Amnesty Hating Xenophobes: Listen Up
For those hardcore political right-wingers who fear that the influx in immigration is leading to what the late 1920s Representative John C. Box of Texas said (about the influx in Mexican immigrants): a “distressing process of mongrelization,” listen up.
It is a fact of the American social make-up, Americans are ethnically interbred, but that is what being a part of the great melting pot is all about. Americans need to stop worrying about the influx in Latin American (especially Mexican) immigrants to the United States. It’s been thirty-six years since the Supreme Court has struck down anti-miscegenation laws, and five decades since the end of legal segregation. We’re better than that, and we ought to know better.
It should be no surprise that Latinos are now the largest minority group in the nation at 14% (AFL/CIO). Nearly two thirds of this minority is of Mexican heritage. In Texas and California, Mexican-Americans are the largest minority. For many, this is eerie news. However, these people’s fears of an America overrun by ethnocentric, non-assimilating Latinos are not only foolish, but contrary to the truth.
As Gregory Rodriguez states in the latest edition of TheAtlantic, in his article Mongrel America, “Mexicans, who are themselves a product of intermingling — both cultural and genetic — between the Spanish and the many indigenous peoples of North and Central America, have a history of tolerating and even reveling in such ambiguity.” Meaning, Mexicans are not only historical prone to assimilate, they strive to assimilate. Since the conquest of Mexico by the Spanish conquistadors, the Spaniards and Mexicans have practiced an assimilating process known as mestizaje — a form of racial and cultural synthesis. “The Spaniards were willing everywhere they went to allow racial and cultural mixing to blur the lines between themselves and the natives.” This toleration of intermingling was widely advocated by the Mexican nationals and the indigenous peoples of Latin America and resulted in a population of heavily mixed ancestry.
According to Rodriguez’s article, only 8% of foreign-born Latinos marry non-Latinos. However, 32% of second-generation and 57% of third-generation Latinos marry outside their ethnic group. This shows that although the process of assimilation may not have an immediate effect, by the second and third generation intermarriage rates amongst differing ethnic groups rise significantly, suggesting that Immigrants’ children and their children are integrating into “American society” and branching off from their “Mexican” heritage.
Some states acknowledge this assimilation trend and have begun a process to blur the “ethnic divide.” There is currently a California ballot initiative that would all but prohibit the state from asking its citizens what their racial backgrounds are. I would hope that the new powers to be on Capital Hill will recognize this trend and seek to accommodate the immigrants to come so that they can do so legally and as painlessly as possible.
America throughout her ages has been notorious for her ability to absorb a myriad of ethnic backgrounds under one unifying theme: E pluribus unum — “out of many, one.” I hope we can remain true to this message.
From the famous poem by Emma Lazarus that is inscribed on a plaque in the interior of the Statue of Liberty pedestal, the essence of which has been completely abandoned by the far-right:
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she with silent lips.
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
How golden that door must seem from the south side of the Rio Grande.
From a completely non-political standpoint it is preposterous for any American to think that somehow they are superior in rank and file of the Mexican populace. People who perceive themselves as divinely blessed, superior in race, or tactically brilliant deserve to spend 40 days and 40 nights in the ghettos of Mexico City. Maybe then they will see the true face of disparity and the poverty-stricken. Then perhaps they will understand why so many millions of Mexicans have fled their native country in search of fairer lands and foreseeable opportunity. The relatively affluent American is lucky to have been born into such prosperity.
The plight of the poor ring out across our borders. In the words of Zach de la Rocha, “Hungry people don’t stay hungry for long.” Nor should they.
Very poetic, Steve, and also very true. The problem is that once the collective “we” get inside the door, we all want to shut it behind ourselves.
Perhaps someday we will live in a world that doesn’t have arbitrary political borders that allow some people to randomly be born into spectacular wealth and some into desperate poverty. But there is incredible opposition to that kind of world. For just one of a million examples, look at the homegrown opposition to the supposed “NAFTA superhighway” in Texas.
Not everyone who hates Amnesty is a Xenophobe.
It is my belief that no one should be above the law. Whether it’s ole’ Dubya himself or the poor Mexican looking for a better life.
If it were a rich Canadian that came to live in America illegally, I would want them to be punished just as much as I want an illegal immigrant from Mexico to be punished.
Yes, true. However, the driving force behind most immigration log-jamming are those who fear that foreigner, completely — or at least it seems. They feel that America is losing her sense of identity and that the Mexican is overrunning the country.
People are inherently afraid of a state within a state. My point of this post was to show that fear is not well founded.
