My Irish forebears came here to escape famine. My Italian forebears came here to escape poverty. My wife's families came here to escape pogroms in Eastern Europe. Zach's comment in reference to Mexican and other immigrants today - "we want them to be here for more than just dollars" - appears to shift the goalposts.

Why? Mickey Kaus brings up "reconquista, " saying "it's hardly a real threat now. Who can guarantee what future generations will think?" "Reconquista" refers to the recapturing of the southwestern United States for Mexico, and according to David Neiwert, "the whole notion of 'reconquista' as a plot to invade America is just another far-right conspiracy theory that has floated about among extremists for years and is now surfacing, like the fetid turd of an idea it is, in the mainstream punch bowl."

In his post, That racism thang, he also quotes Alex Koppelman at Dragonfire who says: "...The myth of reconquista stems from a misreading of one of the founding documents of the Chicano movement, "El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan."

In much the same way that the Black Power movement meant the words "Black Power" in a metaphorical sense, that is, as a call to African-Americans to recognize after years of being stigmatized that they too were people with something to contribute to society, "El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan" was an appeal to nationalism as a means to achieve a greater self-awareness and self-esteem.

But that's not the way some white supremacists, fearful of a brown mass ready to take over the United States, has interpreted it.

A simple Google search shows that the people talking about Aztlan and reconquista are predominantly not Mexican (though there are some radical fringe groups) but white supremacists."

The Pew Survey appears to show that Hispanics are assimilating within two generations. So what, exactly, would radicalize an alienated Latino population within America? I don't think anyone has any idea, Zach, but I'll say this: posts like Mickey Kaus' reads to me more like an attempt to radicalize an alienated white population within America.

John, I think you've somewhat missed the thrust of Zach's post. He's trying (I think) to argue against Gastarbeiter-style laws, on the grounds that they could undermine the forces that have kept Hispanic immigrants successfully assimilating for several generations now. Reconquista as an actual plan for the remexicanization of the southwest is, I agree, the stuff of know-nothing fever dreams. But one can acknowledge that, and still observe -- and ponder the policy implications of -- the sense prevalent among a great many Hispanics that they have some sort of 'we were here first, damn it' status. All the more reason, then, to incentivize the re-alignment of that 'we' to mean 'Americans', or at the very least not to provide incentives in the opposite direction.

The Zakaria column is must-read; it is basically my view on the subject, now.

Phil is right, btw.

After a reread of Zach's column, I agree, philosopher is correct. I misread the final paragraph, probably due to my reaction to the (unnecessary, in my view) inclusion of the Mickey Kaus post.

I also think Zakaria hits the nail EXACTLY on the head. But I strongly feel that any discussion about immigration is not well served by heading in the Kaus post's direction.

I'm not sure there IS there some sort of prevalent sense of "'we were here first, damn it' status," philosopher. I would suspect that in the case of recently arrived illegal immigrants, they are just happy to be earning money and for now, are only concerned about struggling to get a toehold and not get deported. I would suggest that 'we were here first, damn it' only comes into play only as a sort of 'playground response' by legal born-in-the-USA Mexican-Americans to perceived racism: by talk of "reconquista" by pundits like Kaus and M Malkin; and/or when they spot the white supremecist tendencies of some of the well-publicized Minutemen; and/or read about outrageous legislative attempts by fanatics in the House of Representatives who want to make criminals out doctors and nurses who treat illegal aliens.

Let me put this way. When faced with, "Why don't you go back where you came from?" --- the response, "Oh yeah? We were here first!" --- ain't a bad one.

Zakaria’s column also points out, though, that the “green card” system in operation in Germany precludes workers with green cards from ever becoming citizens, so including his conclusions in this context seems a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

As far as the prospect of assimilation being accomplished in two generations, either because “the volume of immigration increases beyond some threshold where assimilation pressures are no longer effective or those pressures themselves weaken,” have you been to your local mall lately? The mall in our area is now bilingual – English and Spanish. This is a marked shift from the 1960s and 1970s when the bilinguality was English and French because of the number of Canadians who watched local television channels or crossed the bridge/tunnel for work or commerce.

I tend to cautiously agree with Kaus’s comment that “Simple prudence might tell Americans it's best if there's a mix of immigrants and if the vast majority of them can't possibly think they're coming back to their own former land,” particularly since big chunks of the U.S. also used to belong to Russia and France.

More to the point, however, the Pew report discussed the issue of immigrants taking jobs from Americans, and immigrants and employers both saying that Americans won’t take those jobs anyway, so why not hire immigrants (illegal or otherwise). Neither position allows for the underlying possibility that part of the reason Americans won’t take certain jobs is because of the implication that they’re “only for [insert racial slur/ethnic group here].”

We have had more than one generation of American teenagers, college students and graduates who believe that pushing a mop or broom, or flipping burgers is somehow beneath them. Think about the possibilities of minimal unemployment for legitimate American citizens if the percentage of illegals (whatever you think it is) no longer occupies that section of the workforce. Basic supply and demand will change the landscape on “menial” jobs one way or another.

