Hispanics and immigration reached its apex of visibility during the 2006 street protests, where a coordinated, national series of street marches occurred with Hispanic participants estimated in the millions. These events were facilitated and amplified by Spanish-language media outlets, in particular Univision, Telemundo, Azteca America and various Spanish-language radio stations across the country and demonstrated to the American populace for the first time that Hispanic voices could coalesce in a powerful chorus.
So, it wouldn't be farfetched to believe that there is a broad consensus on the issue of illegal immigration among Hispanics, right? Wrong.
"Hispanics are also divided about the impact of illegal immigration on Hispanics already living in the U.S. Roughly equal shares say the impact has been positive (29%), negative (31%) or made no difference (30%)".- Pew Hispanic Center 2010
What is happening here? I believe that many casual observers of this topic ascribe Hispanic motives on illegal immigrations primarily, if not exclusively toward ethnic solidarity. More simply put - "Hispanics stick together because they are Hispanics". This belief, by the way, is held by those who are more sympathetic towards illegal immigrants and by those who are not. The argument, in its extreme goes like this:
Sympathetic - "We must not be oppressed on the basis of our race/ethnicity/cultural heritage. A blow to one is a blow to all."
Unsympathetic - "They are not true 'Americans'. Those foreigners don't belong here".
At the core of this argument is the notion of ethnic identity, and what it supposedly means. My view is that most of the public dialogue on illegal immigration and Hispanics centers on this ethnic identity core, which blurs the reality of the nuance of the issue, and leads to the loudest voices crowding out the possibility for solutions. By looking at Hispanic opinions on illegal immigration, we can see better where the nuance lies.
I believe there are several filters at work that impact people's views on illegal immigration that include, but go beyond, ethnic identity. Specifically, and in my order of priority:
1. Security Filter - Since 9/11, public consciousness has been raised on the need to control our borders. Lapsed visas, shoe and underwear bombers, under-monitored incoming cargo are almost daily reminders that we are not an island fortress. The notion that porous borders exist, and the daily evidence of human traffic passing through these borders, is generally disconcerting to Americans, including Hispanics, who overwhelmingly want a path to citizenship that includes background checks.
2.Economic Filter - the interpretation here is less clear. Harvard's George Borjas has asserted that the average American's wealth is incrementally increased because of illegal immigration, due largely to lower prices on various items like food, services, et al. Others argue that illegal immigrants suppress wages at the lower end of the wage scale, with a disproportionately negative impact on lower skilled job seekers. Some claim that illegal immigrants consume social services (e.g. schools, medical services) in greater amounts than they contribute in taxes, while others argue the exact opposite. In the end, Hispanics are similarly divided. In fact, the shift in Hispanic attitudes on this issue as measured by Pew between 2007 and 2010 may coincide with the diminishing prospects of the economy, meaning Hispanics' affinity for education may be significantly impacted by this filter.
3."Fairness" Filter - this is the notion that we all have to "wait our turn in line". It is core to the American identity with its origins of egalitarianism and rule of law. There are many who take deep offense at the idea that some are skirting unfairly, including Hispanics who have personally gone through the legal immigration process.
4. Ethnic Identity Filter - this is where we started, with the notion that people are either being persecuted or are seeking strength through numbers on the basis of their ethnicity. This is where most of the action is, and where I believe the most vocal constituencies drown out the potential for moving forward. When those I loosely called 'sympathetic' focus exclusively or primarily on ethnic identity as the dividing line, their opponents are basically being labeled bigots. Despite legitimate concerns in Security, the Economy and Fairness, the cry of bigotry polarizes and shuts down debate.
On the other side, we need to recognize that there are overt and perhaps unconscious perceptions of ethnic inferiority that make this issue more emotionally charged. Perhaps best illustrated by the writings of now deceased Harvard social scientist Samuel Huntington:
"In this new era, the single most immediate and most serious challenge to America's traditional identity comes from the immense and continuing immigration from Latin America, especially from Mexico, and the fertility rates of these immigrants compared to black and white American natives....This reality poses a fundamental question: Will the United States remain a country with a single national language and a core Anglo-Protestant culture?."
This view, of course, is deeply offensive to Hispanics when perceived as cultural determinism, or worse, some form of genetic determinism. This is the place where conversation becomes recrimination.
My hope and belief is that the vast majority of Americans do not filter this issue primarily through Filter 4. In the end, Hispanic opinions on illegal immigration have what I believe is a reasoned, and reasonable perspective on comprehensive illegal immigration reform.
"For example, fully 86% of Latinos support providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants if they pass background checks, pay a fine and have jobs, a level of support far greater than among the general public (68%). Among Latinos, about eight-in-ten (82%) of the native born and nine-in-ten (90%) of the foreign born say they support providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants." - Pew Hispanic Center 2010 Study
"not all Hispanic voters support amnesty. Of Hispanic voters, 37% of Hispanics supported deporting illegal immigrants rather than fining them and than giving them a pathway to citizenship. So the pro-immigration Hispanics vote in 2008 was only 5.4% of the total vote."
http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/05/hispanic-voters-are-few-compared-to.html
“National Pastoral Plan for Hispanic Ministry," Publication / Office of Publishing and Promotion Services, United States Catholic Conference, No. 199-7, ISBN-13: 978-1555861995
There are immigration discussions going on all over the world right now. Perhaps Mr. Palacios should have pointed out that we are one of few where foreigners try to use "race" as a central issue. Mostly arguments are origin and culture. It's happening on all occupied continents.