And there aren’t any rich Canadians we have to worry about. I’m sure they like it just fine in Montreal.
David – As a child of immigrants who lives in Houston, TX, land of minority majority (hispanic immigrants make up 40% of greater Houston’s population), let me disagree with you. I have little interest in the issue of racial or ethnic mixing, and I suspect most oppoenents of free immigration are in the same camp. My primary issue is controlled, positive growth of population, economy, support services, etc. We simply can’t have planned, controlled growth in this country as long as there s such a large segment of the population that does not play by the same rules as the rest of us. Nothing I’ve heard from you, or anyone else, has changed my mind in this regard.
The collective “we” are blessed to be born into this country. I often ponder the chance of my being born into this great heritage. My ancestors, however, were not.
They came across the great pond not long after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. They hit the newly established Ellis Island and assimilated like so many other immigrants who followed.
“We” are where “we” sit b/c many of those immigrants assimilated and added to the great backbone that helped make “E pluribus unum” a continuing legacy.
Part of that legacy is law and order. Ignoring a problematic situation or approaching it with passive action is the exact reverse of the values upon which this country was founded. Providing the opportunity, freedom for all men.
It takes hard work. It starts, not on Capital Hill but on the personal level. “We” cannot expect others to do the work. “We” need to stop glossing over these issues. Stop throwing taxpayer dollars into reactionary policy and start demanding a change. Real change, not more words.
The current immigration system is obviously faulty in some areas but that doesn’t mean you throw it out and with open arms accept those with less opportunity and less freedom-fortunate.
Education not degradation.
Buckleman, here’s a interesting take on the situation: Nothing happens, politically speaking.
The illegal immigrants that are now here remain illegal; however, their children become citizens through naturalization. Eventually the massive influx in immigrants dies down, as the history of immigration patterns predicts it will. Also, just as it did during the earlier part of the 20th century (and as I showed in my post) the 2nd, 3rd, and every other generation will slowly but surely assimilate into American society. Could it be perhaps the next best solution after comprehensive immigration reform (which has no political impetus) that nothing happens, at all. Perhaps the system will be self-correcting, dependent on the ability and willingness of the immigrant communities to assimilate — which they undeniably are.
February 28, 2008 11:58 AM
I now realize, S.C., that I failed to point out that I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with the idea of amnesty for current illegals if the path is paved correctly and a system established to allow safe passage for immigrants and maintain border integrity greater than is present.
I’m not plugged in to the latest historical immigration patterns of the U.S., but no doubt history spins in circles.
I also do not doubt the “ability and willingness of the immigrant communities to assimilate,” though it doesn’t serve them when American employers are hiring immigrants at a cut rate and chalking it up to “helping the poor Mexican.”
This is where change needs to happen. Let’s hope Obama is more action in that regard than words. And let’s be honest, everything has political impetus.
Thanks for the post.
I’m more than slightly dubious about your claim that Mexicans have this wonderful policy of racial mixing and tolerance, particularly considering how they continue to treat the native American population in Mexico. That’s on top of the whole “Chigra/Sons of the Malinche” cultural issue.
And as for the Spaniards mixing themselves with the local culture, while that’s true – aren’t these the same Spaniards who set up an ethnic caste system in Mexico, where even children born of “pure” Spanish European parents were inferior to Peninsulares (Spaniards born in Spanish), and Mestizos were even more below contempt?
I really don’t like it when people call illegal immigrants “criminals.”
Some laws should not be what they are. I do not think that immigrants, drug addicts, or prostitutes are criminals. They are breaking laws that should be reformed anyway.
REVOLUTION!!
*Please note: I meant nothing but listing immigrants, drug addicts, and prostitutes together. Those are just three of many sorts of laws I think are stupid and are “criminalizing” people who are not necessarily criminals.
Yes, the Spanish set up a hierarchial social structure, the remnants of which can still be seen today. However, the fact that Mexicans themselves are a result of cultural and genetic intermingling is a matter of fact and one of the basic points of my post. The fact that the Spanish set up a ethnic hiearchial structure is a bit of arcane history not entirely pertinent to the Mexican cause in the USA. Although there are indeed social classes in Mexico, the ability to hold public office, vote, or run the country is no longer determined by orgin of birth, like the ruling Peninsulares who were of Spanish birth and decent. Rather it’s more determined by ecnomic class and education.
“I’m more than slightly dubious about your claim that Mexicans have this wonderful policy of racial mixing and tolerance, particularly considering how they continue to treat the native American population in Mexico.”
