CaliLivChick

Sorry about that, I forgot to put the quotes in. I've fixed it, and hope that clears things up. Also, something else I should have restated, I agree with this when it comes to illegal immigration. If you want to come to this country via legal methods, as my ancestors did, come on over.

Actually, neither. I just figured it was an e-mail thing, and not a world wide web thing. Sorry for not doing more research, and thank you for taking the time to take care of that.

__________________
Don't trust anything that can bleed for a week and not die. Oh wait, that's me... nevermind... you can trust me.

abaya

Haha, I guess I have a reputation around here, huh? I think I'm gonna change my little subtitle to "Immigrant Lover" and make it official. Exactly. What they do have a connection to is the fear that immigrants are somehow a threat to their identity, which is what makes immigration such an inflammatory topic... it's not about economics, welfare, language, or anything else (even though people try to advance their arguments that way, to hide their own fear). It's about IDENTITY.

People freak out about their own identity when someone different from them (especially if they look different, or look the same but are of a lower class) threatens it. Especially when those different people start to live in their neighborhoods, shop at their supermarkets, and speak a different language around them.

Suddenly those fearful people start thinking these others are talking about THEM (of course, because the world revolves around you?), and they can't be saying good things... and look at all those jobs they're taking, and crimes they're committing, and babies they're having, and taxes they're not paying, the signs at Lowe's that are all BILINGUAL now, "wtf! are they taking over??," (never mind that most of the West used to be Mexico; do people have no sense of karma?)... all of it based on interpretation, not on empirical science and statistical conclusions. And once it gets to an intolerable level (usually when one's neighborhood is over 20% minority, based on housing preference studies--e.g. Krysan 2002 in Social Problems 49:4, pp. 521-543; Zubrinsky & Bobo 1996 in Social Science Research 25:4, pp. 335-374), we have the West's oh-so-helpful reaction of White Flight, and the gap grows wider between people. Humans. All human. Illegal and legal. The goddamn gap just keeps on growing... and we forget that humanity thing.

And the fear becomes justified, somehow. And it just keeps right on going that way, until you get something like the conflagration in France last year, etc etc. And the hatred feeds and feeds on itself, swallowing fear and digesting it into policies that make no logical sense, but they sure as hell protect OUR FUCKING NATIONAL IDENTITY. Whatever the hell that is.

God, this whole issues gets me so riled up... better to stop now. But for crying out loud, people. Why you gotta be haters.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Ourcrazymodern?

Identity comes from our individual packaging, not where we were born.
Does anybody disagree that each of us would be very much the same person under wildly different circumstances, or feel that we might be much different?
IMO It's probable that we can only be who we are.
If I hadn't been born in "America", I'm sure I'd want to come here, too...
More power to those that do!

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

abaya

Thanks for responding... I thought I had killed the thread.
I agree with you in principle, but as an anthropologist, it's hard for me to say that everyone's personality is completely independent from the country and culture in which they were born. I know that despite having three national "identities" myself (and being married to a 4th), I am still dominantly "American" in my cultural programming. However, my point is that as we grow older, we have more control (whether or not most people choose to exercise it, is moot) over what exactly composes our identity. We don't HAVE to be identified with what passports we carry... hence the promise of a truly global identity and openness to other languages, other cultures.

For me, even though I know there are positive things about them, nationality and ethnicity are some of the most constraining and fear-inducing forms of identity that I can think of... but they are simultaneously essential for most humans' daily functioning and feelings of belonging. We all like to feel connected to something. The negative part is what happens when that "something" clashes up to something else that other people feel connected to, just as equally, and for just as arbitrary (as you point out) reasons... a flag, a language, a history, a sexuality... whatever it is. We get hostile because of our fear, whether physically or verbally (or legally, with whole nations acting in fear). And that is what I have a problem with.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

biznatch

It kind of saddens to write after all these very well-expressed opinions, but I'll try to say this as clearly and eloquently as possible.

I was born in France. At two, I went to live in the US, in a small town in Ohio, where my dad was offered a big opportunity there to work (legally) as a plant director in an international corporation. I went an American public elementary school there, and all my friends were American. However, I still spoke French at home and would back to my home country to visit my family. If this seems boring, I totally understand, feel free to skip it.

At 7, I moved to Mexico City, and learned Spanish, and most of my friends were Mexican. I later came back and lived for several years, in Miami and New York, and now I go to college and live with my (American) wife in Colorado.

I don't really think much about a national identity, but often people ask me what I believe I am. Legally, I'm in the process of becoming an American resident and am a French citizen. At heart, I'm not sure. Sometimes, even though it doesn't seem right, I almost feel closer to Mexican(or Latino in general). It's gotta sound funny coming out of the mouth a white french guy with blond hair and blue eyes, but...the thing is, people from Latin America, after showing a few minutes of surprise of hearing me speak like a Mexican (in Spanish, I mean) always have shown me the warmest welcome. They make me feel like I belong.
Don't get me wrong, I love how America is built on welcoming other people and see how I may seem hypocritical, but, I can't explain the feeling of closeness I get when I meet up with my friends from El Salvador or Mexico, etc. and there's something different about it. Who knows, it might be the same with Americans in foreign countries, I don't know.

