3 ms·

FTA: "And at a time when the national discourse assails the value of Spanish-speaking immigrants..." What a load. Aside from the repellent need by the author

FTA: "And at a time when the national discourse assails the value of Spanish-speaking immigrants..." What a load. Aside from the repellent need by the author to inject politics into a science story, it's flat-out wrong: the rancor isn't over people who (like Chang-Díaz) pursue legal citizenship or legal residency, nor is it over people who speak a particular language simply on the basis of that language.

debatem1 10y ago
With respect, I disagree. Derogatory terms like "anchor babies" describe people who are, after all, US citizens of immigrant descent. Similarly, the rancor directed at the judge in the Trump university case had nothing to do with legal citizenship and everything to do with Hispanic ancestry. And obviously refugees are legal immigrants granted that status by the US State Department. But this doesn't prevent them from being the subjects of a great deal of both fear and fury. These controversies, taken individually, could be viewed as legitimate questions about the ethical grounds for birthright citizenship, or the appropriate scope for recusal, or the balance between mercy and safety. But in aggregate it's clear they aren't any of those things. They're expressions of a xenophobic insistence that immigrants, particularly non-white immigrants, are "the other". That they are cheaters, that they can't be trusted, that they are /dangerous/. That's xenophobia and racism, and it has nothing to do with the rule of law.
- MrZongle2 10y ago
  There may be some xenophobia and racism there, but I think there's also a substantive amount of anger among a sizeable amount of the populace due to how the rule of law is selectively applied, and how open-borders advocates intentionally blur the lines between lawful immigrants and individuals who illegally enter a sovereign nation. Case in point: in the last couple of months, how much have we heard the "we are a nation of immigrants" line, especially during a border security debate...as if just about everyone, including the passengers of the Mayflower, skirted customs? The racists and xenophobes likely don't want immigrants, but I think the vast majority of Americans are happy to welcome folks from other countries who have demonstrated respect for our laws by entering the country legally. Hell, if you've spoken to naturalized citizens, they're often the most patriotic, pro-American people you'll encounter! And many of those Americans, who have spent time, money and energy to become citizens, are strongly against the lackadaisical border enforcement that has led to the current mess.
  - debatem1 10y ago
    I appreciate that you acknowledge that racism and xenophobia taint the arguments you're making, even if you yourself are not racist or xenophobic. It's hard to stand up for a view when it is held by people who are widely reviled, and I suspect that courage is something our country needs more of. However, I think the examples I provided compellingly demonstrate that issues of legality do not sit at the core of the anti-immigration sentiment in the US. In particular, an overwhelming concern for the sanctity of law would likely not motivate one to demand that a sitting judge recuse themselves because of their ancestry. Nor can it have motivated anti-refugee sentiment. More broadly, the argument about rule of law does not have good explanatory power for the actions and statements of those who make it. It does not explain opposition to open borders, or to more expansive visa programs, which of course could both be made law with comparative ease. And it seems obvious to me that anti-immigrant militias like the Minutemen represent the height of contempt for the rule of law, but somehow find a warm reception among those who advance the very argument that you do. Does this mean that nobody legitimately cares about the legality of immigrants? Of course not. It is possible that a broad coalition of people simply happen to agree on this wide range of narrow topics that have nothing whatsoever to do with race or ancestry. But Occam's razor suggests that the simpler argument is the better one: that duplicity and political convenience are at play. Specifically, I suspect that the broader anti-immigrant movement in the US believes it has a winner of an argument in this one despite its lack of policy prescriptions. As a result this argument-- the one you make-- often gets advanced as a fig leaf for those "other" viewpoints. Which leaves you in the awkward position of carrying water for some truly despicable people, whatever your own views are.
    - MrZongle2 10y ago
      I can't speak for Trump's attack on the judiciary. He's barking up the wrong tree there, and did little to help his case. It will likely be left for SCOTUS to decide, as should be the case; judges shouldn't be cowed by politicians to change their rulings. We do disagree about the point about the sanctity of law. IMO selective enforcement (engagement/detainment directives for the Border Patrol) and the implicit support of "sanctuary cities" seem to encourage the violation of immigration law. I think it is specifically the former that gave rise to groups like the Minutemen. As for carrying water for despicable people...well, so be it. I happen to think that, as with any group, most are reasonable folks of decent character but often overshadowed by the extremists and attention-seekers in their midst -- an argument, I'm happy to point out, also made in the defense of foreign individuals who come to this country under less-than-legal circumstances.
gozur88 10y ago
Yes. People are deliberately trying to muddy the line between legal and illegal immigration in support of their own agendas.