I never said anything about a “wonderful” policy of mixing and tolerance. In fact I said nothing about policy. All I said was that the fear that Mexicans will prevaracate the assimilation process is unfounded, by both the statistics and the history. Whether or not every social class is seen as equal is beside the fact.
“Mexicans” have always intermingled with other cultures and races and will continue to do so.
As someone with dual citizenship who mostly grew up in rural Mexico, I, too, must disagree with the thesis that Mexicans have any cultural propensity toward genetic assimilation. The caste system is still firmly in place; it’s just a bit better-concealed.
To this day, calling someone “indio” (Indian) is considered a deadly insult; fightin’ words, as it were.
To this day, it is considered a mark of lower class to be born “prieto” (darker-skinned); witness the the Mexican media idolization of the European ethnotype.
To this day, if you look at your average grunt labour, it will be genetically more Native American than otherwise.
To this day, if you look at the executives and national officials of Mexico, they will be genetically more Spanish than otherwise.
Mestizaje was originally the product of Spanish conquerors marrying and/or raping their Native subjects. The social stigma it carried was forcibly lessened when basically no one remaining could claim absence of mestizo heritage. However, the idea persists that a greater proportion of Spanish blood is “more pure.”
I don’t disagree with the broader point of the post. However, I don’t think one can point to the genetic aspect of the historical record to prove an argument that Mexicans “strive to assimilate.”
–Roberto
I think the point Denney was making with regard to assimilation was that Latino immigrants tend to assimilate very quickly in to American society. It is interesting, but largely irrelevant what kind of assimilation they practice back in Mexico. In America, they tend to become “Americans” very quickly by learning the language, integrating, intermarrying and other ways. I would guess by your statement about your dual citizenship that you are an example of this American assimilation, eh?
Some people fear (mostly without reason) that Latino immigrants are moving in, but not assimilating. Americans worry that large populations of immigrants will come and not learn the language, not intermarry, and segregate themselves from the rest of the population. If that were true, it could lead to some significant problems, but it doesn’t appear to be true.
I’m not saying Mexicans *don’t* assimilate well into the United States. They generally do (although the manner in which they do so may be more questionable). Denney, however, was attempting to use Mexican history in an attempt to prove that they have a cultural background of peaceable genetic integration and other sorts of warm fuzzies:
“‘[Mexicans] have a history of tolerating and even reveling in such [genetic/cultural] ambiguity.’ Meaning, Mexicans are not only historical [sic] prone to assimilate, they *strive* to assimilate.”
This is simply revisionist history. Even with some genetic muddling, the Spaniards are still running the country, and the Indians are still the underclass grunt workers.
Again, I do not disagree with the thesis of the post; however, facts are facts. Compare:
http://media.elsiglodetorreon.com.mx/i/2007/12/40303.jpeg
http://media.elsiglodetorreon.com.mx/i/2007/12/40303.jpeg
with
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.10/photos/03-zedillo-225.jpg
http://www.infendo.com/uploaded_images/393px-Vicente_Fox_flag-753394.jpg
Mexicans may be an easygoing, adaptable people, but they hardly have an *historical* propensity to fuse their own genetics or culture to wherever they’re at. ;)
Ciao,
–R
PS — My father’s Mexican, and my mother’s American. As such, I have a foot in both worlds.
“Even with some genetic muddling, the Spaniards are still running the country, and the Indians are still the underclass grunt workers.”
Could you be more specific? Like what parts of the country? The central government, the economy, or the border partol? Talk about revionist history — or is it revionist modernity, if there’s such as phrase?
I showed this quote to a close hispanic friend of mine. He asked me if the person who said it was a European; he apparantly thought it rediculous.
I don’t mean to slander, but I caste some serious doubt upon the assertion that Mexico is in some way still run by Spainiards. However, if you can prove my skepticism wrong, by all means, enligten me.
Let me re-visit my earlier quote: “[Mexicans] have a history of tolerating and even reveling in such [genetic/cultural] ambiguity.”
This isn’t, as you put it Seraphim, “revionist history.” I’ll admit I cannot be perfectly history specfic when making a blog post, because I just not going to write that much. However, the fact that the “Mestizos” are by far the dominant “ethnic” group or “social class” says a lot about the assimilating propensity of Mexicans. So, in this instance, Revionist history would be saying that the Spaniards actually treated the Mexicans as their co-equal, not simply stating that the Mexicans are prone to assimilate.
Regardless of the historical disagreements the point of this post is to show that the Mexicans are not reluctant to assimilate. Nor were the Irish, German, French, Hungarian, Bulgarian, or Italian. The current state of Mexican paranonia is simply not justified.
