There are many comments about how this wave of immigration is no different from earlier ones except for the legal status of so many of them because of current immigration law. Really? Was there ever a case before where a wave of immigration resulted in one particular ethnic/cultural group of immigrants coming close to being the majority in heavily populated cities? This is the case currently with Hispanic immigrants, isn't it? What kind of difference will that make in the possibilities of cultural assimilation?

I agree with Jim, for once. For better or worse, the current wave of immigration is substantially different, culturally, from the existing US population.

As a general comment on "assimilation," a household of Hispanics who do not speak English moved in next door to me roughly a year ago. On weekends they love to use their cars as outdoor stereos to play mariachi music and drink beer in their back yard. The empty beer cans get picked up perhaps on Tuesday or Wednesday. Since January there has been a clothes dryer parked in the back yard. I think there are a lot of Euro-Americans out there who dread winding up in a situation such as my own.

Omigod Eric...

"the current wave of immigration is substantially different, culturally, from the existing US population."

That's the same crap my Irish-Italian forebears had to put up with...

It's not "crap" John, just a fact. Perhaps the English & German (?) majority of a century ago found the Italians and Irish just as foreign to them as the English/German/Italian/Irish/Swedish/etc. majority today finds Hispanics to be. But it seems fairly obvious that from an objective point of view, there's more of a difference between Europeans and Hispanics than between different European nationalities. At least the Irish spoke the same language.

I find that "Democracy, Immigration, Multiculturalism -- Pick Any Two" to be borderline incoherent, since it seems that any two of those is likely to entail the third. Certainly democracy + immigration is going to give you a fair amount of multiculturalism, and a multicultural democracy is likely to have somewhat free immigration policy. And I guess I have trouble seeing how one has a stable society with high amounts of immigration and multiculturalism that isn't also a democracy, but maybe that's neither here nor there.

I honestly don't know what these vast differences "from an objective point of view" are that Eric has in mind. The "at least the Irish spoke the same language" hides the rather obvious fact that the Italians, Russians, Yiddish-speaking Jews, Poles, etc. did _not_ do so; yet they've been integrated fine. And the data indicates that after a couple of generations, the vast majority of Hispanic-Americans are preferential English speakers, anyway. The refugees of Europe were seeking economic opportunity, were hard workers, and had strong family & religious values, and showed up not speaking the language; this is different from the folks coming up from Mexico how?

the current wave of immigration is substantially different, culturally, from the existing US population.

How are the Hispanic language/cultural barriers of today so different from those of my Italian forebears? Despite the sharing of a common language, the cultural baggage my Irish immigrant forebears brought with them resulted in signs proclaiming, "No Irish Need Apply." My wife's Middle Eastern Jewish great-grandparents must have seemed as if they were from another planet! Nevertheless, we all assimilated. Some of the descendants of those immigrants, in the time honored American way, now appear to share your concern, Eric, about the abilities of the children of Mexican immigrants to do the same. I just don't.

How are the Hispanic language/cultural barriers of today so different from those of my Italian forebears?

I am hypothesizing that people groups which have historically co-existed on the same small continent for hundreds of years--and which have been part of a single empire--have more in common than people groups which have historically been separated by an ocean.

In any case, I am certainly not arguing in favor of bias against Hispanic immigrants. I am merely agreeing with Jim S that this current wave of immigration is different from the other ones which this nation has experienced.

Please note that the primary reason I consider this immigrant wave to be different than earlier ones is that it is a tidal wave of immigrants of one particular language and a cultural background that is closely related, though not identical. That is what makes it different from your ancestors, JohnS. While they may have created a neighborhood or some section of a city that came to be known as mostly Italian or Irish, there weren't enough of them to become the majority of several sizeable cities.

"I am hypothesizing that people groups which have historically co-existed on the same small continent for hundreds of years--and which have been part of a single empire--have more in common than people groups which have historically been separated by an ocean."

