Letter to the Editor
 

My step-mom sent this along in e-mail (which is why there isn't a link), and I felt it deserved broad exposure. I'm not a political person, but this interested me, which is why I didn't put it in politics.

Like I said, I'm not a political person, but this put into words my feelings on the topic. Living in Orlando, I am in a Spanish speaking community, and every day I see cars with the flags of Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Peru. If I were to go to France and refuse to learn French, and fly the American flag as a French-American, that wouldn't be permitted, and I would be made to feel unwelcome, but we as a country make accommodations to those that don't want to learn English, and fly the flags of their native countries. Why?

I'm not a big fan of the tone of this letter. I'm sure others will chime in and explain their dislike for it in greater detail than I ever could.

I do want to point out that first generation Japanese Americans by and large spent WWII in internment camps, which were like concentration camps without the brutality. Not a single act of sabotage was committed by a Japanese American during WWII, and they were imprisoned without being charged with any crime.

Is that a good system to go back to?

I tend to agree that people these days expect to get more than they deserve. I'm under the impression that previous generations were willing to work harder and expect less. While we may dispair to see this behavior from people immigrating to America (legally or not), it seems worthy to point out we're not exactly immune to it ourselves.

Without being able to reference anything to back this opinion up, I agree that a person would get less flak displaying a foreign flag in America than a person displaying an American flag in many other places around the world. I don't know if that's American tolerance or apathy, but I'll be optimistic and believe it's a Good Thing(tm)!

Yeah, the tone leads to questionable motive, as it already seems very carefully worded.

It certainly has a bit of a, "the Mexicans are taking over my country" feel to it.

There are ways to make some of these points (like that when my grandparents came over here from Russia and Italy, they set to learning English as it was the prevailing language) without it sounding quite so obviously that you're just yelling at all the hispanics. I mean, she's writing this in California... her words make it obvious that she's not talking about immigrants in general, she's lamenting all the ones who live around her.

On one hand I agree with her; immigrants who move to the US seem to forget that they are becoming AMERICANS. They are no longer Mexican or French or Cuban or whatever citizens. They are now American citizens, with all of the rights, privileges AND responsibilities that come with it. However it often seems that many immigrants want to remain citizens of their native country and yet get the good stuff that Americans get. But that's just my perspective. I know many, many great people who are trying desperately to become US citizens, but I also know many, many shitty people who just want to take advantage.

However, I also got a bad vibe from this lady's letter and I think she is probably a fat, white woman who has never had to really work for anything in her life. She was probably sitting on her fat ass eating oreos while writing that letter, all the while wishing she could say how much she hates it that some Mexicans moved into her neighborhood, but biting her tongue for fear of being exposed as a rascist.

Just my interpretation.

I have to agree with a couple of points in the letter. First, saying that 'this country was built by immigrants'-yes and I agree that using those that came here over 100 years ago should not be compared to those coming today.
They did assimilate, they made it a point to become American.
I see nothing wrong with national pride in terms of one's background; what I see and don't like is the self-segregation that many immigrant groups go about doing now. They set up their own stores, their own enclaves, even their own banks, then cry discrimination if something of theirs isn't 'included' in either the political or business arenas. But by being productive and active makes one 'included'-not the mere virtue of their existence. And if you only wish to make the American dollars but segregate yourself from the rest of the community in which you reside, then you can't cry foul if you don't like how things are going.
I don't like having to make phone calls that then instruct, 'para espanol, marque dos' or not being able to apply for a job because I don't speak Spanish, Portugese or Hindi. And I especially don't like the double-play that some give, pretending not to understand what you're saying until you say something that either sparks their interest or makes them mad. You used to have to know English to take a driver's test; now it's given in seven different languages here, so government is cowtowing. My husband works for and with Hungarians who claim to be American citizens but some of them can't put two words together-how'd they take the citizenship test?
We're so afraid of offending a few, that we end up offending many more-that's the gist of that letter and while it may have an angry tone, it's not without some merit. And I know of some immigrants that came here legally, that are working hard and trying to be good Americans and are really pissed off at the asskissing politicians(and Toy-R-Us) have been doing to those here not legally, so this is not just a lily-white attitude.

