Kristof doesn't say it, but I can't help but wonder... some of the most vehemently anti-immigration narratives (and diatribes) I've heard over the years come from... immigrants or 1st gen children of. Why? Because they focus on their own experience (and possibly those close friends/family), look at "the situation" they see today (a mixtu…
Kristof doesn't say it, but I can't help but wonder... some of the most vehemently anti-immigration narratives (and diatribes) I've heard over the years come from... immigrants or 1st gen children of. Why? Because they focus on their own experience (and possibly those close friends/family), look at "the situation" they see today (a mixture of media and possibly anecdotal first-hand observations) and conclude "it's different now/these new immigrants don't respect the system, etc" and hence, not legit/being exploited/out of control/requires stricter measures etc. It's a version of "young people have it easy/in my day it was harder" theory combined with the same instincts that create things like austerity measures.
On a purely economic level, the person most similar to somebody arrived this year is somebody arrived last year, so those people have the most to lose from competition.
But I think it's mostly a (maybe subconscious) way to become "one of the good ones". Legally, they are already safe, so they have no personal incentive to not kick down the ladder, but tons of social incentives to do so.
Hi Robert, I'm a first-gen and I understand why that seems like a possibility, but I respectfully disagree. My stepfather's family were all Mexican immigrants, and they were, as you say, antagonistic toward newer arrivals. However, their anger wasn't directed at all newer immigrants, it was directed at illegal immigrants. I can't think of anything more American than the anger one feels towards people who shortcut the legal process for their own gain. (When I moved to Italy I had the hardest time adapting to the Italian way of (not) standing in line and waiting your turn, and that's not even against the law!) Anyway, as I stated in my comment (above) I feel like this column and almost all the responses fail to distinguish between legal immigration and illegal immigration, both of which have their own unique huge sets of problems. (ex-Sgt Pepper, 25th ID)
Your clarification is important, and I would tend to agree--I would amend my comment to say that, yes, their focus is as such, but with one qualifier: that they ALSO believe that immigration has come to be dominated by this--the word itself has become for them as conflated as what you're stating, and the preponderant American "situation" is "overrun" by illegals (with healthy doses of Fox News to confirm their fears and anger. That's not a stereotype, that's a direct observation, multiple times over). And for what it's worth, the people I've conversed with on this most weren't Mexican or from Latin America. They were Eastern European, Indian, Jewish, Filipino, Russian, and Korean. Some are even relatives of mine--almost impossible to talk to in a rational conversation about the topic.
Because it's an empty distinction. It's a thought-terminating cliché. Congrats, your stepfather somebody sponsoring him. My ancestors had not, but they came at a time when "legal immigration" meant stepping off a boat and declaring your name.
The fact that people exactly like your stepfather or my ancestors today would be illegals says more about the law than about the illegals frankly.
My parents immigrated from England after WWII, legally and without sponsors. My stepfather's family immigrated from Mexico in the 40's, legally and without sponsors. My wife's grandparents stepped off the boat from Italy and gave their names. I've lived for a few years in Mexico and in Italy. I am as much an advocate for immigration as anyone. I'm a fan of Matt Yglesias' book, One Billion Americans. I grew up 10 miles from the border and have actually assisted (in other words, in real life) undocumented workers. I lived near the Salinas Valley for another 20 years and volunteered time to help farm workers. I'm a huge fan of the asylum system. Yet when the system is overwhelmed precisely because people know the law cannot be enforced, and the demand for labor is huge, then many more people will come for purely economic reasons and overwhelm the asylum system. Citizens, for whatever reasons, valid or invalid, will be upset and seek support from whatever political party promises to make it stop. This is happening all over the world. This was Brexit. This was the success of the "post-fascist" Brothers of Italy. Marine Le Pen in France, Orban and Trump. Check the EU election results the other day. So you'll have to forgive me if some philosophical distinction about the unworthiness of the law ends up being used as an excuse for bringing these awful people of the far-right to power. That, to me, the lack of political pragmatism, is the most thought-terminating cliche I can think of. It's like progressives saw the rise of the Right and said, Hmmm... what can we do to make this a complete success? While I can agree with you in principle, I can moderate my expectations for progress in my lifetime so as to not rip a whole in the fabric of society.
