some of them do pay taxes, but only because they have stolen ID's. Since they are generally trying to fly under the radar anyway, the ID owner generally never finds out. So they break a law coming here, because they are not interested in waiting to get in, and then some of them break it again to steal ID, or forge them, so that they can work.

I think it can be said that these laws about citizenship are really something that the average illegal person, either doesn't consider at all, or looks at it as being the possible price of entry. If they thought it was WRONG, or if there was hefty jailtime involved, then the economic advantages of coming would be weighed against the potential downside. But what do we do with the person who comes here and doesn't break any major laws? We deport them. Now that they have an established rapport with this side of the border, it is much easier to come back.

Importantly, if YOU were going in to mexico illegally, and got caught, You would do jail time in the legendary mexican prisons. THEN you would be deported.

But then why would you go there, if it isn't very much worth your while?

This ISN'T a question of brown, any more than it would be a question of purple. It's a question of proximity, and economic disparity, coupled with very low practical downside.

So why does rule of law not bear in this from our side? Why are we 'MEAN'? This has nothing to do with 'we need people to fill the jobs'. The market will take care of that. It will take care of it quickly, if there isn't a unlimited flow of new labor.

Another problem that I have with the whole question as presented by most people and MSM is the idea that illegal people have moved here permenantly. This is a load of codswallop. I live smack in the middle of a neighborhood of southern immigrants. There are a large number of people who couch-surf 6 months a year, and live in mexico 6months. Some people return year on year and some don't, but they never think of the U. S. as being 'their' country or home. It is just until they have enough to go back. So the total figure of immigrants here illegally is open to debate, because I don't see where you have immigrated, if you don't intend to stay. In that case you are much more a guest worker. This make s the idea of "Assimilation" also much less solid... they aren't intending to assimilate, or stay.

I know many immigrants who are first or second gen, and they dislike illegal people very much, because the illegal ask for everything, but refuse to take the steps to become US.

As a sideline... I think this is not a native/not-native issue... Very few are really natives, we call them "Native-American". None of the rest of us have been here that long, even those with families going back to the mid 17's... or those going back further... Here in the southwest many people have family roots back to Virreinato de Nueva España or Viceroyalty of New Spain. Frontier towns like Santa Fe and Taos were established in the early 1600's. In many of these place there were, and are still, Native Americans. Some, like The Taos Pueblo, have lived there for 1000 years.

"because they had no better option."

well, yes actually. They could stay home.

Rex wrote: " ... The general consensus seems to be, if I might be permitted to paraphrase, that culture is much more important than color, and we are afraid that acculturation will not take place with so many illegals. ..."

Right after I sent my previous post, I remembered a little incident that happened to me about a year ago:
I was on a business trip back East that took me within about 50 miles of the little town in Pennsylvania that I grew up in. And I suddenly remembered a little bakery called Millie's on the edge of town that specialized in regional delicacies like Shoo-fly pie, Pigs-ears, and sticky buns (funny coincidence that Jane mentioned the Amish in her original post!!)

Anyhow, on the spur of the moment I decided to detour through the old hometown and pick up some of this stuff to take home to my wife & kids. To make a long story short: Millie's Bakery is now Lupita's Panaderia, and there was a big sign in the window advertising "muy ricas pasteles de tres leches y churros."

Now, y'all can call me an irrational chauvinistic, provincial, racist, Nativist S.O.B. if you like, but I drove back to the Interstate feeling *DAMNED* hurt & angry that a little slice of my childhood has been destroyed forever before I could share it with my children. And the real irony of the situation was, as I mentioned in my previous post, that my wife is Mexican and my kids were born in Mexico! If I want Churros, I can get them at home!

P.S.: I wasn't angry at Lupita, by the way. I'm angry at the politicians, the Limousine Liberals, and the "American" business elites who are selling out *MY* country to a bunch of foreigners, just so they can get their lawns mowed, their vegetables picked, and their sheetrock hung for sub-minimum wage rates while the lower class (financially speaking) Americans who should be doing that kind of work are sitting on their lazy behinds, enjoying the largesse of the Welfare State.

Funny how all these good people here seem to pronounce with infinite vigor on the economic harm that all these lazy illegal immigrants bring upon hard-working Americans. It would all be more credible if they had any freaking data to support their claims, or in the absence of that, if they could at least in good faith talk about their connections to the immigrant community, and anecdotally substantiate their perception.

On the merits of the issue, I side with Will Wilkinson, who finds the fact that people care so very much about the economic well-being of an abstraction like a nation rather baffling, especially when the economic transactions that they proscribe in order to supposedly safeguard the well-being of the abstraction are the very transactions that might benefit both them and their co-participants. Nationalism is not only a product of irrationality. It is its engine.

Legal immigration is a very recent phenom. Before the 60's it was an openly unapologetic race based immigration explicitly forbidding non-whites so it makes little sense to say i'm all for legal immigration because my grand-father did it that way.
And from http://www.remember.org/guide/History.root.stereotypes.html
"Immigration Quotas Based on Racism
Before 1890, the overwhelming majority of immigrants to the United States was from northern and western Europe. They were predominantly Protestant and included many industrious farmers and skilled workers with a high rate of literacy who were easily assimilated. In the 1840s and 1850s, hundreds of thousands of Irish citizens fled their homeland for the U.S. to escape famine and discrimination. At the turn of the century, immigration shifted to a southern and eastern European population which was mainly Catholic, Greek Orthodox or Jewish. Many were impoverished, and there was a high proportion of illiteracy. Unlike the first wave of immigration which had dispersed throughout the United States, these groups settled in pockets in major cities, retaining their language and customs. They also provided a large pool of unskilled factory labor which competed with the American labor force. Concern about economic competition intertwined with concern about the "illiterate poor" becoming public charges.
In the early 1900s, groups were formed to place barriers to the immigration of such people. Among these were the American Protective Association in the Midwest and the Immigration Restriction League established in Boston.