Just to play devil's advocate here: Did the colonists assimilate themselves into the Native American cultures?

Either way, while I am all for the tightening of immigration laws and I actually am for making English the official language (we're one of the only nations without an official language), I can't help but look at this letter and think this is another one of those "forward this email to as many people as you can and Bill Gates will pay you $5 for every Mexican that returns to Mexico."

Here's my question - how are today's immigrants any different from the ones 100 years ago? In my mind, other than their country of origin, they aren't.

If you ever get the chance, you should look at examples of journalism from the 1890's and 1900's, especially from the Northeast. With the exception of inclusion of the illegality of some immigrants, the arguements for and against immigration haven't changed.

I think that I need to point something else out. In the OP and in several other posts, there's been a lot of absolute language used. It's pretty rare that "all" immigrants or "everybody" has the same experiences. Most immigrants may have common experiences, but certainly not all.

NG - with your objection to what you think immigrants are doing now (setting up their own banks, stores and enclaves), that's been happening for hundreds of years. I grew up about a half mile from a predominantly Greek area in East Tennessee that still has lots of Greek shops. I live in the Andersonville neighborhood in Chicago that's been a Swedish enclave for about 75 years. I love going to Chinatown for Sunday brunch, and a couple years ago my wife and I spent 2 days poking around Chinatown in San Francisco as tourists. There's nothing new at all about these concentrations of ethnicities, and frankly it's one of my favorite things about big cities, but it's a trend that has spred to the countryside to an extent.

Immigrants have always shown pride for their heritage, flown flags, celebrated the holidays of their homelands, and gathered into communities. I don't know what she means about "being faithful to their mother country." If I moved to another country, I don't think I would stop being fond of the things that I love about America and celebrating my memories of being a part of it.

I was under the impression that many of the folks that come up from Mexico and Central America are migrant workers who are here to make money and send it home. They're not interested in becoming citizens, they're here to get paid. Depending on one's point of view, they could be considered leeches or entrepreneurs.


Well, as long as we're playing devil's advocate, then yes. The Native American cultures were not strangers to warring among themselves. The colonists seemed to fit right in! :lol:

Yeah, but the colonists pretty much came over as invaders, not immigrants.

--

Anyway, this got me thinking about something.. I know many immigrants around the turn of the century were persecuted and hated by Americans and were pretty much forced into living in their own enclaves. Immigrants were treated as sub-human, and I suppose they turned to each other for support and protection (and many turned to crime).

But it seems to me today that that is no longer the case. I, for one, don't care if people move to the US; I think that it's great that they want to move here, so long as they do it LEGALLY. That said, I am not sure why many immigrants choose to segregate themselves, because I don't think immigrants are hated today as they were in in the 18/1900's. I suppose maybe they just want to be near people like them (who doesn't?). Honestly, I don't really know anything, except that immigration is a sticky subject and I am glad that I am not responsible for dealing with it.

I do think that the immigration laws need a major overhaul though, and I also think that there should be a national language. It's easier and probably cheaper.

That made me wonder how I might act if I suddenly moved to Belgium and, for the sake of discussion, there was a small community of Americans already there.

I have to admit, I'd probably hang out with the Yanks. Then again, I'd proably date the fat Belgian chicks and not pay income tax. Ba-Zing!

Honestly, I have never thought about that because I have never once thought about becoming the citizen of another country. Interesting point though.

In terms of vacation though, I would much rather not visit any tourist areas or even see another American. I prefer to try to understand the people that I am visiting. How can I learn about other cultures if I go to another country and only eat McDonald's and stay in the tourist section of town?

Ya, this is apparently so. ;)


http://www.celebrationfl.com/

Now I'm no class-snob, so don't get me wrong. But there it is. People form into enclaves based on socio-economic identity all the time. It's perfectly human and, in my opinion, not worth fretting over.