Asia: http://www.dailypioneer.com/DisplayContent.aspx?ContentID=362363&URLName;=Silent-invasion-of-India
Australia: http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/stories/201108/3299398.htm?desktop
Europe: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/August/Culture-Crisis-Norway-Tackles-Muslim-Immigration-/
Africa: http://www.bulawayo24.com/index-id-news-sc-africa-byo-6717-article-South+African+defence+to+assist+in+documenting+Zimbabweans.html
Singapore: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/22/uk-singapore-curry-idUSLNE77L01020110822
There are people from virtually every nation in the world in the USA.
The issue has little to do with race or nationality and everything to do with arrival and permissions to be here. Coming to a society based on laws, they are expected to obey those laws. American citizens hide in the shadows as much as any illegal immigrant. They broke the law.
Fairness dictates nobody rights to ignore the law because of color. Demanding such is asking too much.
If "race" is all you've got, you don't have much of a case in a nation where the law applies equally. Our laws may need some updating, but racial exclusion is "off the table".
That is a major thrust of the article.
None of our present or proposed laws say anything about race or ethnicity. Some other countries explicitly include in their immigration laws provisions the prevent anyone coming in to try to change their ethnic or cultural identity. This includes one just south of the US border.
In America, the laws apply to everyone from everywhere. They are sacrosanct and to ask that they be changed for mostly just one ethnicity or skin color is deeply offensive.
Many people fought for years to eliminate racism in our laws and many Americans lost their lives in doing so.
But we're not the only country with illegal immigration problems. The world over, people decide that they have a right to go to another country without permission, often because it is comparatively easy.
(http://www.dailypioneer.com/DisplayContent.aspx?ContentID=362363&URLName;=Silent-invasion-of-India )
Yes there are racists in this country. But we have more people of different colors here than any nation on Earth. The quicker we disallow ethnicity as a point of discussion, the further this debate might get.
If you want to be an American, forget about what color you are, what language you speak or where you're from and discuss it as an American.
The primary starting point for most Americans is "fairness".
There's no consensus among Hispanics because there's not one Hispanic experience and background. (BTW, no such thing as a Hispanic race either, so claims of racism are suspect). I'd like to see a breakdown based on communities or at least states. I assume the results from South Florida, East LA and the Bronx would be very different.
As for the late S. Huntington: He asks: Will the United States remain a country with a single national language and a core Anglo-Protestant culture?
This is offensive not only to Hispanics, but to anyone who knows a little bit about nation and nationality. It is sadly 19th-century to view a nation as a monolithic and static entity. SH wasn't thinking as an scholar but as a nationalist ideologue when he posed this rhetorical question.
The reality is that there are valid reasons for immigration laws and that sovereign borders are integral to any modern nation.
The reality is that the majority of illegal immigration is Latino and the point of entry is along the south-western border.
The reality is that if it were 1 million illegal immigrants of Jamaican descent, if it were 1 million illegal immigrants of Vietnamese descent, if it were 1 million illegal immigrants of Ethiopian descent, streaming across the border every year, Latinos would feel no connection to the issue and would condemn them.
This is the hypocricy of making it a racial equality issue. What of the tens of thousands of Iraqis seeking war refuge and are denied admittance due to legal immigration constraints? Or the Somalians escaping rape and famine, who do not have the luxury of being on our border? Or the Chinese who seek to escape forced abortions and poverty?
If you wish for unfettered immigration of Latinos, I can understand that, but don't pretend to be taking some higher moral ground. There are people around the world, waiting to come to the United States legally, who are live their life in constant fear, danger, hunger.
The people who are locked up are there because they violated the laws. The "record number of brown people" who are deported is because it is convenient for Mexicans and South Americans (who mostly happen to be "brown") to cross the border without permission. That means MOST of the people here illegally are from there.
To demand that race be considered as permission to ignore any law would set everything back in this nation fifty years.
5. Is is againist The Soveriegn Laws of the United States of America, to "Improperly Enter by Alien"
U.S.C. 8 § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
attempted entry); or
(Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be
imposed.
Here, we believe in the law as the great equalizer because it applies to everyone form everywhere.
As was said below, there are people from everywhere of all colors who would have more reason to escape the horrors of their own nation to the US but they don't have the luxury of living on the US southern border.
I'm here ~ lets debate
Seems like the LEGAL immigrants and citizens (Hispanic and others) would be up in arms about this. Those who have played by the rules, paid their fees, waited patiently for the opportunity to enter the U.S. legally are being slapped in the face - and that goes for ANY legal immigrant, from ANY country.
CactusChris, you conveniently want American Latins to rise up against other American Latins. Your request is very interesting although hardly patriotic.
Here is a partial list of reasons why your credibility shot!
Between 75,000 and 150,000 Babies, Children, Women and Men massacred: By a White Men. Does not include diseases. Ref. Bureau of Indian Affairs
Between 20,000 and 23,000 African American lynched and murdered: By a White Man. Ref. African American Museum.
During the period of 1825 and 1932, between 2,000 and 3,000 Chicanos were lynched and murdered. Ref. Smithsonian National Museum of American History.
Terrorist attack on Oklahoma City: 168 people killed: by Timothy James McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Both White Men.
5. The Law Filter
6. Environmental Filter
of illegal immigration
Just want to remind you we have been fighting our countries war since the American Revolution.
Loading comments…