Studies and reports were commissioned to "prove" that southern and eastern Europeans were racially inferior to northern and western Europeans. One such study, sponsored by a nine-member Immigration Commission appointed by the U.S. government in 1907, culminated in a 42-volume report to support this racist notion. Immigration policies were influenced by these reports and studies, and also contributed to the growing isolationist viewpoint of U.S. government policymakers.

The Quota Act of 1921 put the first numerical restrictions on European immigration, followed by the Immigration Acts of 1924 and 1929. The total number of immigrants permitted each year was cut by over 80% from the average immigration numbers at the turn of the century and the distribution was based on the ethnic origins of the U.S. Population in 1920. As a result, 83,575 places out of a total 153,774 were assigned to Great Britain and Ireland which provided relatively few applicants. On the other hand, countries with more potential immigrants had smaller quotas: Germany, about 26,000; Poland, 6,000; Italy, 5,500; France, 3,000; Rumania, 300.

Arthur D. Morse, in his volume, While Six Million Died wrote that "Later these impersonal figures would doom Rumanian, Polish, and French Jews seeking sanctuary while the English and Irish quotas lay unused." These figures were unchanged until the Administration of Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s.

"

his is a sad thread. There sure is an amazing amount of fear here. And alot of disinterest in truth.

Life is change, worry, and hardship, guys. GET OVER IT! Your fear is your own creation and responsibility, not of the immigrants you're blaming.

If I may add, I am so very thankful for having come to a country that allowed me to become who I have become, and to have done so legally. But I am ever more thankful for never having become the sort of nationalistic chauvinist that derides people with less luck than him/herself and, in possession of extraordinary moral certainty, vituperates against 'illegal immigrants' for being the terrifying threat that their imagination professes them to be.

Personally, I find the latter people to be more of a cultural pollutant than people who, like me, happen to speak Spanish better than John W. But that's me. Oh well.

If I'm a racist, then maybe Jane is a sell-out, selling out her country's dignity and the wages of her least-blessed countrymen to favor the employer class that subscribes to her bosses' publication. More:

http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/afb/archives/011622.html

I'm willing to believe better of Jane ...

Ken

john w., whatever the merits of various positions regarding immigration, your nostalgic feelings about your childhood bakery goods consumption is not a good way to determine public policy. Please do us all a favor and join the ranks of people who don't vote. If I informed people that my political beliefs were informed by my memories of my pet guinea pig when I was seven, I'd expect them to ask the same of me.

No, I didn't especially like Megan's post either.

The Amish aren't immigrants. They've been here for generations and their 'unAmerican' ways are actually American in such a way that they are separate by choice for religious beliefs. Europeans have come here and assimilated quickly. By great-grandparents refused to speak their native tongue at home so they could learn English and yet, I hear Spanish every time I turn around. Middle-class America is mad for a good reason- we don't want our country given away.

Pedro:

If I may add, I am so very thankful for having come to a country that allowed me to become who I have become, and to have done so legally.

Alas, this country's good grace in admitting you has not resulted in your contributing to this discussion in any substantive manner. Your only contributions seem to be to smear many people with nonsense like:

... nationalistic chauvinist that derides people with less luck than him/herself and, in possession of extraordinary moral certainty, vituperates against 'illegal immigrants' for being the terrifying threat that their imagination professes them to be.

Playing this card only highlights your lack of argument.

Pedro said,

Funny how all these good people here seem to pronounce with infinite vigor on the economic harm that all these lazy illegal immigrants bring upon hard-working Americans. It would all be more credible if they had any freaking data to support their claims

Welfare is only a modest part of the overall system of financial redistribution operated by the government. Current government policies provide extensive free or heavily subsidized aid to low-skill families (both immigrant and non-immigrant) through welfare, Social Security, Medicare, public education, and many other services.... it is fiscally unsustainable to apply this system of lavish income redistribution to an inflow of millions of poorly educated immigrants.

One more curiousity. How are free trade of goods and free trade of labor qualitatively different? It seems anyone that supports free trade on it's moral principles (ie: freedom) necessarily must support free trade of labor.

This seems a simple one to answer if you recognize a distinction between people and chattel.

Funny how all these good people here seem to pronounce with infinite vigor on the economic harm that all these lazy illegal immigrants bring upon hard-working Americans. It would all be more credible if they had any freaking data to support their claims, or in the absence of that, if they could at least in good faith talk about their connections to the immigrant community, and anecdotally substantiate their perception.

I have not seen the data, but I am confident that Jane's readership is well above the median in income and education, and disproportionately composed of people who would benefit financially from cheap servile labor.

More data for Pedro, enjoy!

I estimate that if all the current adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. were granted amnesty the net retirement costs to government (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.5 trillion.

Granting amnesty or conditional amnesty to illegal immigrants would, overtime, increase their use of means-tested welfare, Social Security and Medicare. Fiscal costs would go up significantly in the short term but would go up dramatically after the amnesty recipient reached retirement

Kevin, when it gets to the point that somebody is mad about immigration levels, legal or illegal, because they can't buy the same bakery goods at the shop they frequented as a child, Pedro's "card" is not completely without merit. Golly gee, my favorite bar, when I was a teenager, in Chicago, no longer exists, because a real estate developer put up condos and an upscale Italian restaurant on the ground level. I am being robbed of my memories, all due to excessive influence of Italian cullture, which began with late 19th and early 20 century immigration from that country!!!!The Horror! The Horror!

June-
Legal immigration is a very recent phenom

Really? Amazing-- my great-grandfather followed the laws very closely. He may have bent the spirit, but he followed the laws *exactly*. $100 in hand? Alright, there it was. It may have been passed back through the fence a few times to his relatives, but they had the $100 in hand, and that's what was required.

A far cry from sneaking over, working for a while, sending the money home then following it.

Why is it that the anti-enforcement crowd is never accused of racism? If illegal immigration is unenforced, then the system de facto favors the poor, populous nation with a long border. It discriminates against the tens of millions of people all over the world who dream of coming here but who can't sneak in as easily. I would also not be the first to suggest that it helps prop up the political and economic elites of Mexico who, oddly enough, tend not to look much like the Mexican citizens who want to come here to find economic opportunity.