Yeah, I understand that. Despite how my previous post may sound, I don't have a problem with that at all.

After having spent 2 1/2 weeks surrounded by Russians and then Chinese and speaking English, a trip to the McDonald's across from Tianamen Square was one of the most pleasurable experiences of my big trip in 2000. It was great to not have to think so hard, to be honest. After having eaten some interesting things in some interesting places (horse sausage, anyone?), a Big Mac hit the spot. It was a one-off experience, though.

As for people who go abroad and only eat at American-themed restaurants, I think they're the same folks that come to Chicago and eat at Red Lobster.

Tyrell, you hit the nail on the head - it's just easier for an immigrant to live near people that can sell them food that they know how to cook, can pass along useful information in a language they easily understand and celebrates the same holidays. Criticizing all immigrant groups for a basic human trait is unfair since everyone seeks out the best life for themselves and their families (yes, I know I'm using absolute language there). It's a truism of all people and the world in general.

Ahhh...the rose coloured lens of history....

I wonder if "changed their name to blend in" could be interpreted as "hid their differences from intolerance."

^ Most likely, in my opinion.

I didn't think it sounded that way...only expounding on your statement. :)

SOme changed their name, but many times the Ellis Island officials couldn's spell or pronounce the names given, so on the forms at entry, "Pappazogolias" might have become "Poppozog"
Perhaps my meaning wasn't clear. Sorry. The issue isn't setting up business, banks, etc., per se; of course, that's been done all along. It's the total segregation that has become prevailent and it's not as obvious as a city's Chinatown, which usually is about the same as any town's "Little Italy" for example. I'm speaking more of enclaves that don't involve themselves with the community at all, but instead make strides to be exclusionary of the very community they chose to settle in. Perhaps this doesn't occur all over; right now there's been almost weekly news reports regarding one NJ town with a huge particular immigrant population(an increase of 70% in ten years), that constantly makes demands of their town, with calls of discrimination, yet keep many of their enterprises exclusive to their own community.
Yes, we all go to 'Chinatown', "Little Italy"-Newark has a huge and very well known Portugese neighborhood. In almost all instances, all comers are welcome, it's just natural to congregate with those like oneself. It's the purposeful segregation that's the problem and, like I said, doing that then crying 'discrimination' when it's met is, to me, ridiculous. You have to give a little to get a little.
The other thing someone pointed out is a bone of contention with many-that people immigrate to work here, with no intention of becoming citizens, sending their American dollars home.
****
My maternal grandparents came from Russia and Poland. My grandfather assimilated much more than my grandmother because he worked (she didn't). He didn't even have any accent, save a NY one. My mother and her siblings were actually more vocal about their heritage than their parents. Same with my paternal grandmother, whose parents were from Poland. And, while they kept their language and some of their culture (we still have kruschiki every Christmas, etc), they were completely Americanized. And I think that's where the uneasiness comes from-the seemingly total disregard for any attempt to do so now.

Actually, look what's going on there. If you are Muslim from the Magreb region of Northern Africa, you have a 50% unemployment rate, 35% speak only Arabic (even though they are 2nd or 3rd generation in France), and you are currently burning 150 cars a week in an ongoing (and unpublicized) riot/civil war.

There's a lot of discussion about how the immigrants of today are different from the immigrants of Ellis Island, but it's not brought up enough how the country might be different now than it was back then.

I've been of the belief that the influx of immigrants in the 19th/early 20th centuries occurred during a time period when the US could handle such a huge influx. We needed those immigrants' tax dollars, and labor, and ingenuity, etc, and the US had the ability to support their arrival.

And that's the key difference now: the US no longer has the ability to support every immigrant around the globe that wants to move here. Our infrastructure could not handle it. Our healthcare system, our education system, our welfare system, our traffic infrastructure, you name it, they're stretched thin as it is. As a result, it only makes sense that we rigidly control that influx. And when that control is implemented, people immediately cry foul and bring up how that's not how Ellis Island and our history worked. They think we're being elitist, or racist, or nationalistic. But we're just a country in a different situation now. And that requires us to adapt and use different methods.


