That title isn’t quite what it seems—Rio isn’t the Rio Grande where efforts to stem immigration with fences continue apace and filing isn’t about paperwork. Rio is the name of an immigrant my wife has known for some 15 years.

Rio came here from India almost 20 years ago; she worked as a manicurist and my wife met her to attend to a nail infection years ago and they struck up a relationship. Rio is the hardest working person I know, with the possible exception of her husband, and I find her story fascinating. She moved here 20 years ago and managed to secure a green card, leaving behind her husband and two young children. Many years later her husband was able to immigrate, after a decade long painful separation from husband and children, and likewise eventually secure a green card but both had to leave their children behind with relatives and miss many of those precious formative years while they worked unbelievably hard. He worked at an Indian restaurant—14 hours a day, six to seven days a week, and she as a manicurist on a similar schedule. She became a good friend of my wife’s and a decade after establishing themselves here they were able top bring their daughters here.

They sacrificed mightily to do all of this and today would face higher levels of obstruction and almost certainly be unable today to accomplish what they’ve built through harder work effort than anyone I know. Here’s what they’ve accomplished after the sort of start we so want to limit now and object to: her husband has successfully opened his own Indian restaurant in Hartford where Rio is moving. Their eldest daughter is now 21 and a College student in London, the youngest will be matriculating in Hartford and they will be buying a house and become tax-paying citizens of Connecticut. After sacrificing for decades in ways most of us can’t imagine to escape crushing poverty. I can’t even imagine being away from my family that way and taking those sorts of risks let alone working that hard. Most of us can’t.

Rio’s isn’t a unique or even unusual story—so I find it both sad and predictable that waves of nativism and anti-immigration sentiment (hiding behind the legal/illegal notation with no reference to the way they would and have restricted legal immigration over the years, as if there’s some modern Ellis Island to go to!) surface with the insecurity of a post 9-11 world as they did during prior periods of economic downturn and war.

This is particularly numbing when I listen to people tell me that the recent plot at JFK—from homegrown activists—points to why immigrants need to be kept out, completely disregarding the disconnect between homegrown and imported activists as well as the transparent incompetence of the plot—pipelines don’t blow up that way because (thankfully) we’re not living in a tedious rehash of one of Bruce Willis’ Die Hard movies where all you need to do is throw a Zippo around and kablooie! Yippee-ki-yay, mother----ers!

On “The Daily Show” they recently wryly remarked that we were changing the immigration motto of the United Stated from “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” to “What can Brown do for you?” It’s a depressing thought and when I listen to the usual thinly veiled racist refrain that ‘they carried their native flag in a parade!” (as if there are no Irish or Italian flags on St. Patrick’s day and Columbus Day!) or ‘they sung the National Anthem in their language!” I want to cry.

Seriously? That’s all you’ve got? Listen—let them sing it. Let them sing it in Spanish and let them sing it in Farsi. Let them sing it in Arabic and in Russian. For the love of God, sing it in Kinyarwanda and in Hindi and raise your voices in Swahili and Kurmanji and Pashto, sing it in every language in every place where oppression and poverty and despair reigns and governs the hearts of men and women. Then get down on your knees.

Get down on your knees and be thankful that there are still parts of the world where those words we sing represent ideals to be aspired to instead of narrow minded ambitions to be feared. And pray that we might somehow continue to be a place that people aspire to emulate and respect instead of resent and that continue to embody our principles—the ones we’ve retreated from so much in our fear—that we can once again be the example to the world of what the promise of liberty and opportunity hold instead of a caution about greed and parochialism and fear.

Remember, remember always that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists

--Franklin D. Roosevelt

(and she dances where, again? I don't think I'm going to forgive you that one, even if it was unintentional.)

Funny, I was just reading some idiot this morning telling me how income inequality is due to those higherups working more hours. (Maybe he was thinking of those people doing double 39-hour weeks.)

K (good post, etc.)

Not sure when it happened , but it seems as though the word "immigrant" has somehow gained the automatic prefix "illegal."

I read a recent post where the notion was forwarded that "illegal immigrants" are driving "American" carpenters away from their jobs. And also the ridiculous notion was stated, as fact, that these "illegal immigrants" are doing substandard work.

Well, I have immigrants working for me in the construction business. Legal immigrants. Polish guys. They work as hard and as well as anyone I've ever employed. They are all extremely happy to be here, and go through all the proper channels to keep it legal, including of course, applying for citizenship. They want to become Americans.

And all of this hand-wringing over English being the "official" language of the US kills me too. I liked McCain's answer the other night in New Hampshire.

To paraphrase..He said that of course it is in an immigrant's best interest to learn English in order to get ahead in the job market, and in the US school system. But in Arizona, they have some people called the Navajo. He thinks it's perfectly proper to respect their right to speak their "native tongue."

Ya think?

Hi Keifus…

Well, I’d like to think so, but I doubt many people are thinking about those folks working six or seven days a week busting their ass in the desperate hope that they can leave something better for their children.