I wonder what Jane would think of strict border enforcement and a point system that favors education, skills, and English proficiency, regardless of nationality?

"Can someone explain this in terms that don't devolve into "But the Mexicans are brown"?"

Sure. The roots of the Amish were among the Moravian Germans who moved to Pennsylvania in early colonial times. They created a unique culture in what was by and large a wilderness. They didn't displace an existing American culture. (OK, so the Indians got displaced, as they did everywhere else. Bear with me here, unless you want to say that we ought to resist Mexican immigration the same way the Indians resisted the settlers, i.e. with tomahawks.)

With mass Mexican immigration, what we have is the surplus population of a dysfunctional civilization moving in to benefit from the achievements of a functional one. They're not moving into unpopulated valleys to create Nuevo Aztlan as one more glittering tile in the American mosaic, like the Amish or the Norwegians on the plains. Like it or not, the mass Mexican immigration since the 1970s displaced existing urban cultures to some extent. The working-class culture of suburban Los Angeles and northern Orange County, for example, was once basically Iowa-on-the-Pacific, a unique fusion of Midwestern yeoman values and California libertarianism. That's basically gone -- along with all the gorgeous Victorian architecture in Santa Ana, now either bulldozed to make room for teeming apartment blocks or subdivided and covered in cheap stucco and graffiti.

You say that change is inevitable, and you're probably right. But that doesn't mean we have to like it. And change doesn't just happen, of course. Things change because people cause them to. We're not Marxists here. There are no iron laws of history. Things could have gone differently.

My wife had the misfortune of attending public schools in Santa Ana in the 1980s, where she was one of a handful of gringas in the class, and had to learn Spanish to function on the playground. Her experience as one of the last gringas left in Santa Ana was substantially rougher, to hear her tell, than the experience of the few Mexicans at my lily-white Newport Harbor High. ("Tolerance" is only for white people; "oppressed minorities" have a free pass to be ethnocentric jerks as much as they want.) I was shocked at some of her attitudes, until I heard enough of her experiences to understand where she was coming from. It's easy for elites (who, here in LA, stay as far away from actual Mexican neighborhoods as possible) to look down their noses, as Jane does and as I did, at the people who just won't get with the program as their familiar surroundings are transformed by a foreign culture.

Tell me, Jane -- do non-Amish children in Pennsylvania have to learn Pennsylvania Deutsch? Do they get beaten up in the restrooms for not being Amish?

Simply put, I do not wish this country were more like Mexico. Most Mexicans would probably agree, since many of them went to considerable effort to leave that dysfunctional, corrupt civilizational swamp behind. But the United States, by absorbing millions of Mexicans, cannot avoid becoming more like Mexico, in a way that the United States as a whole -- unlike certain big-city neighborhoods -- never really became more like Italy or Ireland or Norway or Kiev.

In short, there are substantial differences, and real reasons to be concerned about uncontrolled immigration of a foreign monoculture into modern America. And it's not just because Mexicans are moreno. I thought better of you, Jane.

By the same reasoning, South Korea and Japan have big immigration problems because of widespread English and Romanized signage.

As to why Mexican/Hispanic immigration may be different from past waves, see Huntington's article, "The Hispanic Challenge".

Available here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1084558/posts

By Huntington's analysis, the main differences between the Amish & Mexicans are:

1) Contiguity: Mexico is right next to the US; hence Mexicans are less likely experience that sundering of ties to their old homeland which is essential for proper assimilation.

2) Scale: Perhaps the Amish haven't fully assimilated to mainstream America either, but OTOH, we aren't being deluged by hundreds of thousands of them annually. If we were, I suspect that Americans might become slightly concerned about that as well.

3) Historical claim: The Amish don't occupy land that was seized from them at gunpoint in what was (arguably) a war of aggression & conquest. Mexicans who live in the southwestern United States do. We in America may have forgotten the concept of irredentism, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world has.

I'm not yet convinced that Mexican immigration is yet posing problems for the Melting Pot; but given the aforementioned factors, it _is_ a phenomenon to which we should at least give some attention. I think we can all agree that a large population utterly alienated from the mainstream is a potential problem for this country. The main questions, IMHO, are:

1) Are Mexicans assimilating now? (I'd give a tentative "yes" to this, based on intermarriage rates.)

2) Are they likely to continue assimilating if the currently-heavy flow of immigrants from (inter alia) their ancestral homeland continues indefinitely? (This, I'm not so sure about.)

MI

I have had such high hopes for your addressing this problem, but I've been quite disappointed. Are you a clone of Lindsey Graham or Trent Lott? These are people who impugn th emotives of others who do not slavishly agree with them. Your comment of the 'brown' Mexicans leaves me feeling quite disturbed with your lack of reasoning, with too much reliance on the emotional 'reasons' of the pro-illegal movement.

Still, I like your prose style and find that I am able to co-exist with your ideas and philosphies, simply because you are obviously an intelligent thinking woman. That's why that comment about 'brown' really sets me back on my heels.

Assimilation is quite a relevant notion. In the past, those that wanted most to assimilate, did so quickly. Those whose group dynamics and culture didn't (Amish), kinda assimilated over time, but weren't protesting teh presence of Anglos in North America, either, wanting them to be focibly removed form the continent. In Las Vegas, Los Angeles and Dallas, I've seen the Hispanics who have marched against the racism (you know how fond of that canard) and the desire to become legal, because...well, because they're here! Surely, you see the difference in approach to the groups.

Couple the activist, in your face approach of today's illegal immigrants, with the 5-8 thousand more who come over the border every day, and you've got to admit the dynamic shows the USA is in for huge changes, and very soon. As for me, I absolutely enjoy culture from around the world, have lived overseas four times and heartily enjoy travel. But I'm not interested in seeing the favelas arise in the USA, nor the corrupt politicians and law enforcement organizations take hold here, like they have south of 33 deg North.

I enjoy your blogging, and hope you blog more, allowing me to comment on your bloggisms...exchange a thought or two.