But I don't see why people should have to change their ways of life, and are expected to throw away what they hold dearest when they come here. Often the illegals here have spent several years saving up, them and their families, several thousands of dollars (which is very significant in the poorer Latin American countries) to come here, and have walked from the border across several states. I've traveled a fair amount, and the French, American, or German also build communities in foreign countries. They meet, they interact, they speak their own language in public places, I don't see much difference.

The ones I know and have worked with always worked their hardest, didn't splurge on anything stupid or useless and sent money back to their families. Yes, there are immigrants in gangs, drug dealing rings and violence. But to blame those things on immigration solely would be a sign of blindness.

I also don't think this country could function without immigrants. They get their hands dirty, and don't complain about it. They grow your food, harvest it, cook it, clean your dishes, take the trash away from your house, mow your lawns walk your dogs...I could go on forever. And this country needs that working force.
In my opinion, it's also narrow-sighted to contrast them with the earlier (or earliest) immigrants; legally, it wasn't nearly as difficult back then to become a citizen. There were no visas back then. Now, it's extremely difficult to lawfully live and work in US if you come from a poor country and aren't wealthy yourself.
I would be in favor of a controlled, legal immigration if it were more fair and viable, the truth is it's just not.
I'm sorry for my rambling, but this subject (strangely enough) hits close to home.

mixedmedia

It was a very poignant and relevant read, biznatch. It wasn't boring or rambling at all. Thanks for sharing your story and viewpoint.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

abaya

I echo mixedmedia on her comments, biznatch... thank you for your addition. I think your narrative was far more eloquent and expressive than what most people have written here, including myself. I hope other people stop by and read what you have to say.

I get so up in arms about immigration because I don't understand why critics ignore or minimize stories like yours. Immigrants' stories, experiences, and opinions (illegal ones, even moreso) are just as valuable as anyone else's... but I think people whose identities are threatened choose to ignore those stories, because they humanize immigrants and make them people.

And once immigrants become human... well, it becomes very difficult to see them as a threat, and to come up with policies against them. Because then one's identity has to change, and become based on a greater idea of humanity, not on a limited idea of nationality, race, and/or class. And a lot of immigration critics don't want to change that way.

Still, I am always so glad to hear stories like yours, and again, I hope many people here on TFP will take in what you have to say.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

jorgelito

Thanks for sharing your story but in each of your examples, you made the effort to learn the language to reach out to the "natives". As such, they were welcoming and accepting of you (the Mexican example is especially poignant).

However, I interpret the OP's objections as those coming here (such as yourself) and REFUSE to even learn the language and fail to reach out to the "natives". This point I feel is the one that gets lost in all the rhetoric of how anti-immigrant or ignorant blah-blah we American allegedly are.

I don't think people are as anti-immigrant as a vocal few are making things out to be. It's more subtle and complex than that. Rather, people are against ILLEGAL immigration and cultural isolationism of other immigrants (groups).

In my opinion, that is a fair critique.

As an aside, if in your heart you feel closer to Mexicans, than why not get Mexican citizenship instead? (not picking on you per se, but just putting that out there for some stimulation/stirring the pot).

The so-called immigration debate is a lot more complicated than a simple binary of so-called "anti-immigration bigots who are actually anti-latino" versus "enlightened welcoming open-minded immigrantphiles".

biznatch

To answer your question about Mexican citizenship, I hope to get (much lower) in-state tuition soon, when I become a resident. But as time goes, after college, once I'm sure of what I want to do (might take while, of course), who knows?
I'm almost sure I want to work in Latin America at some point, and the citizenship might follow. Thanks to all for your warm responses. You are what makes me come to the TFP everyday, whether it's to read or post.

flstf

Nothing lasts forever. There was a time when people from all over were welcome to come here and settle the vast continent (pushing the Native Americans out of the way). Those days are probably over.

Something like 10% of Mexico now lives illegally in the U.S. Can we accept many more, is 20% or 50% too many? Are we being mean or racist to try and control it? After all most of our families came here not so long ago.

It would be great if there was plenty of room for all who wish to come here but this feels almost like an invasion at least in the southwest.

abaya

I agree to your point that the debate is not cut and dry... there are not two easy sides to choose from.

Which is why I am glad this thread is still going... because I'd like to examine some of the misunderstandings about what academics call the "classic era" (1880-1930) of American migration and why it is really not so different from the "new regime" of immigration that started around 1965-1970.

Keep in mind that those who came 100 years ago often did not learn English, either (or the "natives" forced them to, in the case of those who were already living here... the Native Americans). A few examples... there are Polish neighborhoods in Chicago where the grandmas and great-grandmas there today have STILL never learned English, sent most of their earned money home, and depended wholly on their children in the public schools to get them through their daily business. There are Chinese in San Francisco who never left their ethnic enclave, and where most signs are still in Chinese... and 100 years ago, "natives" saw the the Chinese (and Irish, of all people!) as the "unassimilables."