I'm trying to see the harm in English and Spanish signs in your local mall. The same situation arose, with the same bi-lingual fears, in Florida in the late 1960s when hundreds of thousands of Castro-fleeing Cubans descended on south Florida in the space of four years. Miami survived.

In my NYC neighborhood, the signs at my butcher are in English and Polish for those elderly folks from the old country who still can't read English, who stayed behind in the neighborhood with their friends after their American English speaking kids moved to the suburbs.

You ought to see all the different newspapers on sale at the newstand at 14th Street and Ist Avenue --- Ukranian, Polish, Spanish, Hebrew, Pakistani, Korean and who knows what else. They're sold to mom, dad and gramps who may have that just off the boat look with barely halting English to match, while their teenaged kids are 100% made in the USA --- and look and sound it.

My city was settled by the Dutch in the 1600s. Despite the waves after waves of different immigrant groups that have hit this town for the last 400+ years, those same attitudes (religious tolerance, hard work and free enterprise) that the original Dutch settlers brought with them still proudly define our city today. We KNOW our city has a solid foundation. We KNOW we can absorb all those immigrants and turn them into Americans (OK, well at least New Yorkers, which is good enough for us --- our public school system and our Catholic schools will turn their kids into Americans.)

It's the way America's always done it. Ya just gotta have faith.

Unfortunately, the greater Detroit area doesn't have your level of stability.....

...everybody has their hands out but nobody wants to pay the freight.

[That last post seemed a bit incomplete].

You live there lawyerchik1, but
according to this NY Times article:
Detroit Journal; Mexican Immigrants Lead a Revival

" ...When an 18-year-old Jesus Lopez arrived here (Detroit), he said recently, he was convinced that those who had come before him were crazy.

''In those days, over here there was only burned-out houses,'' he recalled. ''Who would want to live here? It was not good.''

But today, 18 years later, the view is much different in southwest Detroit, where many of this city's immigrants from Mexico live. So much has changed that it is being hailed as the nation's new Mexican boomtown.

Scorched shells of houses are being bought and resurrected by scores of skilled Mexican tradesmen. They have snapped up dozens of the old Victorians and duplexes for as little as $20,000, and they have nearly doubled the population to 90,000.

Their impact is undeniable. The three local Roman Catholic parishes have each added two weekend Masses in Spanish to accommodate the wave of new arrivals, who started showing up here six years ago, most directly from Mexico. They say they came to escape rising costs and growing hostilities against immigrants in Arizona, California and Chicago, and to reunite with older relatives who had been cashing in on Detroit's labor shortage for more than a decade.

West Vernor Avenue, the main strip here, is lined with evidence: Mexican bakeries, paleta (Popsicle) shops, taquerias, tortilla factories, Mexican grocery stores. Since 1994, about 35 businesses have opened and dozens have expanded, business groups said. An $8 million mercado and welcome center will be built next year. Amid the abundance of Spanish signs, it is easy to overlook the golden arches of McDonald's.

''Nobody over here saw the opportunity we did,'' said Mr. Lopez, who left a 10-year construction career five months ago to open his own taqueria. ''Where we come from, you work all your life to have a house, a business, and you still don't get nowhere. That's why we work hard to make this good for us..."

Arizona, California, and Chicago's loss looks like Detroit's gain.

Look, It's not like we haven't had a "Mexican immigrant problem" in this country before:

"When Mexican immigration peaked around the mid-1920s, the government of the United States imposed stringent immigration laws and Mexicans. Many of them born in this country, began to be seen as a racial and economic "problem..."

*snip*

"Senator Box from Texas, who wrote a bill (1930) to restrict Mexican immigration to the United States, stated:

The ruling white classes of Mexico, numbering comparatively few, whatever their numbers are, do not migrate. There is another large class of people of Mexico who are sometimes called "greasers" and other unfriendly names, the great bulk of them are what we ordinarily al "peons," and from this class we are getting this great migration. It is a bad racial element… to speak frankly…"

*snip*

Edward H. Dowell, representing the California State Federation of Labor, argued (before the Senate) that:

"Do you want the kind of people that sit in this capitol, or that you have in the north or middle west, or do want a mongrel population consisting largely of Mexicans and Orientals?"

*snip*

When the Great Depression overwhelmed the American economy, thousands of Mexicans and Chicanos, along with their families, were "repatriated" to Mexico. The entire event represented, as David F. Gomez noted, "one of the most tragic chapters in Mexican-American history, where both Mexicanos and Chicanos suffered together…"

Also "according to this NY Times article", the immigrants in question are proceeding legally to become citizens.

But I'll be honest - I don't want to live in any area that becomes overrun with hispanics. I lived in South America for 3 years where it was made very clear to me and my family that we were not welcome JUST because we were Americans.

When I was 11 years old, I had to go to school with a security fence around it that was guarded by armed soldiers with machine guns to protect the students from kidnapping in Buenos Aires. As a 12- and 13-year-old, I was harassed by Venezuelans on motorcycles just because I was a gringa.