Be good, and remember to stay away from those 'easy sound bites,' for the easy way is usually the wrong way.

Disappointing. So what do you call my legal immigrant other-race now-citizen wife, who happens to share my distaste for lawbreakers?

Whip out the selfish and mean-spirited, because we are willing to work long hours to educate our children, but just can't seem to summon the same enthusiasm for paying college tuitions for people whose children aren't supposed to be here.

The argument, quite frankly, is a non-starter. It's the large scale equivalent of saying I can break into John Kerry's house, live in one of his bedrooms and eat his food because he has more money than I do. If he invites me, I am a guest. Uninvited, I'm a burglar.

"Can someone explain this in terms that don't devolve into "But the Mexicans are brown"?"

The comments seem to have accomplished that task pretty well. You're completely wrong on this one Jane. The narrow-minded bigots in this case are those who automatically label anyone who opposes illegal immigration a racist.

As Mark Steyn so aptly puts it, "This is not an immigration issue. Rather, this is a fascinating template (to put it at its mildest) on how to subvert national sovereignty."

http://tinyurl.com/yvq5kn

The problem isn't that Mexicans are brown. It isn't that the first generation immigrants don't speak English well, or at all, or that they create neighborhoods and even towns where Spanish is used more than English. The problems are:

1. Mexican-Spanish-speaking neighborhoods have existed continuously in parts of the USA ever since Texas, California, etc., became part of the USA. Maybe the second-generation is assimilating, but it sure doesn't look like it...

2. The Mexican-Spanish-speaking neighborhoods are expanding, as well as being joined by Spanish-speaking neighborhoods of other-than-Mexican immigrants.

3. Either the immigrants, or white liberals, demand that we change to accommodate them, rather than the other way around. E.g., many places print ballots in Spanish as well as English. Sorry, but if you don't speak our language well enough to even recognize "The President" instead of "El Presidento", you shouldn't be voting in our elections. My ancestors did not demand ballots printed in Gaelic, German, and French, they learned English in order to qualify for citizenship, and they made sure their children learned it even better.

many places print ballots in Spanish as well as English

They're required to by the Voting Rights Act. Places with lots of immigrants like Seattle print Vietnamese, Hmong, Japanese, Spanish, etc. etc. It's a major expense.

So.....have enough people explained this in terms that don't devolve into "But the Mexicans are brown?"

I read through all these comments looking to see if Jane ever responded to the valid points others brought up for why her comments are downright shoddy.

I am not white. My father is an immigrant. A legal immigrant. When my mother went to marry him, she was temporarily deported to the U.S. because she overstayed her visa. She respected the laws of her host country, and followed them, and did not try to run and hide or steal someone else’s identity. She eventually married Dad, and they eventually came back here to live.

My parents are now planning to sponsor one of my father’s cousins. She came here to visit, took the time (I stayed up until 2 a.m. navigating the INS website with her) to find out just what she needed to do to come here legally so she could go to school.

After her visit, she went back home to stand in line. While there, she’s saving as much as she can so she can be self-sufficient when she gets here, but then, my family is a hardworking family (the men build their own boats and houses, for pity’s sake), and over there they have the rule of law and respect it. Then again, my cousins find illegal immigration (to their country) just as annoying as Americans do here—the only difference is that people like Jane don’t have the option of poisoning the well with the tired, lazy race card over there.

Am I the only one who finds it odd that not wanting to have people who behave in a manner opposite of my family is considered a character flaw? But, maybe that just illustrates the bankruptcy of the pro-illegal immigration position. It's certainly a perverse situation, anyway.

What exactly is the point of rewarding those who take every opportunity to be as unlike my cousin as possible? What is the driving need to have criminal serfs? Why is it that I see other countries actually set standards for getting in, but Americans of Jane’s ilk want to throw laws and standards out the window so they can let in as many lawbreakers as possible?

If we need immigrants so badly that you would go to bat for criminals, why aren't the pro-illegal immigrant people lobbying to make it easier for legal immigrants? Why must we have the serfs instead? What’s really animating the pro-illegals? Is it fear that legal immigrants might be equals they can't push around? What is it?

You are of course correct about the large-scale immigration of earlier times. But in those days, we did not have certain centrifugal forces that now work to prevent assimilation of new immigrants. Specifically, we were not then burdened with packs of prating professors, denouncing our own society at the top of their lungs, and with the journalists, entertainers, and celebrities who transmit and amplify that message.

Note also that immigration by sea is self-limiting (because of its cost) in a way that immigration by land is not.

By the way, I want to make it absolutely clear that the ability to note differences from past waves and potential problems with current-wave immigration does not necessarily translate into opposition to it; it means merely having a realistic view of it.

(For example, I'm of the opinion that the current setup is more damaging than just allowing unlimited legal Mexican immigration would be. Getting rid of the coyotes and the illegal document networks and much of the under-the-table transactions would be worthwhile, and it's not like current border enforcement is remotely effective. It might be the best possible solution.)

Are Mexicans assimilating now? (I'd give a tentative "yes" to this, based on intermarriage rates.)

Intermarriage may not lead to assimilation if (1) marriages between minority men and white women greatly outnumber those between white men and minority women, and (2) the children of mixed marriages disregard their white ancestry and identify as solely minority.

It should go without saying that both of these conditions apply in the case of black-white intermarriage. BM/WF marriages outnumber WM/BF marriages by more than three-to-one, and if you consider cohabitation relationships it's more like ten-to-one. And most people of mixed black/white ancestry consider themselves wholly black, indeed they insist on being identified that way; Barack Obama, Halle Berry, Jason Kidd and Lenny Kravitz are just some of the well-known examples. For these reasons, black/white intermarriage hasn't done much in terms of black assimilation, granted the number of such marriages is still relatively low.

What remains to be seen is whether Mexican/white intermarriage follows the black/white pattern, in other words with the gender skew and with the children identifying as solely Mexican. Should that occur, it's hard to see how intermarriage could bring assimilation.

I am forced to agree with majority here. This was one of Megan's least thoughtful posts, and I write this as someone who believes the country could benefit from more immigrants, not fewer.