So yes, I love and take pride in the fact that people want to move here, and I will welcome them with open arms into this fantastic country. I don't think these immigrants are really any different from the immigrants of previous generations. They're doing what they need to do to keep their families alive and happy. More power to them. But, logistically, our doors can't be as open as they once were. And I think people misinterpret why we turn immigrants away... which leads us to some of the conflict we're dealing with here...

Also, unfortunately, I think it's the case that people of this country themselves misinterpret why we have to turn immigrants away. They use those policies as an excuse to be elitist/racist/nationalistic, which stokes the fire even further. I find it an interesting Catch-22.

As the plagiarist Bob Zimmerman once said, The times they are a-changin'.

Immigration takes on a new tone over time as people change. Technology has made immigration a much easier rite of passage so to speak. In 1900 a slow trip over on a crowded boat often filled with sickness was the main way to arrive and it meant an investment of both time and money and usually involved leaving family behind. These days a quicker trip is made by plane and it is also easier to turn and go back.

In 1900 leaving Poland or Russia meant long goodbyes, a definite leaving of a job and other things as well. Now, it can be done in a matter of hours and if after a few weeks it turns out things aren't going well, people can return back to their native land much more easily. I am not saying it is without problems, just that there are fewer of them. Temporary Visas and work Visas and education Visas are all the rage these days. Nothing like dipping into a culture and testing it out before making the comittment.

Back when I was growing up I saw the first signs of big change. There were children from Italy and from Yugoslavia and even Japan and Spain (as well as other locations). They learned to speak English in a relatively short stretch of time and in many cases assisted their parents in doing the same. The adults expected great things of their children and the children shouldered the responsibility and learned. Then came the invasion as I refer to it. The Hispanic Invasion. Now, it could be argued that some early arrivers on the shores of North America were of Spanish descent and so speaking Spanish is perfectly alright. Well, it would be if the founding fathers had created the Declaration of Independence and other documents in Spanish (and or as well as English). I went to school in a large city with many immigrants and they learned English. Then came Luis. Luis pretended not to speak English and soon had everyone hoodwinked. I ran into Luis one Saturday outside of a store or somewhere, and I spoke to him in my broken Spanish. He turned towards me and responded in English and let out a big grin. He knew English. He also knew that the culture around him was changing and that he could get away with his game, because there would always be a translator for him.

I kept his secret...until a few years ago when I first leaked it out onto a forum.


In the ensuing years, I found more and more co-workers from Spanish speaking countries were speaking Spanish in the workplace, even when there were people present who did not speak Spanish. For a long while all of this irritated me. These days I am more at odds with the educational system (such as it is). Since so many people speak Spanish, why not incorporate it as a second language for the United States and make education of this language mandatory along with English? By doing so, future generations will have the added skill of bilingualism and will not be as distracted by the conversations going on around them in Spanish. See my notes later on Maribel.

What bothers me even more however is voting and citizenship testing. Many communities are mandated by law to issue voting ballots in the native language of certain citizens. Citizenship tests are offered in languages other than English. How do these things help a person fully assimilate into the surroundings of their new country? If a person wishs to be a United States citizen but has made no effort to learn the language spoken here; then how serious are they. This of course brings me to another issue. The 'My country' syndrome.


The My Country Syndrome

In short, this involves the person from Guyana or Ecuador or Cyprus or wherever constantly speaking about their native land. They will say for example: "in my country the trees are much greener than here" or "In my country the street corners are paved with seashells" This wouldn't be half as bad were it not for the fact that many of them have already taken citizenship tests and become U.S. citizens. This makes the U.S. their country now. If their native country was so perfect why are they here?