I graduated from high school in Texas where 1/3 of the population of my graduating class was Mexican. The other third was black, and while there were individuals who were my friends and who treated me and others based on who we were and not what we looked like, there was nevertheless the message that we whites were outnumbered. In case anyone forgot, there was the occasional knife fight in the hall - and this was 1979-1981.

I wanted more than anything else to be back in the safe immigrant neighborhood I grew up in with Italians and Poles and Irish and German immigrants, and I don't care how many Mexicans or other ethnic groups you trot out here, I still won't want them here.

Bingo.

"Bingo?"

Maybe I should clarify the question: Was your use of the word "bingo" intended to imply that because I have a factually based personal reason for not wanting unregulated immigration, my arguments are of less importance because my feelings about how I was treated are irrelevant? It's only so-called "minority" ethnic groups whose "feelings" are important?

In other words, those individuals who fought in, say, World War II who had to defend this country against the Japanese and the Germans, and those who fought in Korea and in Vietnamese against (obviously) the Koreans and the Vietnamese, wouldn't have any right to have their feelings respected in dealing with immigration issues?

At the risk of sounding just like you, it's just typical that the only opinions that matter are those whose plights are politically correct at the moment. Let's forget for a moment that those from these "poor, downtrodden" countries have allowed dictators to overrun their political systems because they refused to stand up to political manipulation when it happened in their country. So by all means, let's let them have free run of our, give them voting rights, and hell, welfare too, if they can't make a living, so that when the time comes, they can vote for even more socialists to take over this country.

Where will we go then, John? Where? Huh?

Bingo, my ass!

Oh yeah, that's right - YOUR favorite president gave away the Panama Canal!

I shouldn't have been a wiseguy, lawyerchik1. This is how I should have said it:

Bingo. I have felt since the beginning that much of this latest Mexican immigration brouhaha is built on fear and anger. And I am sorry for your bad early experiences, but you appear to have felt firsthand then what a lot of Mexican immigrants are feeling now.

Thanks, John - I appreciate that. In all fairness, too, it appears that much of the focus on Hispanics in the immigration debate is because there are many more "good" reasons that the laws should not apply to them. It's sort of an "end justifies the means" argument - because they would be such good citizens, let's bend the rules.

There were just as many demonstrations here in the Arab/Muslim communities, though, which I found strange, given the fact that there were so many Iraqis (for example) who also voted in the recent elections in Iraq. I also find it strange that many of those (noncitizens) in this country decry our way of doing things on one hand while on the other demanding to be permitted all of the benefits of citizenship.

Some of my friends who were born in Venezuela and Brazil had dual citizenship until they were 18 years old, but they then had to choose whether they wanted to be a citizen of their birth country or a citizen of the United States. I wish I'd kept statistics on how many chose which citizenship, but the point is that they had to make a choice - which country?

And none of the discussions I've read so far have adequately responded to other issues such as: children being born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant parents who then have conveyed upon them citizenship by birth, children of illegal immigrants who demand public education at taxpayer expense (in addition to public assistance and health care), and the illegal immigrants who come to this country and start businesses that fail and take others down with them (I know it's not just an immigrant problem but it still occurs) with little recourse for those they've injured because they disappear to avoid detection and deportation. Those problems are not directed specifically at the Hispanic community - they occur in immigrant populations of any ethnicity.

It reminds me somewhat of teenagers whose parents go out of town, and the kids have a party. Homeless people, drug addicts, and even people who just need a place to live and will work for their keep sneak in the back door or through the windows - all uninvited. Once the party is over, though, none of the people wants to leave.

The ones who are willing to work say they should be allowed to stay, and in fact, that their activities since they got in require the parents to let them stay there, too, but the fact is that they have no legal right to be there.

I know it's a simplistic example, but the point is that just because people "deserve better" doesn't mean that it has to come from here. Who's to say that if all of these "deserving" illegal immigrants were to stay in their own countries and work together (the way they do here), they wouldn't be able to change their own government into one that was more accommodating to the principles of freedom and justice that we have in the U.S.?

Who is left in those countries to vote for candidates (at least in those countries where there are such elections) that will promote the goals people are so willing to risk their lives for to get here? And I realize the risks - but what is the difference if they risk their lives stowing away on rickety pieces of wood or barrels or in shipholds or boxcars to get here, instead of risking their lives in their own countries to make their own countries better places? Patriotism still works, and perhaps even better now because of advances in communication and the willingness of others to help the underdogs.

With our current domestic economy and so many other factors that we have to deal with here, what are we doing allowing more and more laxity in immigration laws that will only allow more people to sap the strained resources we have? What do people do when they can't run away? They fight back - and they effect change. I just don't want to see the U.S. become a third-world country by saturation, and it looks like that's where we're headed.

I guess a difference, though, was that when my family was living in South America, we did not have any intention of becoming citizens, nor did we push for Venezuela's, Brazil's or Argentina's governments to change to our way of doing things or afford us the same benefits that were provided to the citizens of each country as if we were citizens.