The major problem with today's situation is that the immigration comes predominantly from a single foreign culture and has come, and is coming, in ever greater numbers. We are not past the point of no return yet, but at present rates it is only a matter of time before the country becomes divided along a language divide. Cultural assimilation takes time, and it appears that this is not happening readily now because there is an ever increasing flow coming in from behind. Comparing past immigration to that of today is invalid reasoning, as many have pointed out above. To ignore the dangers to national unity that is caused by have large swaths of the country populated by a different culture and a different language is foolhardy.

The present bill, if it included far better border control provisions, would have been acceptable to me since I believe it would benefit the country to bring the illegals out of the shadow existence they lead here- it would make the process of assimilation easier. However, the real effect of the present bill will be to legalize the 12 million already here, and they will be followed by 20 million more over the next decade, and we will go through the same charade again. If you are going to have a border, you must be willing to enforce it- or accept the inevitable outcome.

One potential difference is that today's immigration comes largely from one country. This is probably due to the fact that immigration is more easily restricted when it's by boat. I suspect that free immigration would produce more diverse immigrants.

I'm a Cincinnatian, and the dominance of German language/culture here came to a rather abrupt halt in the period 1914-1920. First by World War I, during which the population quickly adopted English in order to show their loyalty. Then by Prohibition, which shut down the breweries and the beer halls and taverns which were the basis of the social culture.

There are still lots of native Cincinnatians of German ancestry, but you would be hard-pressed to find anyone whose grandparents, much less their parents, grew up speaking German in the home.

"With mass Mexican immigration, what we have is the surplus population of a dysfunctional civilization moving in to benefit from the achievements of a functional one. They're not moving into unpopulated valleys to create Nuevo Aztlan as one more glittering tile in the American mosaic, like the Amish or the Norwegians on the plains. Like it or not, the mass Mexican immigration since the 1970s displaced existing urban cultures to some extent . . ."

Of course, this is pretty much what was said of the last great wave of immigration, as sri points out above - all those masses of Eastern Europeans, for example, who were coming from a backwards culture, had no capacity for democracy (perhaps after many, many generations, they might start grasping it . . .), were overrunning the place, destroying the existing 'Native American' (ie, 'Anglo-Saxon') culture and institutions, spawning sprawling slums where vice and disease festered among alien languages and incomprehensible signage, etc.

Sure, there are genuine points to be made about proximity (real or virtual), uniformity, etc; this isn't 1907 - but in the end, my understanding is that while - for example - Hispanic linguistic assimilation seems to be slightly slower than other groups, it's not really that big a gap at all, and the end point's pretty much the same.

And like last century, the basic choice is kinda the same: do we a) approach this situation in a fundamentally optimistic and practical way, with a faith in the resilience and value of our ongoing American culture, and the stance that the genuine problems stemming from mass immigration are just that - problems, to be approached and solved in a rational manner - although people might differ on the exact details of these solutions, or
b) Run around shrieking about how the bakery in one's old hometown is now selling churros instead of shoofly pie (sorry john w. - and I can't stand change either, to the degree that I've been known to get noticeably distressed over sidewalks being replaced - feeling sad or even hurt is perfectly understandable, but there's a time and a place, and to go from there to rants about people selling out the country's a bit . . . (although if it's any consolation, one day somebody's going to stop by to get their kids'some churros at Lupita's, and get all upset because there's going to be who-knows-what there instead)

(And of course, if we're going to mention Pennsylvania, there's the obligatory reference to Ben Franklin fretting about how the place was being overrun by a swarm of German immigrants: "Why should the Palatine boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements and, by herding together, establish their language and manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us, instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion?
. . .Few of their children in the country learn English . . . they begin of late to make all their bonds and other legal writings in their own language, which (though I think it ought not to be) are allowed good in our courts . . . " (Oprima dos . . .)

The number of comments appearing to endorse the Aztlan/reconquista myth - which is up there with the 'stinkin' papists are going to turn our great democracy into a slave of Rome' anti-Irish Catholic nativist nonsense (and Pennsylvania pops up there, too - see the 1844 Philadelphia Nativist Riots.) - well, it's quite illuminating.

a.) Illegal immigrants are -- by definition -- CRIMINALS. And you're damned right that I (and my wife also) resent the fact that we had to spend years, and thousands of dollars jumping through all the silly, unnecessary hoops that the &%*@# Government places in the path of legal immigrants, not to mention kissing the arses of all the stupid, arrogant, obnoxious pr*cks who work for the INS (or whatever they call themselves now), while the same Government tuurns a blind eye to all the millions of illegals who ignore the rules.

A-fucking-men. I'm in the same hoop-jumping phase for my wife right now, and it pisses me off (more at the gov't than illegal immigrants), that the immigration wing of DHS takes more seriously how well legal immigrants have filled out their forms than it does mass illegal immigration. It's absurdly unfair to people who spend lots of time and money in an effort to obey the law.

Ohboy did she touch a raw nerve here! I'll let Ezra/Megan speak for themselves but I don't think they are advocating illegal immigration - just humane treatment for those that made it over. As I said earlier the comlexion of this country is majority white because the immigration policy was explicitly racist until the 60's. Descendents of the beneficiaries of such bigoted laws demanding the current mexicans too do it legally is just BS! Jose's grandfather couldnt have done it legally or maybe they wouldnt be marching in the streets demanding decent treatment or the right not to be harassed so much. If america had all along had a fair immigration policy maybe the country would have been much much more diverse that no one would notice the changing complexion which makes it easy to target these poor mexicans for such scorn- and thats where I think Megan's comment on this discussion not devolving into 'but they're brown' comes in. Most so-called law abiding citizens are bound to have broken atleast the speed laws which are observed more in the breach and no ones demanding they be jailed or even fined- so this sudden fondness for enforcing laws does seem like racism when its breached by the brown people

I'm convinced. We should avoid securing the borders. Anyone who wants to cross should simply do so.