Then there was Maribel. Maribel was from The Dominican Republic. She learned English. Although she had the opportunity to read publications in Spanish, she chose to read them in English and subscribed to Reader's Digest in English to help her achieve her goal of speaking and comprehending English. Maribel also frowned on speaking more than one language in the workplace...unless it was a private telephone conversation with a person who had not learned the language or if their was someone in on business who had not learned English. Within the office, even with others from her native land, she spoke English. At times it was near to amusing. If Jose or Maria said something in Spanish, Maribel would respond in English. She would also have a look on her face to indicate her annoyance with the rudeness of the co-worker who was speaking Spanish.


I have no issues with persons coming to this country and flying flags from their native land...especially on holidays of their native land which may still hold a special place in their heart. But fly the American flag as well. Speak the native tongue at home or in private clubs where all members are from the same heritage, but do not do it at the grocery store when you are a cashier and speaking to another cashier or a manager or a customer who you know speaks English. Mind you, if a customer arrives at the checkout and speaks in Lithuanian, I am not going to be upset with the cashier responding in Lithuanian (and no, I do not speak Lithuanian. I can barely grasp English and a few words of Spanish). Manners are important.


If I am in the hospital emergency room and 3 or 4 nurses start bantering back and forth in Greek or Albanian or some other language it will have an effect upon my health. If I am already in a state of being where I am in need of healthcare, not knowing what is being said is only going to aggravate my illness. Again, this is not an issue if the nurse speaks directly to a patient in the patient's native language, and in fact at that point and in that time and place may well be comforting to the patient.


Immigration brings new people all the time and along with these people are changes. I just ask that the new arrivals respect the persons who are here and to become part of the existing fabric, not tear huge holes into it and fill with slap-dash patching.

I dunno. I live in Central Florida which has very large Hispanic and Vietnamese populations and I just don't have a problem with any of this.

I thought diversity was one of our strengths. It's a known thing that "we" are possibly the most tongue-tied country on our planet.
If I was, whyever, to go elsewhere, though, I'd at least try to learn how to communicate, because it would make life easier...
It seems that much of the bad news around here comes from the new arrivals, but that might be my perception...

:lol: Awesome. We agree. :thumbsup:

Oh, the fun I could have with this letter... especially coming off my two hour comprehensive exam today, entirely about immigration theory and case studies in economics, sociology, anthropology, and demography. Why you gotta be a hater, lady?

But that comes from me, the immigrant lover. :D Hell, not only am I politically pro-immigrant (Hispanic or otherwise), I'm married to an immigrant and am the product of two, all from different countries... and I have dual citizenship. And doing my PhD dissertation on immigration issues. So people like this drive me up the frickin' wall. Ethnocentrism kills.

i found the letter to be kinda creepy in an unwitting suburban fascism kinda way. i dont doubt somehow that the writer is a nice, well-meaning person: but the veil of ignorance through which she writes is so thick that it is hard to know exactly what more to say about her or her letter. creepy stuff indeed.

I was waiting for your reply, abaya :)

Hear, hear.

I live in an area with a high Hispanic population. I have no problem with them. They do a lot of work ordinary white Americans would refuse to do, especially in agriculture. They brought in the Christmas tree harvest, the apple harvest, and without them, our economy would suffer.

People like the one in the letter obviously have no real connection to the immigration issue.

Para espanol, push button 2.

I'm in the newspaper business and have a little understanding of "letters to the editor."

I don't think it was the tone of the letter that was a problem; I think it was too long and didn't have a singular point or refer to a previous article oreditorial opinion in the paper. This was more like a column although still rambling.

Whether a column or a letter, for credibility there needs to be a clear subject and position on that subject. Evidence needs to be presented to support that position. This was more history lesson with other thoughts tossed in.