What kills me is the bait and switch of ‘legal’, as though there’s some modern day Ellis Island where all these folks can just go and take a physical and have someone vouch for them and come on it, as though our ancestors never faced signs that said ‘no Irish need apply’ or that the process of legally immigrating hasn’t changed drastically over the decades (and always aligned with dear and wars and depressions)—as if we could just ‘take out the trash’ and get rid of 12 million people tomorrow without the economy collapsing. Yeeesh.

Ya know… I’m glad I worked my way through school digging ditches and hot tarring roofs and mopping floors at night in cafeterias. Nothing like a little first hand knowledge and sweat to ward off a sense of entitlement.

Oh and she dances on the sand.

friends what they think of immigrants who don't follow the rules as they did? Would they themselves have entered and remained unlawfully if expedient? Encourage, abet relatives overseas to enter illegally if expedient? How would they cast it to their own children?

I believe you are an attorney, so I'll obviously defer to you concerning what occurs in a typical U.S. courtroom. Do criminal defendants get much traction with the prosecutor, judge, or jury by upbraiding those who, in your words, "hide behind the legal/illegal notation"? (My guess is that estate lawyers have consummate confidence in the "alive/dead notation"). How about when litigants rely on a self-serving view of historical context, with some counterfactuals and tangents tossed in? ["...hiding behind the legal/illegal notation with no reference to the way they would and have restricted legal immigration over the years"]. Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling blew their chance---they should have pointed out that since the Feds would love to regulate plenty of corporate practices which presently pass legal muster, it's rather mean-spirited to emphasize the practices which are punishable under presently prevailing law.

In the end, it appears to me you simply believe existing immigration and deportation laws should not be on the books, and if so, they should not be meaningfully enforced. You're welcome to say that plainly, as an expression of your own social conscience if you like---no foul---but to refer therefor to those who disagree with you on immigration as "racist" and "nativist" is unsupportable. Back to your profession for a moment---don't you want jury nullification ("ignore/deplore the law just this once, to be fair") for the millions of illegals already here and for those still streaming across the borders? Of course, "just this once" can turn into a habit, especially when an intoxicating sense of moral rectitude accompanies the ignoring or deploring of the law. Yes, citizens and aliens alike wilfully break a variety of laws all the time. And? Amnesty for all? Apparently your Indian friends managed to steer clear of "just this once".

Ellis Island" is the counterfactual irrelevancy I forgot to add into your quote in my longer reply.

That’s a lot of assumptions in a row…

First, I’m not an attorney.

Second, my Indian friends started as illegal and then got green cards, so yes, I think it’s safe to say that given the changes they’ve seen in immigration laws over those two decades and way that a hard working person could get a green cad if they kept their nose clean as opposed to today’s climate they would be reluctant to cut off the path they themselves took for their relatives. Not everyone is as eager to pull the ladder up after them once they climb on up.

Thirdly, it’s not that I don’t think any immigration laws should exist, or deportation laws, but it is nonsensical to pretend that we can somehow deport 12 million people or that our national economy wouldn’t come screeching to a halt were we to try to ferret them out and ‘take out the trash’ as it has been so demandingly put. I would further stipulate that to pretend that it’s the same for people to immigrate to the US as it was when our ancestors and Grandparents came here simply isn’t accurate. There is no modern day Ellis Island where people can legally document their intent and take a shot at the American Dream. Restrictions have always been part of our history from the 1882 restrictions on the Chinese, to the WWI restrictions under Wilson, but the real shifts occurred in 1920s when immigration declined from a high of 13-14% with carrying laws restricting thing throughout the following decades. These were revamped in 1965, doing away with ethnic quotas but even today immigration trails that high of 13-14% o decades ago. To fail to acknowledge those restrictions is a bit disingenuous—most of our ancestors wouldn’t make it through today’s climate.

Our ancestors faced less obstructions and it’s no coincidence that anti-immigration sentiment parallels times of fear and war the embrace of immigration accompanies times of peace.

Finally, while I don’t claim all that are against immigration are nativists or racists, there is an all too prevalent trend in that direction that too frequently goes un-remarked upon in the bait and switch of security (and it’s m ore than a little ironic in a nation founded on immigration where we are all such, with the exception of Native Americans—apparently it’s all a matter of timing, eh?) that is as surely a red herring as is fighting them over there so we don’t have to address the home grown ones here.

I would have trouble—being the son of Italian and French/German immigrants myself—pulling the ladder up after my family takes a few steps up. I’d have more trouble tingeing such a measure with the palate of ethnicity.

...that once something is the law, it's no longer racist? (Paging Mr. Crowe....)

In any case, the status of the law is currently under debate in our two infallible houses as we speak, which certainly highlights the relevance of D2's essay. Usually when people bitch about immigration (and Schmutz has a good point too), it's about how it hurts the economy. I certainly think that legality's something of a distraction as far as a conversation goes, a crutch for those who avoid the moral argument. (Is there much argument over Ken Lay's ethical position, you think?) Why is illegality so heatedly sought, especially considering that the historically more open borders didn't put the whole country in a handbasket to Hades, as direly predicted then, too.

I'm saying once something is the law, it's the law. There are constitutional protections for racism---talk to the ACLU.