Rapists, terrorists, murderers, arsonists; hell I'm sure they'll be fine. If not, we generally deport them, and I doubt they can cross again... even with no border security.

Why should we bother, it's not like there are any countries calling for "Death to America" that would like a good entry point for attacking America; so no worries there.

And I'm sure by simply redoing the solution of 1986 or 1965 we can have a lasting solution; as the Government says. Trying a solutuion that failed last time is a certain way to get a brilliant solution this time.

And if you disagree, don't like criminals being allowed to commit crimes multiple times and re-enter the country; worry about border security; or don't trust the Government to make a failed plan work differently on their third try... you're Raaaaacist.

I'd have made a better argument, assimilation numbers, benefits to people who ignore rather than follow the rules, etc; but when you insult people to shut down debate and discussion; you don't deserve more than this.

So I'm a racist, and you enable murderers, rapists and terrorists... or maybe we should restart this discussion without calling each other names.

Your call, but I'm done with this go-round.

The real issue with this post is... who is 'Randy' on Blossom? Shouldn't that reference Six?

sri:

As I said earlier the comlexion of this country is majority white because the immigration policy was explicitly racist until the 60's

For one thing, this is only partially correct. Prior to the 1880s, there were essentially no immigration laws. Anyone who could get here on a boat became a resident (citizenship was another matter and was reserved for whites, and after the 14th Amendment for Africans and all native-born people). In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act prevented immigration of Chinese, and the Immigration Act of 1924 reduced non-Anglo Saxon immigration to a trickle. However, prior to 1924, almost anyone who could get to the shores of the US became a resident.

Secondly, while you may not be paying attention, the vast majority of the commenters on this thread have been explicitly pointing out the specific reasons why unchecked large scale immigration from Mexico (a multi-racial country) is a problem. I suppose that it makes you feel better to ignore reasoned argument and call your opponents racists instead.

Megan, your blog had been one of my favorites since 2001. However, after sleeping on it for a day, I've decided to remove it from my bookmarks (along with the Economist blogs to which you contribute). This sort of vicious, ad hominem attack against people who reasonably disagree with you is far below the caliber of discussion that I expect at Asymetrical Information. I can read this kind of garbage at any of hundreds of other sites, if that's what I were looking for.

As for other commenters who might wish to pile onto me, don't bother. I'm not coming back to read it.

Btw: Tyler Cowen has it wrong. Oprima is perfectly fine as an imperative. Oprime would be more common in Spain, where the voice usted is not used any more.

Descendents of the beneficiaries of such bigoted laws demanding the current mexicans too do it legally is just BS!

So...because the law was unfair (in your opinion) in the years before my father was old enough to vote, I am forbidden to advocate for obediance to, enforcement of, or changes in the current law?

I've heard of the "dead hand problem," but this is a novel version of it. Does it only work for immigration laws, or can anyone play?

Most so-called law abiding citizens are bound to have broken atleast the speed laws which are observed more in the breach and no ones demanding they be jailed or even fined- so this sudden fondness for enforcing laws does seem like racism when its breached by the brown people

I'm not sure what fantasy world you're living in, but out here in the real world, speeding tickets--and even jail time for more serious traffic offenses--are a fact of life for drivers of all skin colors and national origins. I am not familiar with the "amnesty for white speeders" movement you seem to refer to, but perhaps you can provide a link.

Of course, this is pretty much what was said of the last great wave of immigration...all those masses of Eastern Europeans, for example, who were coming from a backwards culture, had no capacity for democracy (perhaps after many, many generations, they might start grasping it . . .), were overrunning the place, destroying the existing 'Native American' (ie, 'Anglo-Saxon') culture and institutions, spawning sprawling slums where vice and disease festered among alien languages and incomprehensible signage, etc.

I still say that uncontrolled Mexican immigration is sui generis in numerous significant respects. But let's stipulate that it also shares some similarities with past immigration waves. So what? Does that mean none of the concerns about those waves had any validity?

Was it not actually true, for example, that past waves of mass immigration did entail social costs as well as benefits? Did they not, in fact, actually "[spawn]sprawling slums where vice and disease festered"? True, we (mostly) outgrew those problems, although we still have the Mafia, the urban tradition of machine politics, and the crowding out of American liberalism by European-style leftism as just some of the lingering effects of earlier immigration waves.

There was a serious cutback in immigration between 1924 and the 1960s. To the extent the problems associated with earlier waves of immigration were mitigated, this may well have been a function of the country obtaining a little "digestion time" in which to integrate the immigrants. I don't see any such pause on the horizon, so I question whether it's wise to assume the effects of this immigration wave will be similar to those of the last one.

This doesn't seem like a crowd that would frequent Hollywood gossip blogs like I do, so I'll fill you all in on a concerted effort by gossip monger Perez Hilton (AKA Mario Lavandeira) to tar-and-feather screen siren Jessica Alba
for the unspeakable crime of...considering herself American.

"How about going forward? If we are willing to admit as many legal immigrants as we get illegals, year after year, then surely it is not worth the effort deporting the current illegals"

Max - Probably few are still reading this far down, but I agree. Much as I dislike rewarding those that came illegally in the past, I have some sympathy for the argument that we enticed them through lax enforcement. I would accept amnesty of all of them (as long as they don't otherwise have criminal records), in exchange for tight enforcement in the future.

What I want most is the rule of law going forward. Like so many others, I remember the "one and only one time, never again" amnesty that we got from Reagan in the 1980s, which suposedly was combined with tight enforcement so that we wouldn't have to offer another amnesty in the future. I was willing to accept amnesty then and am willing to accept it now, but only if we finally fix the problem. It's ridiculous to keep doing this every couple of decades, while pretending that it's the first and only time.

Rex - excellent point on African-Americans.

one thing I haven't seen mentioned [apologies if I missed it] is that we tried this amnesty thing before... when there were only 2.7 million Illegal people given amnesty by the 1986 Immigration Reform...
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:SN01200:@@@L&summ2=m&|TOM:/bss/d099query.html

What was not done was to make the penalty for BEING here illegally a stiff one, and further to pay only lip service to making HIRING of Illegal Immigrants a crime.