I am having trouble finding a way to interpret this so it's not just silly. The best ones I can come up with are: the Austrian Empire, which didn't include many of the ethnicities in question & anyway didn't last too terribly long; and the Roman empire, which is ludicrous on its face to posit as an entity providing a source of unity to all the ethnic groups of Europe about 1,500 years later. (Ought we welcome increased immigration from Egyptians and Turks, by this reasoning?) Not to mention the obvious fact that Hispanic culture is largely descended from the culture of the paradigmatically European nation of Spain, or "Hispania" as it was known when it became a Roman province starting in 218 BCE.

(And I have no idea what the appeal-to-former-empires means when we start talking about Asian immigration.)

Moreover, if continental co-existence is something that matters here, then surely the continental co-existence -- and indeed extensive shared border -- of Mexico and the United States would be much, much more important than whatever proximity you are conjecturing for, say, Scots and Poles, or Italians and Russians. And certainly Mexico today is much, much closer to all of the USA in every real sense (given modern modes of transport and communication) than the various parts of Europe were in, say, the 19th century. I would expect that the typical Mexican coming across the border today has more in common with the typical working American today (and certainly a better prior knowledge of the culture they are immigrating into), than did a poor Italian or Pole in the late 19th century with the typical working Americans of that time.

"Please note that the primary reason I consider this immigrant wave to be different than earlier ones is that it is a tidal wave of immigrants of one particular language and a cultural background that is closely related, though not identical."

That isn't so Jim, not at all. The reality is that the Latino community isn't exactly some monolith. The third-generation American of Cuban descent is likely to be as typically American as the rest of us; the grandfather of the fifth-generation American of Mexican descent probably can remember the Zoot Suit riots of the 1940s -- and probably has the scars gotten from beatdowns from drunk, unruly American servicemen to prove it. The Mexican emigre residing in Indianapolis is a different person altogether, a new immigrant learning his way in this country.

Then there are the cultural differences: An Ecuadorian, a Guatemalan and a Mexican, except for being of Spanish descent, have little in common culturally. The former two aren't using Crema Mexicana. This means there are differing spheres of interest, none of which can simply be coalesced into a supposed threat to the American identity.

There have been Latinos in this country since the United States seized Texas, California and the Southwest during the Manifest Destiny era. Some Latinos can actually trace their heritage back to those days while others have only been here since immigration quotas on Mexicans were lifted in the 1960s. The diversity of that group in culture, time when they arrived into the country and citizen status means they may be a statistic majority in some cities, but a politician can't necessarily unify them. Even Antonio Villaragoisa, in winning his second bid for mayor of Los Angeles, had to appeal to voters in the city's West side -- many of whom are quite Anglo -- to gain his post.

While it may appeal to one's psyche to argue this racialist line as a reason for opposing expanded immigration, the sociological facts don't support it.

I do not claim that they are culturally identical. But their cultures do all derive from a different source than the current dominant American culture and they do all speak the same language. The numbers of those who share that one language certainly is different than previous patterns of immigration.

"The refugees of Europe were seeking economic opportunity, were hard workers, and had strong family & religious values, and showed up not speaking the language; this is different from the folks coming up from Mexico how?"

How about, they came here through Ellis Island by legal means? The numbers of people who get into this country illegally (which seems to be the focus of the current crackdown, rather than the fact that there are just so darned many of them) and then want to claim entitlement to all of the rights that citizens have is just wrong.

The idea seems to be that if you can sneak past the rules and just get here, you should then be able to bully your way to all of the benefits of citizenship without allegiance to your host country (parasitical reference intentional).

My ancestors were English, French, Welsh, Irish, Scottish, and Norwegian, and they all came to America legally - they were admitted, gained citizenship according to existing laws, and assimilated into their new home. They didn't forget how to make lefse or speak their native languages, but they took pride in adopting their new land as their own. They didn't try to make it another Norway or France or Ireland.

The other issue I haven't seen addressed yet is that this country - big hearted or not - has finite resources. What happens when the available real estate is insufficient to support an increasing population?

At that point, the obvious answer would be to colonize, but God forbid we impose our Western decaying civilization on those countries where there are so many trying to escape to America.......... Geez.