Kristof doesn't say it, but I can't help but wonder... some of the most vehemently anti-immigration narratives (and diatribes) I've heard over the years come from... immigrants or 1st gen children of. Why? Because they focus on their own experience (and possibly those close friends/family), look at "the situation" they see today (a mixture of media and possibly anecdotal first-hand observations) and conclude "it's different now/these new immigrants don't respect the system, etc" and hence, not legit/being exploited/out of control/requires stricter measures etc. It's a version of "young people have it easy/in my day it was harder" theory combined with the same instincts that create things like austerity measures.
On a purely economic level, the person most similar to somebody arrived this year is somebody arrived last year, so those people have the most to lose from competition.
But I think it's mostly a (maybe subconscious) way to become "one of the good ones". Legally, they are already safe, so they have no personal incentive to not kick down the ladder, but tons of social incentives to do so.
Hi Robert, I'm a first-gen and I understand why that seems like a possibility, but I respectfully disagree. My stepfather's family were all Mexican immigrants, and they were, as you say, antagonistic toward newer arrivals. However, their anger wasn't directed at all newer immigrants, it was directed at illegal immigrants. I can't think of anything more American than the anger one feels towards people who shortcut the legal process for their own gain. (When I moved to Italy I had the hardest time adapting to the Italian way of (not) standing in line and waiting your turn, and that's not even against the law!) Anyway, as I stated in my comment (above) I feel like this column and almost all the responses fail to distinguish between legal immigration and illegal immigration, both of which have their own unique huge sets of problems. (ex-Sgt Pepper, 25th ID)
Your clarification is important, and I would tend to agree--I would amend my comment to say that, yes, their focus is as such, but with one qualifier: that they ALSO believe that immigration has come to be dominated by this--the word itself has become for them as conflated as what you're stating, and the preponderant American "situation" is "overrun" by illegals (with healthy doses of Fox News to confirm their fears and anger. That's not a stereotype, that's a direct observation, multiple times over). And for what it's worth, the people I've conversed with on this most weren't Mexican or from Latin America. They were Eastern European, Indian, Jewish, Filipino, Russian, and Korean. Some are even relatives of mine--almost impossible to talk to in a rational conversation about the topic.
Because it's an empty distinction. It's a thought-terminating cliché. Congrats, your stepfather somebody sponsoring him. My ancestors had not, but they came at a time when "legal immigration" meant stepping off a boat and declaring your name.
The fact that people exactly like your stepfather or my ancestors today would be illegals says more about the law than about the illegals frankly.
My parents immigrated from England after WWII, legally and without sponsors. My stepfather's family immigrated from Mexico in the 40's, legally and without sponsors. My wife's grandparents stepped off the boat from Italy and gave their names. I've lived for a few years in Mexico and in Italy. I am as much an advocate for immigration as anyone. I'm a fan of Matt Yglesias' book, One Billion Americans. I grew up 10 miles from the border and have actually assisted (in other words, in real life) undocumented workers. I lived near the Salinas Valley for another 20 years and volunteered time to help farm workers. I'm a huge fan of the asylum system. Yet when the system is overwhelmed precisely because people know the law cannot be enforced, and the demand for labor is huge, then many more people will come for purely economic reasons and overwhelm the asylum system. Citizens, for whatever reasons, valid or invalid, will be upset and seek support from whatever political party promises to make it stop. This is happening all over the world. This was Brexit. This was the success of the "post-fascist" Brothers of Italy. Marine Le Pen in France, Orban and Trump. Check the EU election results the other day. So you'll have to forgive me if some philosophical distinction about the unworthiness of the law ends up being used as an excuse for bringing these awful people of the far-right to power. That, to me, the lack of political pragmatism, is the most thought-terminating cliche I can think of. It's like progressives saw the rise of the Right and said, Hmmm... what can we do to make this a complete success? While I can agree with you in principle, I can moderate my expectations for progress in my lifetime so as to not rip a whole in the fabric of society.