All the talk of immigration laws is bunk until we make it a real crime to be here illegally, and to hire anyone who is here illegally. THEN you police laws that are already on the books, and you make it much better to remain at home. In addition if you make LEGAL immigration less of a slog through hell, then there is a way to get here legally, and a significant downside to coming here illegally.

Also? The racist line is a load of crap. If the economy in Canada tanked, and suddenly everyone was coming here for work, it would be the exact same problem.

Another interesting statistic is that 10-20% of our makeup is recent immigrant, and in Mexico? less than 1%...

Also the talk of how the southwestern US belongs to another country... um, that was 150 years ago, and the people talking about that got into mexico in a war of conquest themselves, and the civilization they conquered, had a history of conquering themselves... You can't keep going back to who is native. Modern people are, in essence, not related to them, EXCEPT in the cases of the ancient Native American Tribes, and THEY are likely the progenetors of the people of the valley of mexico, rather than the other way around... If you go down that path the Aztlan have no better claim than we who have come after.

After all that argument about "Who's on First" I think it looks like the best bet is to worry about modern sovereignty TODAY rather than who owned what 150 years ago before this or that war. The borders are drawn and accepted. If those that advocate free immigration really put their mioney where their mouth is, we would simply annex mexico as a new state. From an economic point of view it would probably benefit everyone. From a pragmatic point of view it's impossible...

as an aside... I don't actually think Megan is playing the trump card of race as a belief, she is just playing beelzebubba's advocate, because many of the most vocal illegal immigrant supporters, ALWAYS play that card. Perhaps she wanted a group of good views to counteract it...

" I still say that uncontrolled Mexican immigration is sui generis in numerous significant respects. But let's stipulate that it also shares some similarities with past immigration waves. So what? Does that mean none of the concerns about those waves had any validity?"

Were there genuine concerns, and real problems alongside the equally real benefits (then and into what was, at the time, their future)? Sure - I tried to say as much. I was trying to get at attitudes, ways of approaching these genuine issues. Are there differences? Yep - as detailed in most of the comments here, not including fearful babble about how the Mexicans think they can and should 'take over'. It's worth noting, though that
a) there doesn't seem to be much evidence -evidence, not anecdote - that it's making a particularly significant difference. (If folks have proof to the contrary, post it up!). Far as I know, like I said, there's some suggestion that all these very very important factors put together are . . . slowing the process of assimilation down a little, but not all that much, nor giving any indication of some enormous failure to integrate. Show me places where there's lots of empty seats in (practically available) English classes, rather than big waiting lists, and we'll talk.

and b) history kinda shows that every time we had some new wave of immigration, we have this sort of frenzied reaction. After a while, it's hard to take the screamers quite as seriously. And there are real issues, yes, but generally, I think one can distinguish two different overall attitudes/approaches (often, of course, mixed together in the same person) - one that's more of a relatively confident, rational, practical and reality-based one, and another that's a fearful, reactive, irrational, mythical, fantasy-based one. (Ok, slightly ideal types here, and it's far, far more complicated, but . . . . :p
(this is, after all, overlain onto interest groups, political realities, etc.)

Now, some of the responses that were influenced by that more positive attitude - the one with all the nice adjectives - wouldn't be considered particularly liberal today, while others come across as striking familiar, but from settlement houses to schoolhouse indoctrination, they were attempts to make things work, although tinged to varying degrees with anxiety and illiberalism. A preponderance of OMG THERE'S SELLING CHURROS! (AND (another moldy oldy that's been resurrected, though not by john) THEY'RE GOING TO OUTBREED US AND TAKE OVER!) - well, that's another matter.

What would have happened if the Immigration Act of 1924 - brought about in part because of the untiring efforts of blazing bigots like Madison 'OMG! Swarms of Polish Jews are literally driving us off the streets!!' Grant (who has been credited as being an inspiration to the Nazis) - didn't pass? Well, who knows, of course, but I tend to think that far more important than that (except in terms of inadvertently sentencing countless would-be refugees to death, some years later, by said Nazis) was what came later - the Depression, WWII, the explosion of gov't subsidized middle-class suburbanization and higher education, etc. Dunno.

Isn't this can of worms kinda funny? I mean, we always talk about how the blogosphere has enabled all kinds of voices, but really, it gives a megaphone to those whose writing is competent enough to attract attention -

Until you enable comments.

This is just an odd, microcosmic, teapot-tempest version of the greater public rebellion against the political class.

Not to say you're suddenly old media, Megan - I don't want to say anything I can't take back - it's just that cycles happen a bit faster now...........

Yes, there is no way that this country can assimilate millions of non-white, non-english speaking serfs many of whom are criminals in their country of origin (even revolutionaries) and who will form gangs, live in squalor, make and sell illegal substances and have no skills or education to offer in return. They are unable to fend for themselves and have all sorts of uncurable illnesses. They probably have low IQs and will vote Democratic.

I suppose we could use them in back breaking work but that is all they are good for.

We are talking about the Irish in 1848-1870 who were not considered "white" and who seem to have the same problems that the current wave of immigrants is viewed as having. How many of you have ancestors that fit this description?

Mikeyes-- how many of those went home for the winter? How many of those were living off of the publicly-funded systems, getting their health care free from the place they moved to, or violated dozens of laws just to come here?

Besides the technology to travel home and talk to those at home being different-- which will make it harder to melt in-- the government is different, now.

Jane - Kudos for bringing this issue to the fore. As a recent immigrant (non-latin/non-anglo) origin, the lack of intellectual integrity on immigration issues on both left and right is amazing! As I see it, immigrants come with three kinds of capital - intellectual capital (educated silicon valley types, doctors...), monetary capital or the ones with risk capital. The immigrants with monetary capital are few and far between and highly coveted. And the pool of intellectual capital types is limited and highly sought after.