Since the OP of this thread contains comments, without quotations or attribution, that are an exact duplicate of the intro comments of a "propaganda piece" that is quite prevalent on the internet these days, right down to the "original" comments by the thread OP's author, can it be regarded as what it actually is,
a "troll" thread, and either deleted, or horrors...moved to the politics forum?

http://www.google.com/search?q=++%22...&start=10&sa=N

<h3>Does this commentary look familiar ?</h3>
or....here:

Anecdote told to me by a friend who is a sheriff's deputy out west:
They got a call to quell some rowdiness. One particularly drunk person was giving them a really hard time, all the while seeming to not understand anything the deputies said. After trying to be calmly professional, my friend Bob turned to his partner and said, "Hell, just cuff him and charge him with being an asshole". The man responded, 'Asshole?? Who you calling a.......oops....':lol:

host, you proved what I suspected all along.

If these remarks in the OP are original, they can only be the words of someone who is deliberately duplicitous, or....clueless, IMO:

Nice find Host.

It's not clear in the OP, now that I read it again, but I did assume that everything after the first paragraph was pasted from an email.

It wouldn't help. So long as you're an American citizen, you're legally required to file a federal tax return and pay a Federal income tax on any money earned, regardless of where you live when you earn it.

You do get to take any taxes taken out by your host country's government

----------------

The e-mail seems a political piece designed to hit a bunch of anti-immigration talking points. I doubt that it's actually a letter to the editor of any kind, and I suspect that element of the e-mail is nothing more than an attempt to get in a dig against the "liberal media."

My mother is an immigrant from Ukraine. She speaks Ukrainian and Russian and after 30 years in the United States is still more comfortable in those languages than in English. It's difficult to fully master a second language, particularly one that is from a different language subgroup from any you know and when you begin learning in your late teens. She can speak English fluently--heavily accented and still with some verb tense problems--but is unsure enough of her mastery that she'll revert to Russian when she has the chance. It's a relief to be able to make yourself understood and to be understood without effort and without knowing that you're making obvious mistakes but not knowing what those are unless someone corrects you.

Opportunities to speak Ukrainian are much less common. Running into someone who speaks her native language is like a day at Disneyland, a rare and wonderful treat for her. I know she means no animosity to anyone around her when she has an animated conversation with another person who speaks one of her native languages. She's just happy to be comfortable being who she is and not having to conform to someone else's standards for how she should behave in matters that don't affect them.

She's been an American citizen for 25 years.

My wife has no immigrants in her direct family line. Nobody asked her father's or mother's families if they wanted to be part of the United States. Yet somehow, when she speaks Japanese to another ethnic Japanese, when she celebrates her family's cultural heritage by displaying a flag or other cultural artifacts, this is somehow an "immigration" problem.

Immigrants bring their cultures with them. The city of Chicago has a parade, official recognition, a citywide party, turns the river green, and bases many cultural elements of the microcultures of their city services (police and fire fighters in particular) on that of a foreign culture. More than a century after the last major wave of immigrants from Ireland, elements of Irish culture and Irish cultural identity remain strongly ingrained in the city's cultural identity.

I understand economic and safety arguments. Cultural arguments, especially in a land where culture is the primary export, confuse me. It all seems to me to be coming down, on the cultural front, to a uniformity verses diversity debate. While I think that's perhaps too firmly dichotomous, given that choice, I'm going to favor diversity.

Oh, gee, my signature is actually relevant for once. Very cool.

It was a thinly veiled joke about illegal immigrants not paying taxes. :p

Host, I don't think the OP claimed to have written the sentences that you bolded. She just didn't put the email in quotes so it is unclear what is her writing and what she pasted from the email. I believe only these parts were written by the OP:

And:

I was interested to hear reports from England that certain town councils had forbidden people to fly the St George's Cross (the English flag) from their houses on St George's Day for fear of upsetting the immigrant population and making them feel ostracised. Surely if they're upset by people being English then they shouldn't have moved to England?

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. :)

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. :thumbsup: 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.

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!

Thanks for responding... I thought I had killed the thread. :confused:
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.

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.

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

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. :thumbsup:

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".

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. :love:

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.

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.) :D 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... :confused:

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.

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.

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.