We fully understood that we were guests in those countries, and that we had to obey their laws (whether we agreed with them or not). We obtained the appropriate visas - in Argentina, for example, because my parents were there for language school, we were there on tourist visas, and we had to leave halfway through and visit Uruguay for a period of time so that we could legally return and my folks could complete their education.

In Venezuela, my parents' vehicle was struck by a motorcycle - they were fine, but the motorcyclist was injured. The Venezuelan police put my dad in jail - for his protection, rather than because he had committed a crime - and he went to jail (for his protection - apparently, the family would have come after him if he wasn't locked up). He was there for a week or two, and some local missionaries took him food, toiletry articles, reading material, etc., because the jailkeepers didn't provide those things to any prisoners.

He didn't demand to be released or organize a protest or invoke any U.S. laws that would have allowed him the right to be free until proven guilty - he stayed in jail until the police finished their investigation (which exonerated him) and he came home.

If there was a significant conflict between what those governments did and what we thought our rights were, we had recourse to our consulate.

There was one guy, born in Argentina but of Russian parents, who was arrested for just being in a part of the city where the police were attempting to quash a demonstration. Even as an Argentine citizen, born in Buenos Aires, because he did not have his citizenship papers on his person, they arrested him and put him in jail.

Had someone from the mission not seen him and told his wife, no one would have had any idea where he was or what had happened to him - not because he was an "immigrant" (he wasn't) or because he was not wanted, or because he looked different, but because he had no papers on him to prove his citizenship.

That wasn't an immigration issue at all - it was actually a dictatorship issue that was ultimately dealt with by a coup supported by the US/Henry Kissinger.

The point is that when you live in another country as a guest (worker or student or whatever), you work within the laws of that country. If you want to become a citizen, there is a process - it's not perfect (nothing is), but it's a process. If it doesn't work, or if you don't meet the criteria, you go home.

Maybe you try again if you can, or you find someplace else to go that is better than wherever you want to be, or maybe you take your experience with the culture you want and deal with the problems in your own country to make it better.

Absent overthrowing a government, there just aren't anymore places to claim and then start your own country. It sucks, but that's the way it is. The difficulty I see with how the immigration debate is being handled is that people with no legal right to the benefits and protections of U.S. citizenship are using those benefits and protections as weapons to demand what they can't get legally.

Last one, and then I promise I'm going to sign off and find something more productive to do!!

Just out of curiosity, has anyone actually read the U.S. government's website on how to become a naturalized citizen? It's not that hard. Granted, there is a 2007 list of desirable occupations, and there are requirements, but it's not really that complicated a process.

The reason I ask the question is because in other discussions, people have (for example) decried President Bush's alleged "illegal" wiretapping, saying that it's really not that hard to get a warrant to do what he would want to do, so what's the problem. Those same people seem to be the ones claiming that it's OK for foreign nationals to completely evade immigration laws because the end result is so desirable.

"Just out of curiosity, has anyone actually read the U.S. government's website on how to become a naturalized citizen? It's not that hard."

Hahahahahahahahahaha hack hack hack koff koff koff.

Yesterday 6,000 people marched to protest proposed federal immigration legislation where I live. We're a small city(about 100,000) and when I was a kid meat packing was the big employer in the area, maybe still is. Then IBP(since bought up by Tyson) who by the way let employees off work to protest, broke a strike with Mexican workers. The present wage for such work is $3.00 or $4.00 per hour lower than it was in the early 60's. The headlilne read Immigration Rights Protest. I wondered what are immigration rights?
The part of our metro area located in Nebraska (I live in Iowa)and closest to Tyson may well have a Mexican majority. My next door neighbor is Mexican and his wife and kids seem to rotate between here and Mexico. His daughter who is seven or so speaks excellent english. At the moment the wife and kids aren't around and two or three young men seem to be boarding there. The only one I've talked to much is the daughter but as neighbors go they're pretty good.

There were just as many demonstrations here in the Arab/Muslim communities, though, which I found strange

Indeed. It isn't as though we have a problem with illegal immigrants from the Middle East. No one swims that well! Likewise, the picture on the front page of my local paper this morning showed participants in a march from Philadelphia's Chinatown to City Hall.

I've read articles about these various protests, and there doesn't seem to be any unifying message other than "We're here, we're not native English speakers, and we want stuff from the government."

Eric, your perception of the unifying message of the various protests is: "We're here, we're not native English speakers, and we want stuff from the government."

I'd say the unifying message of the various protests is: "We're here, we're not native English speakers, and we're not gonna put up with good old-fashioned American hate-mongering ."

Ah, so Lawyerchik1 admits it's all about bigotry. Bet Blacks would also fall on her list of people she wouldn't want in the country if not for that whole slavery thing that happened 400 or so years ago. Thanks for the confirmation.

"Ah, so Lawyerchik1 admits it's all about bigotry."

Not "all" - my personal feelings and experiences are as valid as anyone else's, but there are other legitimate (and well-explained) reasons, too. Of course, if you just stopped reading when you found what you were looking for, that explains a lot..... BTW, that confirms certain suspicions about YOUR position, too.

