"[C]learly audible behind much of the crowing about the 'rule of law' is a visceral distrust, or distaste, for Latinos," Steve Duin of the Oregonian (Portland, OR), said Sunday.[1]  --  Not that this sort of thing is new.  --  Duin quotes blogger Megan McArdle, who points out that most Americans' ancestors were "the target of some native American group complaining that they were coming here with their funny language and their weird customs, keeping to themselves, taking jobs or land from good Americans.  Your ancestors weren't welcomed; they were reviled.  They didn't assimilate along the happy schedule outlined on saccharine television dramas."  --  McArdle argues that "Mexican immigrants are much more open to assimilation than many groups." ...

1.

ADD RACISM TO THE MIX AND THE MESS
By Steve Duin

Oregonian (Portland, OR)
June 24, 2007

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf?/base/news/118256374181070.xml

You can't write about immigration, as I did last week, without generating the kind of intense feedback that suggests racism -- in the form of assimilation anxiety, veiled prejudice, or racial hysteria -- is dangerously close to the heart of the matter.

And if that's true, the divisiveness on this issue is just getting revved up.

There are any number of legitimate reasons to be exercised -- or infuriated -- that at least 12 million immigrants have crossed our borders. The traffic in stolen IDs. The increased burden on the state's social services. Our unsecured borders. The economic fallout for both undocumented workers and the legal work force.

But clearly audible behind much of the crowing about the "rule of law" is a visceral distrust, or distaste, for Latinos. In response to Tuesday's column about the impact of the Fresh Del Monte raid at Clarendon Elementary, Jeremy from Vancouver tossed out stats on DUI fatalities by "illegal aliens from Mexico," then notes, "It is well known that drinking and driving and the Hispanic culture go hand in hand."

Stan from Milwaukie was the most outrageous of the callers and e-mailers, squawking, "Let the Mexicans go back and screw up their country some more. I think we should start shooting them when they take our flags down and put their(s) up."

And I'm not the only one hearing this. A top staffer in Oregon's congressional delegation confides that most of the immigration complaints he hears come down to this: "They don't like brown people."

Blogger Megan McArdle (www.janegalt.net) has been probing the fault line between immigration and racism of late. She wants to counter the myth that the Americans clustered behind the Statue of Liberty have ever thrown out the welcome mat for new arrivals:

Most of our great-grandparents were "the target of some native American group complaining that they were coming here with their funny language and their weird customs, keeping to themselves, taking jobs or land from good Americans," McArdle writes. "Your ancestors weren't welcomed; they were reviled. They didn't assimilate along the happy schedule outlined on saccharine television dramas."

But that revulsion ebbed, and assimilation eventually occurred, largely because most of our ancestors were white. Italian white, Irish white, German white, or Polish white, but a non-threatening shade.

If the experience of African Americans in this country is any indication, Latinos face a much more problematic set of prejudices.

Jim Ludwick, the head of Oregonians for Immigration Reform, is wary of discussing the part racism plays in this vitriolic debate. "When people don't have the facts or truth on their side, the first thing they try to do is slur the opposition by calling them a racist or a bigot or a xenophobe," Ludwick said.

Rick Hickey, the group's vice president, has heard what I'm hearing, but argues there are more significant factors inhibiting the assimilation and embrace of Latino immigrants.

Hickey's Italian ancestors kissed the ground at Ellis Island, he said, but eventually waded into the melting pot because they were forced to. That is no longer required of Latinos, Hickey argued, "because the government has bent over backward with special programs designed so that people don't have to speak the language."

McArdle, who works for the Economist, has a far different take: "Mexican immigrants are much more open to assimilation than many groups, which is why early 20th century literature is so full of anguished dramas about immigrant parents trying to keep their children from losing their culture."

At the rate we're going, early 21st century literature will reflect anguish of a completely different scale.

--Steve Duin: 503-221-8597; 1320 S.W. Broadway, Portland, OR 97201 steveduin@news.oregonian.com http://blog.oregonlive.com/steveduin