I invite you to reread *both* of my previous comments on this post for details, since it seems from your reply that you must only have read one of them. (If your Hispanic friend was not raised in Mexico, by the way, his experience will be of limited utility.)
The politically and socioeconomically dominant class in Mexico is the one that has genetically preserved more Spanish heritage than Native American (see the linked pictures in my previous comment for a poignant visual illustration). As you would have noticed, had you been paying attention, I am *not* asserting that Spain is still running Mexico; I am saying that folks who are genetically more Spanish–”whiter” folks, for lack of a better term–constitute a vastly greater portion of the upper class in Mexico, and “white” is considered to be refined, genteel, attractive, etc., while “dark” (prieto, not negro, for those Spanish speakers out there) is considered more the reverse of those qualities (hence why calling someone “indio” is a deadly insult).
Certainly, the vast majority of Mexicans are of mestizo heritage. Nevertheless, this integration was, historically, not something chosen by the Mexicans, but forced upon them. It is still fashionable in Mexico, if you’re “white” Hispanic, to claim that you are of pure Spanish heritage; “untainted,” one would assume, by “dirty” Native American genetics. This is hardly a mindset that revels in genetic ambiguity.
I’ve lived amongst all sectors of Mexican society, from folks who’re lucky to earn a hundred dollars a month, to folks who make a hundred times that. Almost every Mexican is mestizo, but mestizaje is NOT some kind of homogeneous social, genetic, or ethnic term. A lot in Mexico still depends on where you fall on the mestizaje scale.
Again, Denney, I don’t disagree with the gist of your blog entry. I just think if you’re going to make a point, you should be sure to have your cultural ducks in a row. :)
–R
So perhaps there is an issue of racial inequality in Mexico. In what major nation hasn’t there been this sort of problem? Nations like China, Germany, France, and even America have had this problem.
I say that because I feel perhaps as I veered a bit off course in the course of this cultural history debate. I don’t doubt that there are still some traces of the old colonial caste system in Mexico. However, the scope of my post is one of a macro evaluation. Simple put, I am stating that the Mexicans and Spaniards did indeed intermingling on a large scale. A large percentage of Mexicans assimilated and it is this larger percentage that this post is concerned about and that the American people and policy makers are concerned about. Perhaps the assimilation process wasn’t popular then and it may still carry with it a social stigma even today. I will concede that my statement that Mexican “strive to assimilate” may be overgenerous to my basic point of this post; perhaps stating that they did indeed assimilate would have sufficed. Nonetheless, my point still stands: Mexicans have assimilated, are assimilating, and will continue to assimilate.
“but mestizaje is NOT some kind of homogeneous social, genetic, or ethnic term.” Again, assuming that my statement is some sort of absolute implication is unfair and misrepresents my true intent. I said it is a form of racial and cultural synthesis. I didn’t say it was any sort of homogeneous social, genetic, or ethnic term. It was (and I suppose still is) a term that identifies a type of assimilation — whether it’s good or bad is relatively irrelevant as to the bottom line of this post.
The Mexicans willingly and actively sought out assimilation, both in the colonial, post-colonial, and modern times. Whether or not it was good for them then, or whether or not it’s good for them now is somewhat besides the point. I am aware that the history of Mexican social culture is far more complicated and nuanced that I have made it seem. However, the point was to show that Mexicans assimilate, and the fear that they are creating, essentially, a state within a state is absurd.
Regardless of the disagreements, I have appreciated the well thought-out responses, and I have indeed learned a bit — or at least I have been exposed to a differing point of view.
I certainly agree that Mexicans assimilate fairly well when they immigrate to the United States. Heck, I myself am the product of such assimilation! I disagree, however, that this is explicable through analysis of their own ethnotype’s origin, given that the said ethnotype originated under pressured and adverse circumstances, and that Mexicans to this day attempt to distance themselves as much as possible from the implications of their ethnotype.
There is indeed racial inequality in Mexico, but this is, in sharp contrast to U.S. racial issues, based on divisions *within* the mestizo ethnotype. This is analogous to a hypothetical conflict within the Anglo ethnotype between, say, blonde hair and blue eyes, and dark hair/eyes. As such, it is impossible to point to mestizos as a whole and say that they are an assimilated or integrated bunch, even if they do share some gene pool muddling. We Mexicans as a whole are pretty schizophrenic about the whole thing, doing our best to *deny* our inherent genetic and cultural assimilation to the greatest possible extent. ;)
That’s all I’m sayin’. Very good post, with one fairly tangential quibble.