"Bet Blacks would also fall on her list of people she wouldn't want in the country if not for that whole slavery thing that happened 400 or so years ago."

Wha-huh? What part of any of that caused you to draw that conclusion? And as far as not wanting certain people in the country, while we're reevaluating who should and shouldn't stay here, let's include anyone who doesn't work for a living but lives off welfare, or who molests children, or - hell, why stop there - who is so intolerant of someone else's opinions that he (or she) can't grant that person the same Constitutional rights of speech that he (or she) wants to just give to people who aren't even U.S. citizens. God forbid the rights of actual taxpaying citizens should override those of people who have no legal right to be here.

"We're here, we're not native English speakers, and we're not gonna put up with good old-fashioned American hate-mongering ."

Given that the demonstrations were sparked by the immigration debate going on in Congress, please do explain how any of the proposals amount to "hate-mongering."

Or, if you can't do that, at least point to any influential person or group which is engaging in "hate-mongering."

Given that the demonstrations were sparked by the immigration debate going on in Congress, please do explain how any of the proposals amount to "hate-mongering."

Or, if you can't do that, at least point to any influential person or group which is engaging in "hate-mongering."

No problem, Eric.

Tom Tancredo, chair of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, and with sponsorship from House Judiciary Committee chair James Sensenbrenner ), the House approved a bill that makes it a felony to be in the United States illegally, mandates punishment for providing aid or shelter to undocumented immigrants and allocates millions for the construction of an iron wall between the United States and Mexico.

"Tancredo, he’s pretty good. I would probably vote for him for President," David Duke, former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, told Max Blumenthal in the Nation.

Duke’s Klan Border Watch was the inspiration for national organizations like VDare and American Patrol who concocted the Minutemen groups that so inspire CNN's Lou Dobbs. "The reason this (referring to the Immigration 'debate') has escalated to such a national level is because of groups like the Minutemen project that are out there causing fear, pain, and frankly pushing people to the limits," said Rosalinda Guillen, director of the Aguila Del Norte Legal Observer Program for the Coalition for Professional Law and Border Enforcement.

Pundits like Michelle Malkin and Mickey Kaus trot out "Reconquista," which refers to the recapturing of the southwestern United States (Aztlan) for Mexico. Says David Neiwert: "the whole notion of 'reconquista' as a plot to invade America is just another far-right conspiracy theory that has floated about among extremists for years and is now surfacing, like the fetid turd of an idea it is, in the mainstream punch bowl."

In his post, That racism thang, he also quotes Alex Koppelman at Dragonfire who says: "...The myth of reconquista stems from a misreading of one of the founding documents of the Chicano movement, "El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan."

In much the same way that the Black Power movement meant the words "Black Power" in a metaphorical sense, that is, as a call to African-Americans to recognize after years of being stigmatized that they too were people with something to contribute to society, "El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan" was an appeal to nationalism as a means to achieve a greater self-awareness and self-esteem.

But that's not the way some white supremacists, fearful of a brown mass ready to take over the United States, has interpreted it.

A simple Google search shows that the people talking about Aztlan and reconquista are predominantly not Mexican (though there are some radical fringe groups) but white supremacists."

Immigration legislation is dead in Congress, for a lot of reasons. But mainly, I think, because a lot of immigrants saw what happened with the last big right-wing wedge issue (oh, excuse me, I mean 'debate') before a major election --- that would be "gay marriage" in 2004 --- and said, no thanks, we're not gonna be pawns in election '06, we're gonna demonstrate our strength in the streets.

I also suspect Latinos remember the 1920s and 30s: "When Mexican immigration peaked around the mid-1920s, the government of the United States imposed stringent immigration laws and Mexicans. Many of them born in this country, began to be seen as a racial and economic "problem..."

That "problem" resulted in statements like these in 1930:

"The ruling white classes of Mexico, numbering comparatively few, whatever their numbers are, do not migrate. There is another large class of people of Mexico who are sometimes called "greasers" and other unfriendly names, the great bulk of them are what we ordinarily al "peons," and from this class we are getting this great migration. It is a bad racial element… to speak frankly…"
--- Senator Box from Texas, who wrote a bill to restrict Mexican immigration to the United States.

And Edward H. Dowell, representing the California State Federation of Labor, said (before the Senate):

"Do you want the kind of people that sit in this capitol, or that you have in the north or middle west, or do want a mongrel population consisting largely of Mexicans and Orientals?"

That kinda talk led to thousands of Mexicans and Chicanos, along with their families (including American born kids), being "repatriated" to Mexico when the Great Depression hit.

So the currant immigration brouhaha probably looks to them like the same old thing in brand new drag.

Anyway, regardless of immigration, or whatever other sideshow gets trotted out by the RW Noise Machine, Americans will STILL be voting first on Iraq, the economy, jobs, healthcare, and gas prices come November.