Ken Lay and the illegal immigrant both put their own perceived interests over what they know is law. If the aliens are all, or mostly, Jean Valjeans snatching a life-saving loaf of bread, I'll retract my objection. Hopefully, Mexico herself will see fit to treat her Guatemalan aliens in the same spirit.

The 12 million "illegal" immigrants have been gainfully employed by millions of lawful business and individuals. Their employment, whether lawful or not, has benefited the U.S. economy, making America as a whole much more prosperous. Taking into account the current low unemployment numbers for the U.S. economy, I do not consider the expulsion of these 12 million "illegal" immigrants beneficial for the U.S. economy. Indeed, if the federal government could simply wave a magic wand and deport all those "illegal" immigrants, I suspect the U.S. economy would virtually collapse overnight; by and large, the rest of us would thus be much poorer.

Moreover, any serious attempt to deport 12 million "illegal" immigrants could turn the country into a virtual police state. Logistically speaking, the arrest and deportation of about 5% of the population is impractical to say the least. Quite frankly, I have difficulty understanding why we would want to deport such productive workers, who willingly perform the many of the menial tasks that most citizens are unwilling to perform.

Finally, and more to the point, the existing system simply does not work adequately (if at all). More 1 million individuals immigrate illegally to the U.S. every year because our economy requires their services. The market therefore makes clear that our existing immigration policy has failed miserably. The federal government can either address the failed policy by adopting a new fair and realistic policy or ignore reality and let the problem continue to fester. I, for one, prefer a fair and workable policy over an unrealistic system that ignores our real economic needs for the absurd reason that "the law is the law."

Inkberrow:

Hopefully, Mexico herself will see fit to treat her Guatemalan aliens in the same spirit.

So what are you saying here? Because Guatemalans suffer horribly when they enter Mexico, then we should ensure that Mexicans migrating here get treated equally shabbily? Or that as long as our immigration laws and practices and our treatment of migrants are better than that of a third world country, then everything is fine?

many good-natured but guilt-ridden American egalitarians, America is either deplored as the nadir or hailed as the gold standard among nation-states, as the interests of the Cult of the Lowest Common Denominator dictate. Isn't it romantic?

The key, in my mind, is assimilation. I lived in the United Kingdom for the last four years and moved back to the States 6 months ago. I’ve seen first hand the problems inherent in multi-culturalism. If you want to march in a parade honouring your cultural heritage, go for it. Carry your flags, eat your traditional food and sing your traditional songs. As an Irish-American I understand the pull of the Old Sod, generations distant though it may be. But I don’t think it chauvinistic to say that if you want to live in the United States, you must speak English, accept our laws and culture, allow your children to be Americans, and to leave the prejudices of your old culture in your homeland. This hasn’t happened in the UK, particularly among Asian Muslims.

They live in their equivalent of Little Italy, speak their own language, go to their own schools and generally interact as little as possible with British society at large. Of course this isn’t true for every British Muslim, I don’t mean to imply that, but it appears to be true for at least a significant minority. The inevitable result is a huge increase in general mistrust, racial violence, alienation of youth caught between the two cultures and an extremist, right wing backlash. Just look at the success of the British National Party in areas with a large Muslim population.

The theory of implied consent states that an individual agrees to the limits imposed by their society by their decision to stay within that society. It is easily extended to immigration: If you can’t accept the prevailing social mores of the country you intend to immigrate to, then immigrate to a country that more closely matches your personal morality. If you speak Spanish and want to move to the U.S., learn to speak English or immigrate to Spain. If you’re Muslim and don’t want to see billboards with women in bikinis, then don’t move to the States or the U.K or Western Europe. I wouldn't immigrate to Saudi Arabia or the Sudan because I do not agree with the basic precepts of their culture. Therefore if you don't agree with mine then don't try to come to my country.

Funny you should mention that. Historically, in the United States, immigrants in the cities have formed their own neighborhoods, Italian, German, Nordic, Irish, Polish, Greek, etc. and frequently the first generation and sometimes second spoke their native languages. Over time, their descendants assimilated and moved out of the old neighborhoods, often to sentimental regrets by the society at large that appreciated the availability of the diversity of cultures. In the Chicago area, the same patterns appear to be developing with Spanish speaking immigrants.

Last time I looked, Chinatown was still going strong as a popular tourist destination as well as attracting locals looking for some "authentic" cuisine.

I think you misunderstand the real effect of so-called assimilation. As a result of assimilation, the cultures of both the country and the immigrant population are changed. It's as American as pizza pie and the California roll. Each new generation of immigrants changes the culture of their adopted country just as the culture of the country changes their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and so forth.

This may not seem quite evident because assimilation takes more than a generation to be fully realized. Consequently, if the immigration continues unabated for several generations, the assimilation of the heirs of prior immigrants gets lost in the vast numbers of new immigrants arriving each year. Nevertheless, the assimilation in fact occurs.

If your understanding of assimilation were correct, the American culture would reflect only (or at least predominantly) the culture of the relatively few native americans and not the millions upon millions of Europeans, Asians, Africans, and Central and South Americans who have immigrated to the U.S. since the days of the early explorers. Thus we live in a real world of real people, not in a theoretical world of "implied consent."