After their decisive role in the presidential election, Latinos stand at the threshold of a new acceptance in the United States. The surprising energy behind immigration reform, displayed last week at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, suggests that this country might at long last welcome those who come to this country speaking Spanish.
The conventional wisdom is that Latinos are just the latest round of newcomers, as President Obama put it in Las Vegas, to “face hardship . . . racism . . . ridicule.” If reform now opens wider paths to legal status and citizenship, well, that’s akin to what “each new wave of immigrants” has gone through before, right? “It’s really important for us to remember our history,” the president said.
Comments
Dear Lord, this guy is full of himself. To suggest that the Latino experience in America dates back to PRE colonial times is idiotic. Every group of immigrants has had their share os difficulty in fitting in, for the reason that their language and culture are different. Human beings like to be among people who are like them, and so immigrants, from anywhere, are to some degree shunned. This was true of the Irish, and is true of Asians and all immigrants. But it is also true that there is a distinct reason why people come and suffer this: The opportunity for life here is limitless.
Creating a new group of victims to save is a long time vote getter in the Democratic playbook. That is the driver behind immigration reform.
Um, Mexico was invaded by the Spanish a century before Anglos came to what's now the US. Tenochtitlan fell in 1521. What's now the US southwest was part of the Spanish colonies, and then part of Mexico, before it was part of the US. Florida also was once Spanish. If you define "Colonial times" as pre-English, then yes they most certainly were here first. And, be it added, they were not another Roanoke; they didn't vanish off the face of the continent. They've been here, interacting with the Native cultures, all along.
This comment has been removed.
how many of those children will be on welfare, seems they can afford to keep bringing kids into the world, they rest of us, not so much.
Let me get this straight. While I don't agree with everything Carroll has here I find a couple of comments enlightening. "Richmond" denies the existence of a Latino presence prior to the US colonial period? Read any history books lately. Visit St. Augustine, Fl. recently. Or is it simply the only thing that counts as America in pre-colonial or colonial times is New England.
"migh" Is worried about how many kids they have and how many will be on welfare? Uhhh, excuse me but the majority of kids on "welfare" are white. They are not Hispanic, not black, but white.
Carroll actually does touch upon an historical conflict between the "Hispanic" populatin of the America's and the US. From the disdain of the Mexican-American war to the propping of banana republics the US has always had a mixed relationship with the Spanish culture that had been planted in the southern parts of the hemisphere. Now he certainly overstates it to some extent but to deny it is simply to ignore history.
Are you really once again pretending that there is no difference? On the one hand are people that came via Ellis Island and approved ports of entry legally, were checked for health risks, had sponsors, jobs, means of support. On the other are people that are breaking the law, sneaking into the country to either take jobs that U.S. citizens need or live off U.S. taxpayers.
Europeand did not just all go through Ellis Island and even those who did back in the day when Ellis Island was functioning did not have jobs waiting for them here in America. Many didn't have relatives never mind sponsors. You have a rather confused view of America's immigration history. The law of 1921 was from my viewpoint the first act to actually restrict who could or could not enter the country and what constituted legal entry. Prior to that the only laws that really amounted to anything on the books were exclusionary ones, such as the Chinese exclusion, or the lunatic exclusion or the anarchist exclusion. Beyond that everybody and his brother could walk in. So spare me the my ancestors stood in line argument. If you had the money to get here or the feet to make it, you came and you stayed.
attaturk - so you're arguement is that because before 1921 immigration was less restricted, breaking today's laws is ok? Before 1921 there were no speed limits ... so I should be able to drive as fast as I want?
The article still, of course, being the Globe, fails to make the huge distinction between legal and illegal status.
Massive income inequality in Latin America was part and parcel of the Spanish system in Latin America and not only was not attributable to American corporate and government meddling, it predated the Monroe Doctrine. I get that Mr. Carroll's basic premise is that the United States is evil and all the ills of the world are our fault, but this canard is demonstrably false.
If Mexico had not declared war on the United States following the annexation of the Republic of Texas, there would have been no Mexican-American War and Mexico need not have lost Alta California in the first place although that probably would have happened eventually. While Mexico never acceded to the independence of Texas after its decisive defeat at the Battle of San Jacinto in 1836, it was a fact, and Mexico at the time lacked either the will or the ability to govern Texas. Since the United States had recognized the Republic of Texas, however, its annexation, however offensive to Mexican national pride, was lawful. In any event, what are we supposed to do now, Mr. Carroll? Give it all back and say "We're sorry?"
