Remember the big argument between Geraldo and O’Reilly over immigration? As it turns out, Geraldo got a book deal about it, and his review of the history of immigration to the U.S. is really interesting. His new book is entitled His Panic: Why Americans Fear Hispanics in the U.S.
As a conservative who is moderate on this issue, I get a lot of crap from my conservative friends. This argument won’t end soon, and both sides have good points, but this book seems a worthy addition to the discussion.
Seeker,
As we have discussed numerous times, no matter what the economic and security concerns are with illegal immigration, the root cause of this fear is really racism.
America like it or not, despite our high-minded thinking and belief that we have moved to racial equality, is in fact a racist country. This is not new.
Going back to the mass immigration of Irish during the potato famine, the enslavement of african americans, the mass Chinese immigration during the construction of the transcontinental railtoad, american history is rife with racist examples of irrational fear of immigrants legal or illegal.
With the mass influx of cheap Irish labor, the argument was made that they cost Americans jobs, adversely impacted social services of the day, and were a security threat. Same thing goes with the Chinese.
African Americans, well, we know the story there.
Now we have the mass influx of Mexicans into this country…legal and illegal. While I agree immigration should be done legally, the same reasons cited by many for the concern about Mexican immigration into this country are the same as were raised against the Irish, the Chinese, and other's that came before them. Again unfounded.
America is an White Anglo Saxon Protestant Country, any move by a ethnic group that threatens that dominance in the political, economic system, or social order is feared. So, complaints along these lines come up. After the Mexicans, I can guarantee it will be someone else, like the mass amounts of Hi-Tech trained Hindu's in this country that will be the next target.
There is no question that issues surrounding national security in the post 9/11 world raise a level of concern and suspicion that has not been seen in the US in at least 100 years. However, given the racist tendencies of this country, I fear that a large portion of this noise is also being driven by fear and emotion driven racism.
I don't see many Americans lining up on the agriculture, janitorial services, or other low wage industries for jobs in that sector. Nor do I see most Americans speaking forcefully that they are willing to pay more for food to enable paying field workers more money such that Americans would take those jobs. Somehow, I don't see an American doing field labor at 4.75 and hour.
Yes, it is racism.
– Silver
I don't think it is really racism, as much as it is economic fears and xenophobia – fear of people with different values, language, and customs. We just fear people who might not be familiar or predictable, and we fear losing what we've got.
Xenophobia may look like racism, and it may play in to existing racism, but I don't think most conservatives who are anti-immigration are really being racist, I think they are being fearful, and they emphasize law and order in order to address their fears of chaos and social and economic instability that the influx of people unlike us can cause.
I think it's the conservative right, for the most part who fear immigrants. Not Americans in general, as your post title suggests. Republicans tend not to like "foreigners."
I also liked the caption at the end of the video you linked, "We watch FOX so you don't have to."
Are Hispanics who came here legally and against illegal immigration and amnesty racist, too?
Is Geraldo a racist because he said he wanted to spit on an Asian-American woman (Michelle Malkin) who disagreed with him?
Assigning motives to large groups of people is a dangerous realm in which to venture, especially when the motives are assigned because of a policy disagreement.
Republicans tend not to like "foreigners." Wow.
How is anyone supposed to respond to that type of rhetoric? Before you type comments like that Cineaste, you need to ask yourself "WWOD: What Would Obama Do?" ;)
It's true though isn't it? It seems that Republicans don't like Muslims because they are a violent terrorist religion, Mexicans because they cross the border illegally, steal jobs and commit crimes, Europeans because they are left wing liberals on the verge of moral collapse, Russians because they are/were red communist atheists, etc. Republicans don't like these unpatriotic "foreigners." This is the rhetoric that Republicans have cultivated so is it any surprise that's how so many people view Republicans? You caution Seeker not to assign motives to a group of people yet when we're honest with ourselves, we do it all the time.
I think it's the conservative right, for the most part who fear immigrants. Not Americans in general, as your post title suggests.
Cin,
I respectfully disagree. Taking into account regional differences (Northeast vs Deep South vs Pacific Northwest), I can point to many examples both statistically and through personal experience where fear of immigrants and racist tendencies are not tied to conservatives alone, but also liberals and progressive Democrats.
Are Hispanics who came here legally and against illegal immigration and amnesty racist, too?