JohnS,

The fact that a liberal pundit thinks Malkin and Kaus are perpetuating racism by commenting on "reconquista" hardly makes it so. At worst, they are guilty of taking literally a concept that was (so you claim) intended metaphorically. I'm sure it would go over super well if President Bush declared a "crusade" against Islamic extremism and then later claimed he only meant "crusade" in a metaphorical sense.

I can hardly believe you're insinuating that because David Duke has a positive opinion of Tancredo, that means Tancredo's policy proposal amounts to "hatemongering." Duke ran in the 1988 Democratic Presidential primary. Does that mean the Democratic Party is a "hatemongering" organization??

I'm not even going to comment on the stuff you dredged up from the 1920's and 30's. When you use terms like "hatemongering" so loosely, they begin to lose their meaning.

hatemonger n. One who incites others to hatred or prejudice

I don't think I used the term "hatemongering" loosely at all Eric. I actually said "good old-fashioned hatemongering," which is why I "dredged up" the "stuff" from the 1920s and 30s you dismissed.

You had asked me for examples of "...influential person or group which is engaging in "hate-mongering."

I cited Congressman Tancredo's immigration 'reform' legislation which was so ridiculously draconian that the Catholic Church and doctors said they would refuse to abide by it and willingly break the law were it to pass. I say it never had a chance of passing. I say that wasn't it's intent. I say it was designed to inflame passions on the right in a buildup to election '06, a la "gay marriage" in '04.

Tancredo's piece of legislation and theatrics on immigration wins him the ringing endorsement of the former head of the Ku Klux Klan and you "can't believe" I would insinuate that it was hate mongering? Well, believe it, Eric.

Modern day hate-mongerers don't say stuff like "Do you want the kind of people that sit in this capitol, or that you have in the north or middle west, or do want a mongrel population consisting largely of Mexicans and Orientals?"
No, these days they write legislation that mandates punishment for providing aid or shelter to undocumented immigrants and dredge up theories like "reconquista." That theory has long been discredited by Mexicans but kept alive, indeed trumpeted, by white supremecists --- nothing drives the hate-mobile like fear. By the way, David Neiwert is not a 'liberal pundit.' He is veteran reporter and editor whose work has appeared in The Washington Post, MSNBC, Salon.com, and the Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report. His reporting on domestic terrorism for MSNBC won a National Press Club Award in 2000 for distinguished online journalism.

And finally, you completely ignore my citing of the Minutemen, a group regularly touted by CNN's own Lou Dobbs --- a group group with strong links to, and overlapping membership with, violent white supremacist and neo-Nazis,
who Rosalinda Guillen, director of the Aguila Del Norte Legal Observer Program for the Coalition for Professional Law and Border Enforcement, says is driving the current immigration "debate."

I stand by what I wrote.

JohnS,

What you wrote amounts to "good old-fashioned" smearing, mud-slinging, and guilt-by-association. If you think you're helping the cause of immigrants by demonizing those who support greater control over immigration and better enforcement of laws, you're dead wrong.

I agree with Eric that one needs to be careful with "Nazis like him, too!" arguments. Nonetheless, the evidence for Tancredo's racist ickiness is ample, and it's important to pay attention to the way in which he serves as a "transmitter" of hate-filled wingnut ideas into mainstream political discourse.

Eric

You think I'm "demonizing" the likes of Malkin, Tancredo, the Minutemen and David Duke for calling them on the immigrant media orgy they've created and/or are participating in? David Duke hearts Tancredo and neo-nazis heart Minutemen and that's "guilt by association?"

Amazing!

And if you think the way the immigrant issue has been played is good for your team come November, YOU'RE dead wrong.

"So the currant immigration brouhaha probably looks to them like the same old thing in brand new drag."
Perhaps this is about what it doesn't look like rather than what it looks like. It doesn't look like the amnesty of a few years ago that ended up with three million or so getting citizenship.

Pick up the Tancredo/Sensenbrenner "immigration reform" rock and this is what you find underneath:

"These people (illegal immigrants) don't come here to work. They come here to rob and deal drugs. We need the National Guard to clean up our cities and round them up."
---Chris Simcox, co-founder of the Minutemen

"And I say...to the politicians, I warn you personally. You will not be re-elected. If you take to the streets with the vermin who are trying to dictate to us how we should run America, even though they're not even entitled to vote or be here, you're going to be thrown out of office. The people will throw you out of office. There are not enough of them to re-elect you. You will be out of a job. You will not have a living. You will be hunting for a job. Maybe, you'll be picking the vegetables." ---Michael Savage

"March through our streets and demand your rights. Excuse me? You have no rights here, and that includes the right to tie up our towns and cities and block our streets. At some point this could all turn very violent as Americans become fed up with the failure of their government to address the most pressing domestic issue of our time ... where's the immigration service? Why don't they pull the buses up and start asking these people to show their green cards? And the ones that don't have them, put them on the buses and send them home."
---Jack Cafferty on CNN

"Every day now, it seems, hundreds of thousands of ungrateful human parasites rally in American cities condemning their host country's lack of hospitality...These invaders have made it easy for drug dealers, criminals and terrorists to hide behind the skirts of ordinary civilians."
---James Farrah, founder of WorldNetDaily

JohnS,

*yawn*

Rather than cut-and-paste quotes in an attempt to smear people, maybe you'd care to explain why you think getting immigration under control is a bad thing? As with any controversial issue, there's intemperate remarks on both sides, but the core issue at hand here is how to stop the flow of people entering the US illegally and deal with the millions of people who are already here illegally.