They (the left) have done a mighty job of scaring off the educated immigrants - with high taxes, curbs etc. Not too many Chinese and Indians want to live in Silicon Valley when they can make half as much in Beijing/Bangalore with a standard of living that is 3-5x and eat Mom's Samosas and dumplings to boot. So if you are thinking that too many educated immigrants are queuing up to come to the US - get off the crack.

Take the right, they fret that the Islamist are out breeding them and there is the risk of Andulasia being resurrected in the New World. Arguments of Huntington et.al. High birth rates, non-assimilated Arabs/Muslims taking over America. Along come Mexicans - hard working, catholic, decent birth rates (at least for a few generations till they get assimilated) but no - they are too Mexican! We want immigrants who like us, talk like us and earn like us.

Look at the left's foolishness - demographic economics (demo-nomics?) dictates that we need a constant source of new immigrants who have high birthrates to sustain the Demographic Pyramid. Assimilated Americans (and new immigrants) who are educated and higher on the economic ladder just do not produce enough babies. We need the Mexicans!

Basically all the arguments boil down to fear or
"alienist tendencies" (some call them racist, but I did not see Jane use that word) - oooooh they are Mexican/Poor/Uneducated/eat-fried-weird-stuff/Speak spanish/Came-over-land-not-sea!!!.

So lets demolish these weak arguments masking the fear, it is different because:

1. They are Mexican... they are from Mexico!!!!... please... as if the Irish/Germans/Jews/Chinese/Sikhs/Armenians/Persians/Indians/Syrians... were different.

2. They are poor: Right, most turn of the century immigrants had wads of cash. Poor people have risk capital, rich people don't. Immigrants with capital are mobile and take their capital with them. A rich person can pack up and move - a poor person who has a few assets cannot - the switching cost is high. Given a choice, I would prefer poor immigrants over rich. The rich raise my cost of living, the poor improve my standard of living. The poor take risks, imbibe bourgeoisie values in their kids. Good for society. They will earn incomes and pay the taxes when you (and I) are sitting in a latte town living off our trust/pension funds. Get it?

3. They go home, the immigration over land/sea argument: I remember a cartoon from AP History - Pulling up the Ladder. This goes to show - that no matter how educated and liberal you are - fear of new immigrants is fear of new immigrants. If they go home - so what - they go home. In a globalized world - you want them to come to your country and be PRODUCTIVE even it is for a limited time. They are in your country - creating wealth. Have you no economic sense? I remember when there was a horde of H1B workers in Silicon valley in the early 90s - there was a lot of hand wringing - oh - they work for less and a lot of invective. So the H1B hordes went home and did their lowly paid jobs from home for even less pay. Then there was even more hand wringing over lost jobs, lost taxes etc. etc. Who lost? The American economy.

If 4 mexicans want to share a bedroom in Queens, NY and work for $1000/month washing dishes, that greatly benefits the American Economy. It makes us more competitive. That small economic factoid is mightily lost on you because most lefties (and quite a few righties) are economic retards.

4. They don't want to assimilate: Really? You can predict that? On what basis? Even the Chinese assimilated. Is there any basis for saying that after 4-5 decades of Latino immigration? How many Mexicans/LatAms who came here 20-30 years ago have un-assimilated children/grand children.

5. They are uneducated: To argue that we prefer richer/more educated immigrants - implies some kind of technocratic omniscience. As if you know in the grand scheme of things - these more endowed immigrants are better for us. Clearly, you should be at the door deciding whom to admit - after all - human planned and choice - in running economies or designing cities has been so spectacularly successful.

Folks, the reality is the US needs new immigrants. To support the demographic pyramid, create economic activity and avoid the fate of Austria/Japan/Italy/Russia with death spiral populations. You are not going to have too much luck to have the likes of you from Europe getting to migrate. So it is either a bunch of Arabs/Chinese/Indians/Africans or Mexicans. The Chinese/Indians are getting greener pastures, the Arabs and Africans are even more alien than the Mexicans.

The Mexicans look more like you and share European culture through their Latin roots then the other 3. They are Catholic (!) instead of being I.....

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth...

arbitrage - the majority of out of wedlock births are to illegals in this country. Not exactly the Catholics you're promoting.

You also don't answer the problem that they're visiting, not trying to become Americans. You just dismiss it.

No-one here is arguing against *immigrants*-- we're arguing against a huge flood of illegals.

Foxfier - Really? The majority (atleast 51%) of out-of-wedlock births are to illegals? So lets say 10% of the population is illegal, which is mostly probably overwhelmingly male since I have'nt seen too many Chinese food delivery people who are not male. So they manage to out-fuck and out-conceive that too out-of-wedlock 90% of the rest of the population. Either the citizens or legals gotta fuck more or your stats sounds a little bit suspicious.... just a little bit. But keep wallowing in it - since it probably gets you all righteous. Arrrrrghh..... they are out breeding "us" and that too out of wedlock! Oh my god - they are illegal and they have no family values.

Say they do - so what? Are you trying to inject family values into the immigration debate? We will have Ralph Reed and Billy Graham personally vet all immigrants.

I did address the visiting part - the reality is - new intellectually endowed immigrants will become more and more mobile. They will hold citizenships in multiple countries and hop around. They will start to resemble another free traded resource - capital. Get used to it. It is called globalization and Air Travel.

Poor immigrants, of both kinds, are less mobile since they have less capital. You want more permanent immigrants - get used to the poor kind. And if they visit - great - the with-holding taxes they paid - you get to keep. Send them a thank you note.

If you think visiting immigrants are bad - take a economics course and get a clue - they are good for the economy.

Incidentally, the idea that "they used to stay here, but now they go back"

(A) contradicts the entire argument about why the current situation is so bad, and
(B) isn't true. Some didn't go back, to be sure; you didn't get lots of Galitzianer Jews returning to the shtetls. But Italians regularly came here, earned money, and went back.

David:

You observation is right, but this time it is different because they are from Mexico.

Scott Martens' three part fisking of Huntington's piece is quite recommended. Though less emphatic, Dan Drezner's response is also worthwhile reading.

Many commenters believe themselves to be the victims of a blanket accusation of racism. That such blanket accusations are neither accurate nor useful is s