Aaron, are they the leading force and national mouthpiece fighting illegal immigration? No, they are most definitely not. Additionally, the most vocal and visible movement against immigration and foreigners regardless of legal status is the US factory worker and people of lower socio-economic standing.
We can get into this debate and tumble on it if you want. However, that is the reality and trend within this country particularly with regional differences as I alluded to Cineaste are taken into account.
– Silver
Also an important distinction, when referring to people from Latin America (not just Mexico) it is not correct or accurate to refer to that group as Hispanic. The correct term is Latin decent.
Hispanic connotes a mestizo heritage and in fact there are countries throughout most of Latin America that have little to no mestizo population but direct descend ency from Spain. You try using the term "Hispanic" with an immigrant from Costa Rica and I can guarantee that a) they will take personal insult to it and b) feel it is a racist stereotype (full disclosure, I am of Costa Rican descent).
So, which portion of immigration are you talking about? The mass immigration problem from Mexico or from all countries south of the border. I sort of thought we were arguing about the mass entry of Mexicans illegally into the United States at the border. In which case the term "Hispanic" is accurate.
– Silver
…fear of immigrants and racist tendencies are not tied to conservatives alone.
That's not my claim Silver. My claim is that Republicans tend not to like "foreigners." That's the impression I get. Speaking regionally, the Republicans who are really xenophobic tend to be those who live in the deep south and rural areas in states like Texas, South Carolina, and Nebraska. Rednecks and evangelicals. The evangelicals tend to be homophobic and the rednecks tend to be bigots. Yes, there are many evangelical democrats and redneck democrats. But lets be honest, most evangelicals and rednecks tend to be Republicans.
Is Geraldo a racist because he said he wanted to spit on an Asian-American woman (Michelle Malkin) who disagreed with him?
You know, Michelle Malkin made me spitting mad with her anti-immigrant rant.
It seems that Republicans don't like Muslims because they are a violent terrorist religion, Mexicans because they cross the border illegally, steal jobs and commit crimes, Europeans because they are left wing liberals on the verge of moral collapse, Russians because they are/were red communist atheists, etc.
The problem with this analysis is that, in the case of Communism and Islamopaths, overreactions aside, the conservatives are absolutely RIGHT in opposing such evils – as many have observed, the pandering of leftists to Islam looks exactly like what they did with Hitler, and with disastrous results.
Sometimes, fear and alarm are warranted because the risks are real. With immigration, despite the crime and fiscal stats thrown up by conservatives, I don't think the risk is as real.
But I think it *is* reasonable to paint the republican party, in general, as xenophobic, even if some people might object to being included under that label. Just as I have labeled most liberals as pandering to Islam via their overzealous devotion to multiculturalism, that is the general pattern despite notable standouts.
What's good for the goose… but only if it's really a goose.
With immigration, despite the crime and fiscal stats thrown up by conservatives, I don't think the risk is as real.
You'd treat illegal Muslim immigrants a heck of a lot differently than you would illegal Catholic immigrants from Mexico though. At least the discrimination of the Republican stance on illegal immigration discriminates equally against all illegal immigrants. Maybe the only reason you differ from the party line on this issue is because you have a personal stake in it?
You can not reward people for illegal behavior. If we want no border, fine. If we have a border lets enforce it and the laws which surround the issue.
BTW, here's an interesting interchange between Laura Ingraham and Giraldo – this 11 minute interview is rough and tumble, and Laura pulls no punches – she is a little too snarky for me.
You'd treat illegal Muslim immigrants a heck of a lot differently than you would illegal Catholic immigrants from Mexico though.
I certainly would. I think that the long term and even short term risk of Islamic immigrants is significantly higher than that of the predominantly Catholic latino immigrants.
Maybe the only reason you differ from the party line on this issue is because you have a personal stake in it?
Well, at the very least, it has made me sensitive to the plight of Mexicans. Some might say that I am more objective, some might say less. But I still appeal to what I consider to be logical arguments.
I differ from the party line on ESC research, abortion, as well as from the far right Christian recontructionists.
I suspect that some of my stances are influenced by my own experience, and a desire to justify my own behaviors, but perhaps we should all ask – what behaviors or stances do I oppose that I myself am guilty of? Do I only support things that I do, or oppose things that I have not?
So for instance, if I am involved in porno, but oppose it, that's hypocrisy. If I have never been involved in porno, it's easy for me to be against it. But probably the most believable person is the one who is NO LONGER involved in porno, but against it.
I think you just inspired me to write a new post. Thanks!