I have no problem with legal immigration. But uncontrolled immigration *is* creating problems for many communities--not only in border states but all over the country. Most illegals simply want a chance at a better life, but some *are* criminals. And our porous borders present a significant threat of terrorists entering the country.

Has anyone on this thread, or even referred to on this thread, advocated a completely open border with Mexico? I don't know quite who or what you take yourself to be arguing with, Eric, when you point out that "our porous borders present a significant threat of terrorists entering the country."

It's rather unwise to conflate opposing Tancredo-style hate-mongering, with opposition to all forms of "getting immigration under control". Part of the complaint here is that many people's image of what it is that needs to "get under control" has been tainted by the delusional & virulent form of nationalism peddled by the modern version of the know-nothings. When people's primary image of such immigrants is as criminals, or parasites, or freeloaders insisting on rights that aren't theirs, or as unwanted post-party home invaders (???), then it keeps us from taking a serious, pragmatic look at the situation. One of the significant virtues of Zach's initial post was to frame matters in terms of what kind of policy will have the sort of outcomes that we desire, framed by a realistic appraisal of the inevitability of continuing large-scale immigration.

many people's image of what it is that needs to "get under control" has been tainted by the delusional & virulent form of nationalism

I don't think that's true at all. I think that even people who nod their heads at anti-immigrant remarks simply want common-sense things done regarding immigration--such as guarding our borders and enforcing the laws--and they're fed up with being labeled as racist for supporting those sorts of actions.

Let's look at what's happened here. Several immigration reform ideas have been proposed in Congress, none of which I'm aware of appear to be beyond the pale. Disparate groups of people take to the streets to protest. JohnS says they're protesting "hatemongering." But people don't organize demonstrations to protest something Chris Simcox or Michael Savage said. Obviously, a good portion of the protesters are illegal immigrants, and they want to stay here. But that doesn't explain why legal immigrants are protesting, too.

Anyway, I'd like to get away from this "Look what so-and-so said" nonsense and find out what, if anything, JohnS has against immigration reform. Because if he agrees with the basic idea behind the proposals being discussed, then his "hatemongering" talk is just partisan mudslinging. I think there might be a clue to that when he said, out of the blue, "if you think the way the immigrant issue has been played is good for your team come November, YOU'RE dead wrong."

"I have no problem with legal immigration. But uncontrolled immigration *is* creating problems for many communities"

How is it creating problems for "many communities Eric? Considering that illegal immmigrants are at best, 5 percent of the nation's population and largely concentrated in six states (notably California, New York and Illinois), undocumented workers are hardly a presence in the nation. When one considers that they're not even five percent of the nation's workforce according to the Pew Center, their impact is limited.

Since they don't qualify for most federal or state welfare relief, they're not the cause of skyrocketing costs in that area. In Indiana, for example, undocumented women and their American-born children make up only 1 percent of the stte Medicaid rolls; the largest segment of costs for Medicaid, both in Indiana and nationwide, comes from senior citizens and the disabled (75 percent of all expenses according to the Kaiser Foundation). The biggest area of costs when it comes to the undocumented is schools, but that's the price that the nation pays for offering public education to all users. You know, the free rider principle at work.

When it comes to jobs, the area undocumented and illegal immigration affects the job market the most is in the unskilled, low-end jobs that would otherwise be held by dropouts; 23 percent of dishwashers are undocumented as are 27 of butchers. Yet as Jeffrey Passel once pointed out to me, even if they take up such a large percentage of such jobs, most of those jobs are still held by Americans. As Diane Futchgott-Roth at the Hudson Institute also notes today in the New York Sun, the presence of illegal immigrants is hardly dampening incomes. Based on a 9 percent annual increase in immigration over the last two decades, the average income for Americans rose 2 percent. Incomes for dropouts barely budged. But that's a problem that comes with the transition from an industrial economy to a knowledge-based one.

So Eric, how is illegal immigration creating "problems for many communities?" I don't think you can make the case for your argument. In fact, I'll even go so far and say I don't believe you can make a case at all.

RiShawn,

Note that I never said illegal immigrants cause problems in all communities nationwide. But as you said, they do create a large burden on public schools, and also in hospitals in communities with a large population of illegals. Also, some of these communities have crime problems because of the small portion of illegal immigrants who participate in other illegal activities.

"Has anyone on this thread, or even referred to on this thread, advocated a completely open border with Mexico?"

I think a better question is, what should be the solution to this issue? Because if open borders is not the position, and enforcing/toughening existing immigration laws isn't the position, what is?