"Natives" saw these groups, and others, as COMPLETELY isolating themselves and being a total drain on the economy, contaminating American culture/language, not assimilating, and creating ghettos (in the old, true sense of the term) where immigrants made "natives" feel unwelcome.

Sound familiar?

Adding onto that the observations of perhaps the foremost immigration scientist today, Douglas Massey, in a powerful peer-reviewed journal article on the difference between US immigration today and 100 years ago (Massey, 1995; Population and Development Review 21:3, pp. 631-652)... that one of the major differences between immigrants then and now is that in the early 1930s, there began a hiatus of immigration to the US that allowed the second generation the time and space to assimilate.

Because assimilation does not happen overnight, or even over decades. It happens over generations, as children and their children's children acculturate themselves to the host society. And even then, it doesn't happen as positively as we'd like to imagine (see segmented assimilation; Portes & Zhou, 1993; The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530, pp. 74-96).

Back to the hiatus: from around 1930 to 1970, there was a significant drop in immigration overall, to the US. Several events/policies influenced this process:

--WWI (drop in European immigration)
--the Bolshevik Revolution (Russia ceased to be a major immigrant-sender) --the Depression (lack of jobs for immigrants in the US--e.g. in 1930, there were 241,000 immigrants, whereas ONE year later there were only 23,000--Massey, 1995)
--the end of WWII and Marshall Plan (building up Europe's economy)
--the Cold War (again cutting off Eastern Europe from the West, as had happened with the Bolshevik Revolution)
--and, finally, stricter immigration quotas that the US lifted/shifted (especially from Asia, which had been banned since 1882 with the Chinese Exclusion Act) in 1965 with the Immigration and Nationality Act

...and the flow has ratcheted back up ever since. (The Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986 also played a role in kicking up levels of immigration from Latin America, very ironically, but that's another topic.)

So, if a series of unpredictable world events and policies give post-1965 immigrants a similar 40-year hiatus, maybe they would assimilate just as well as those who came in the classic era. That's the only difference I can really see between the two groups... the fact that the first group had *time* to assimilate, to send their children to school, to move up socially. But there probably will not be a hiatus, much as the American public would probably prefer that to happen.

So my guess is that 40 years from now, things WILL look different. But why does that have to be a negative thing? Why *don't* we all speak two languages? Is there really any harm in the idea, other than a blow to this thing called "identity" that we all claim to have (which wouldn't make sense, considering in the thread I started on identity, no one has claimed "speaking English" as a core part of who they are).

I know you're not talking to me per se, either, but I wanted to say that I do actually have two citizenships, and would get a third, fourth, more if I could. (Technically, I could probably get four through family/spouse alone, but it would be impractical to get the Lebanese one... most would agree.) And I love having multiple citizenships, I really do. I don't see it as a problem at all, and I actually wish more people could access that level of participation in multiple countries. That would be true globalization.

So yes, in summary, the issue is quite complicated. But I do not think it can be divided cleanly down legal vs. illegal lines, either... we've really got to examine the *whole* history of US immigration to understand where we're at now, how "dangerous"/invasive it really is, and where we might be headed with our current policies.

That's where I get all up in arms, because I feel like a ton of people make judgments about immigration without always seeing the bigger picture. Maybe I am wrong about that; maybe my picture is just as limited as everyone else's. I am willing to admit that, and to hear what your evidence has to say.

But after a hell of a long time of living with immigrants (legal and illegal) and studying the issue at the graduate level for several years, I feel I have at least something to contribute to this debate. That is what I am trying to do with this post. What is the point of all my freaking education if I can't even use it when posting on a public forum, I figure...

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

jorgelito

Right on I definitely agree with some of the things you are saying. I think the field of immigration studies or migration trends etc is truly fascinating. There so much more subtlety and nuance beneath the veneer of raw statistics. In fact, I think a great place to start is not necessarily a history course but rather a physical anthropology course (a breakthrough for me).

The best way to approach a broad topic such as this is to break it down into different parts. I really do believe that all too often, different issues get blurred and meshed causing a lot of confusion, misinformation etc.

Sharon

The thing is, and street interviews and surveys conducted by the press confirmed this in the wake of the furore, most migrants to English soil couldn't give two hoots about whether the St George's Cross was flown on St George's Day, or during the World Cup (after all, they were all flying their own country's flags), or whether Christmas was called Christmas or X'Mas, or whether schools have nativity plays, or whether faith schools are allowed. It's all bullshit concocted by people terrified of offending anyone at all and or pursuing their own right wing agenda, whatever that may be, and using that excuse to "homogenise" England instead of celebrating its diversity.

flstf

It seems like a lot of the support for immigration (legal and illegal) is coming from businesses that benefit from cheap labor. I wonder what the position of the managers in these companies would be if it was their jobs on the line and their salaries that were being reduced.