Legally? Funny enough Lawyerchik that the concept of legal and illegal immigration didn't actually exist until 1882. Before then, an emigrating Mexican or Chinese could simply come into the country and reside here unless thy were prostitutes or ex-convicts. And the nation, especially those who were able to transport themselves and their goods by railway from New York to California, were to benefit from their arrival and settlement.

In 1882, amid a wave of anti-Chinese sentiment that year brought the first round of federal immigration laws, the Chinese Exclusion Act, banning the emigration of laborers from China to the U.S., along with the so-called insane, retarded and potential welfare risks.

By 1917, Congress further codified the nation's bigotry into immigration law by creating the Asiatic Barred Zone to keep all Asians from arriving to the nation's shores. Four years later in 1921, amid a wave of Klu Klux Klan- and nativist-inspired bigotry against those who weren't White, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant, Congress enacted the first of many quotas, restricting the number of Russian, Polish, Irish, Italian and other European, and Asian emigres. A British immigrant was welcomed; Russian Jews were not.

During the 1930s, Mexicans were targeted out of fear that they took jobs from Whites. By the 1940s, those fears temporarily subsided with Mexicans walking across the border to and from the United States under the Bracero program. By the 1960s, amid the Civil Rights movement, the nation backed off codifying bigotry and allowed for the current wave of Mexican and Asian emigres.

So let's be honest here Lawyerchik: Chances are if your ancestors came here in 1820 (most likely if they are British or Welsh) or in 1848 (if they were Irish), they arrived here the same way Mexicans come here today: Without papers. Essentially if the same immigration laws that currently exist now were around back then, your ancestors would be considered illegal aliens. Give it some thought as you get off the high horse of your ancestors having "all came to America legally." And while you're at it, can you really support what is essentially the codification of the nation's prevailing bigotries and xenophobia of the moment?

"... bully your way to all of the benefits of citizenship without allegiance to your host country (parasitical reference intentional).

*snip*

...They didn't forget how to make lefse or speak their native languages, but they took pride in adopting their new land as their own. They didn't try to make it another Norway or France or Ireland..."

I'd certainly like to hear more from the writer about this, because to me, it reads to me a bit like Michelle Malkins' reference to "Reconquista" (the theory that the American Southwest {Aztlan}, belongs to Mexico) in a recent column of hers.

Regarding "Reconquista."
Writes Alex Koppelman at Dragonfire:

"...Aztlan and reconquista these days aren't, for the most part, ideas held by Mexicans: they're ideas held by white supremacists and neo-Nazis. 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."

David Neiwert writes that "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."

"Chances are if your ancestors came here in 1820 (most likely if they are British or Welsh) or in 1848 (if they were Irish), they arrived here the same way Mexicans come here today: Without papers."

So far as records and investigation have been able to determine, my ancestors for the most part came here well before 1820 - membership in the DAR appears to be the source for much of that history, with the exception of my great-grandmother Annette who came from Norway. Be that as it may, they came with the rest of the settlers - legally according to the laws at the time.

"...can you really support what is essentially the codification of the nation's prevailing bigotries and xenophobia of the moment?"

YEP.

And to JohnS, I hadn't read Michelle Malkin's "reconquista" column, nor would I necessarily need to read someone else's work to come up with the theory. Be that as it may, I don't necessarily see immigration as a plot to invade America, particularly when infiltration has already been accomplished by the socialists who have established their posts in colleges across the country. My point is that anyone who is truly enamored of this country ought to show respect for its laws, including immigration laws.

And I still haven't heard a decent answer to the question as to why, if a democratic republic is such a frickin' good system, so many people are unwilling to make the sacrifices it took in this country to accomplish it in their own? Hm? Or why it's apparently OK to bash the US in every possible way, but still claim the RIGHT to just waltz in and settle down in the advantages America offers, fleeing their own countries in the bargain, to come live in this 'Satanic' environment?

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.

The reason I ask is because in other columns/posts, people have decried President Bush's alleged "illegal" wiretapping, and they've said that it's really not that hard to get a warrant to do what he would want to do, so what's the problem, yet those same people seem to be the ones claiming that it's OK for foreign nationals to evade completely the immigration laws because the result is so desirable. Hm.