debatem1 10y ago

With respect, I disagree. Derogatory terms like "anchor babies" describe people who are, after all, US citizens of immigrant descent. Similarly, the rancor directed at the judge in the Trump university case had nothing to do with legal citizenship and everything to do with Hispanic ancestry. And obviously refugees are legal immigrants granted that status by the US State Department. But this doesn't prevent them from being the subjects of a great deal of both fear and fury. These controversies, taken individually, could be viewed as legitimate questions about the ethical grounds for birthright citizenship, or the appropriate scope for recusal, or the balance between mercy and safety. But in aggregate it's clear they aren't any of those things. They're expressions of a xenophobic insistence that immigrants, particularly non-white immigrants, are "the other". That they are cheaters, that they can't be trusted, that they are /dangerous/. That's xenophobia and racism, and it has nothing to do with the rule of law.

MrZongle2 10y ago
There may be some xenophobia and racism there, but I think there's also a substantive amount of anger among a sizeable amount of the populace due to how the rule of law is selectively applied, and how open-borders advocates intentionally blur the lines between lawful immigrants and individuals who illegally enter a sovereign nation. Case in point: in the last couple of months, how much have we heard the "we are a nation of immigrants" line, especially during a border security debate...as if just about everyone, including the passengers of the Mayflower, skirted customs? The racists and xenophobes likely don't want immigrants, but I think the vast majority of Americans are happy to welcome folks from other countries who have demonstrated respect for our laws by entering the country legally. Hell, if you've spoken to naturalized citizens, they're often the most patriotic, pro-American people you'll encounter! And many of those Americans, who have spent time, money and energy to become citizens, are strongly against the lackadaisical border enforcement that has led to the current mess.
- debatem1 10y ago
  I appreciate that you acknowledge that racism and xenophobia taint the arguments you're making, even if you yourself are not racist or xenophobic. It's hard to stand up for a view when it is held by people who are widely reviled, and I suspect that courage is something our country needs more of. However, I think the examples I provided compellingly demonstrate that issues of legality do not sit at the core of the anti-immigration sentiment in the US. In particular, an overwhelming concern for the sanctity of law would likely not motivate one to demand that a sitting judge recuse themselves because of their ancestry. Nor can it have motivated anti-refugee sentiment. More broadly, the argument about rule of law does not have good explanatory power for the actions and statements of those who make it. It does not explain opposition to open borders, or to more expansive visa programs, which of course could both be made law with comparative ease. And it seems obvious to me that anti-immigrant militias like the Minutemen represent the height of contempt for the rule of law, but somehow find a warm reception among those who advance the very argument that you do. Does this mean that nobody legitimately cares about the legality of immigrants? Of course not. It is possible that a broad coalition of people simply happen to agree on this wide range of narrow topics that have nothing whatsoever to do with race or ancestry. But Occam's razor suggests that the simpler argument is the better one: that duplicity and political convenience are at play. Specifically, I suspect that the broader anti-immigrant movement in the US believes it has a winner of an argument in this one despite its lack of policy prescriptions. As a result this argument-- the one you make-- often gets advanced as a fig leaf for those "other" viewpoints. Which leaves you in the awkward position of carrying water for some truly despicable people, whatever your own views are.
  - MrZongle2 10y ago
    I can't speak for Trump's attack on the judiciary. He's barking up the wrong tree there, and did little to help his case. It will likely be left for SCOTUS to decide, as should be the case; judges shouldn't be cowed by politicians to change their rulings. We do disagree about the point about the sanctity of law. IMO selective enforcement (engagement/detainment directives for the Border Patrol) and the implicit support of "sanctuary cities" seem to encourage the violation of immigration law. I think it is specifically the former that gave rise to groups like the Minutemen. As for carrying water for despicable people...well, so be it. I happen to think that, as with any group, most are reasonable folks of decent character but often overshadowed by the extremists and attention-seekers in their midst -- an argument, I'm happy to point out, also made in the defense of foreign individuals who come to this country under less-than-legal circumstances.

gozur88 10y ago

Yes. People are deliberately trying to muddy the line between legal and illegal immigration in support of their own agendas.