"I think that even people who nod their heads at anti-immigrant remarks simply want common-sense things done regarding immigration--such as guarding our borders and enforcing the laws"

I just want to object to the characterization of this as a "common-sense" view. It's not common-sense, it's nonsensical, and nearly as unsophisticated as saying "the only solution to terrorism is to kill terrorists" or "we can cure alcohol abuse by making alochol illegal."

Let me clarify, because I think I sound pretty harsh in my previous post. I understand, and to a large degree share, the impulse for a "law-and-order" solution. But how often have similarly simple and direct policies actually worked? (FWIW, the best example I can think of for a successful command-and-control solution was the mandating of low-polluting technologies for automobiles, and even there the obvious successes likely are offset modestly by costs to certain groups.) Unlike "Asiatic" immigration in the early twentieth century, there's no way we can simply stop Mexican and OTM immigration altogether, nor is it clear that would be desirable; amnesty is unworkable and impracticable, too. I just wanted to urge people to reconsider their presumption that the common-sense solution was something that we all could, or should, get behind.

Paul's argument also provides us with reasons why, again, it's important to be careful about the kind of hate-filled lingo used by Tancredo et al. -- what sounds like common sense when you think of a group of people as basically lazy freeloaders may not sound like common sense when one avoids such a framing.

Sorry I missed the discussion yesterday, we had a Seder to go to in NJ.

JohnS says they're protesting "hatemongering." But people don't organize demonstrations to protest something Chris Simcox or Michael Savage said. Obviously, a good portion of the protesters are illegal immigrants, and they want to stay here. But that doesn't explain why legal immigrants are protesting, too.

Why ARE legal immigrants demonstrating Eric? Why protest legislation that will not affect them or their families? I'd imagine they are simply responding to the entire package, the "immigration reform" media orgy that appears to be mainly directed at the sixty percent of illegal immigrants who come across the border from Mexico, while mostly ignoring the other forty percent who come from elsewhere.

I'd like to get away from this "Look what so-and-so said" nonsense and find out what, if anything, JohnS has against immigration reform.

*snip

Because if he (being me) agrees with the basic idea behind the proposals being discussed, then his "hatemongering" talk is just partisan mudslinging.

I live in a community that doesn't see immigration as a problem. Some people in this country want to control imigration, fine. We'll talk. I'm willing to listen. But let's talk about immigration like grownups, not use it as a wedge issue (gay marriage in '04, anyone?) in an election year.

JohnS,

With all due respect, I think the only one trying to use this as a wedge issue in this thread is you. You're the one who came out lobbing the "hatemongering" slur against people on the right, and you're the one who first tied this to the November elections.

Furthermore, President Bush first brought up the topic of immigration reform (e.g. guest worker program) nearly two years ago during the '04 campaign. Was it a wedge issue then? Didn't seem that way.

I think it's fairly obvious that both parties want the votes of naturalized Hispanic immigrants, while at the same time scoring points against their opponents.

You haven't offered any constructive proposals here. If you'd like to suggest something--even a serious defense of the status quo--then maybe we can talk. Here's my proposal: guest worker program, path to citizenship for illegal immigrants (involving paying a fine, back taxes, etc.), beef up the border (including military presence).

It's not clear to me that either of the previous two commentators actually understands what the phrase "wedge issue" means. In particular, they seem not to understand that "wedge issue" is in no way synonymous with substituting inflammatory rhetoric for rational discussion (which seems to be what they do think it means). Indeed, given the current composition of the governing right-wing coalition, attempting to have an intelligent discussion of immigration within the parameters put forward here by Zach and Paul, would indeed make immigration a wedge issue. For it separates sensible conservatives like them from those who think that the immigration issue can be summed up as "We're here, we're not native English speakers, and we want stuff from the government", and who think that common sense includes things like criminalizing acts of charity. And it certainly separates the likes of Zach and Paul from the significant number of people on the right who indulge in the rhetoric of "vermin" in discussing Hispanic immigrants, and those who indulge such hatemongers in their indulgences.

those who think that the immigration issue can be summed up as "We're here, we're not native English speakers, and we want stuff from the government", and who think that common sense includes things like criminalizing acts of charity.

That's a rather hideous distortion of what I've argued here. You should know better.

Eric,

I can't speak for phil, but I don't think he was referring to you--athough you may have used the words "common sense," to which I responded, I think phil's a careful enough reader to distinguish who has been making such arguments in this thread.

"Furthermore, President Bush first brought up the topic of immigration reform (e.g. guest worker program) nearly two years ago during the '04 campaign. Was it a wedge issue then? Didn't seem that way."

This, and phil's rejoinder, raises an interesting question: Is Bush acting out of principle or is this a case where principle coincides with politics? Driving a wedge between Democratic Latinos and other immigrants and their low-wage/working-class base would certainly seem to be smart, although Bush in that case obviously miscalculated the solidarity of his base.

I think phil's a careful enough reader to distinguish who has been making such arguments in this thread.

I would hope so, although he uses a direct quote from me completely out of context. That was my (somewhat ironic) comment on the fractured nature of the immigrant demonstrations, not a summation of the whole immigration issue.