While I seldom agee with Carroll his description of US relations with the Latin American's is far more real than the "myth" that you ascribe too. Which it is perfectly fine to interpret history in two different ways. However, Mr. Carroll's point had little to do with the relationship between countries. He was writing to the American view of Latino's as a people. So your historical differences in interpretation doesn't change the accuracy of his description regarding how many Americans view Latino's.
Which of course is inferior. He was merely being "polite" in describing the American viewpoint. It had nothing to do with evil America.
I read your reply three times and it's still gibberish.
WesternSuburbDad, I kind of like the idea of being able to drive as fast as I want.
"Western'" I'm not saying there is no difference between legal and illegal. On the other hand I am disagreeing with your statement that the folks who went through Ellis Island and other ports of entry were these wonderful folks who had sponsors and jobs waiting for them when they got here. There were for the most part Europes losers, you know your "poor, your huddled masses", those folks.
I am disagreeing with the idea that the majority of these folks are on welfare or are taking American jobs. The fact is they are here in great part because American's won't do those jobs and employers were looking for employees. Which kid on your block wants to pick lettuce, which wants to do hard labor construction. That's why they come and why they get hired.
However, the fact is they are here and the issue must be resolved for them and for the country. If some folks want to live in a fantasy of shipping them back, then they can live in the fantasy but it's not going to happen. It is this mis-reading of history glorifying early immigrants who were no better and denying a Latino presence long before Europeans were making their mark that lead to these nonsensical ideas regarding Latino's and immigration.
attaturk - I picked vegetables as a kid. You don't think citizens want construction jobs?
Anyway, the major point I am trying to make is that Carroll ignores the fact that we are now talking about illegals. That's mostly just because of geography, the Europeans couldn't walk across a border to get here. It does make a difference if we are able to control who is coming into the country.
It's impossible, especially given our politics, to seal up the border of the United States. Enforcement of our immigration laws IS border security. We should first jail employers who hire illegals and stop all public assistance to illegals. They will return home on their own. Meanwhile, we welcome a million immigrants every year legally. That path should be made more efficient, people following the law shouldn't have to wait years for a decision - but it is our countries decision to make.
"Western" Despite the propaganda "illegals" can't get welfare. You have to prove residency. They can get emergency room treatment, but that was RR. Whether you picked veggies or not doesn't matter. What matters is down here in Fl. you cannot get "white" kids to pick anything, anymore. Hence immigrants, legal and illegal. We in fact only offer approx. 150,000 legal work visa's a year. We don't welcome millions. Way to much fantasy in thiese conversations. I see Latino's doing tons of hard labor construction work down here. I even see white girls busting their butts at it. But I don't see any of the local boys. They just will not dirty their hands at that kind of stuff. They're from their own perspective, to smart, to computerized, to a whole bunch of things. We don't have a high enough birth rate to even supply a long erm workforce. Like it or not we need these folks. Almost every economist will tell you that.
This comment has been removed.
"Kitch" Your problem with Carroll is religion. While I may dislike regligious institutions as much as you do it doesn't cloud my thinking. While I enjoy our exchanges quite often I fear you are as fanatical as those you oppose. Personally it appears to me that this what appears to be downright hatred as opposed to rational objection leads to the same intellecutal dead end street as religion.
This comment has been removed.
Well okay. A lot we could agree on although I don't think Hitchens or Dawkins or myself for that matter have the emotional visceral response to religion that you have. We simply find it intellectually deficient.
I would also hold that "downright hatred" and rational thought are not only divergent but muntually exclusinve.
Lastly, the "storm" the Armada, well really "Kitch" most historians would hold that it was the "storm" in the main, that lacking the "storm" the end result is actually unknown. Kind of like asking Hagel if he was wrong, if Hagel were smarter he would have simply said it is impossible to know because his choice was never tried.
But I suppose the English would take offense at a visceral level the belittling of the great victory. Kind of like an American recognizing the greater expenditure of life by the Russians during the 2nd World War. Or as previously noted seeing the Mexican-Amerian war as some patriotic struggle as opposed to a land grab. I'm glad we did it, but I don't delude myself into thinking it was ethical.
Oh and "Harry" I'll give it one more shot. He was talking about the emotional, the intellectual viewpoints American's have of Latino's. He was trying to establish an historical basis for our own anti-latino bias. I have no interest in his judgements regarding America being right or wrong, simply because America being right or wrong is of no emotional interest to me. As I said I seldom agree with Carroll, but I don't allow his Catholic revolt or his nattering get in the way of reading and prejudging what he writes.
This comment has been removed.
That's OK, if I wanted more pseudointellectual drivel I'd talk to my brother. What part of Cambridge do you live in?