A report on research by Indiana university notes the "tide of of Latino immigrants" in Indiana: "Hispanic enrollment in state schools doubled from 1998 to 2005. During that same period, the percentage of Latino students who tested as 'Limited English Proficient' nearly quadrupled. The Mexican population in Indiana is growing faster than that of any U.S. border state and every Indiana neighbor except Kentucky." The report goes on to say that because of "inconsistency and debates over immigration," we're not doing a very good job of integrating the newcomers into our communities:
In surveying the work of state and local agencies, the study concluded that there is little leadership -- from the top level of state government down through the local level.
"There hasn't been a concerted, sustained, coordinated effort across different agencies and the school system in communicating with the state of Indiana," Levinson said. "The response has been rather more ad hoc in most cases -- well-meaning, but ad hoc -- and therefore there has often been little continuity, little sustainability, and so what successful measures are gained are often compromised ultimately."
The efforts of the communities, the study found, were often undertaken with good intentions but were sometimes misguided. Each of the study's communites took proactive responses to the newcomers. But neither had much direction from the state, and responded instead with local institutions and cultural traditions. And both had problems in carrying out the response.
Nowhere in this report is there any mention of illegal vs. illegal immigrants. They're always just called Latinos or newcomers. Are we to take it that IU is talking only about legal immigrants? Or are we supposed to make an equal effort to integrate them all, whatever their legal status? Maybe that's the "debate" that's hampering the ability to deal with the newcomers -- we're being nitpicky over whether they should even be here or not instead of just making them all feel welcome.
Some people are against Latinos and many other immigrants simply because they are bigots. But it's been my experience that a lot of people would welcome more legal immigration if they hadn't concluded that so many in the establishment, including university researchers, were willing to roll over on the illegal-immigration issue.
Comments
I don't think it's so much about trying to help the "newcomers." It's about helping ourselves. Legal or illegal, if the people are here, we're going to be better off if they and their children are integrated. If there is a way to keep and/or get the illegals out, then we should do that too. But allowing the immigrants to remain on the periphery of society out of moral indignation that they might be here illegally is probably cutting off our nose to spite our face.
"I don't think it's so much about trying to help the "newcomers." It's about helping ourselves. Legal or illegal, if the people are here, we're going to be better off if they and their children are integrated. If there is a way to keep and/or get the illegals out, then we should do that too. But allowing the immigrants to remain on the periphery of society out of moral indignation that they might be here illegally is probably cutting off our nose to spite our face."
Not at all cutting off our nose to spite our face. Removing the illegal aliens is rather more like removing a cancerous tumor. These people are criminals. They bring disease. They bring crime. They bring demands for government services. They bring over-crowding. They're responsible for lowering wages across the board for all Americans in non-professional positions.
The sooner these people are expelled, the better. Politicians in Washington (and lawyers in Indiana, apparently) underestimate the anger about illegal aliens among average Americans. Given that real anger, I am relieved that we haven't seen Americans take matters into their own hands--however, I fear it's just a matter of time.
And if that time comes, the politicians who have refused to defend the sovereignty of this country, the same ones who advocate protecting Iraq's borders and South Korea's borders with American troops while refusing to protect our own borders, the same politicians who refuse to expel the hordes of criminal invaders from Mexico and elsewhere, will have to answer for the blood in the streets.
Leo's concern about the gaps in Indiana University's report on the state's Latino explosion phenomenon is valid.
The institution cannot hope to make any sensible assessment of or contribution to our understanding of Indiana's recent Latino population explosion if its reports only account for selected fragments of the relevant available data.
I.U. may claim that the scope of this research study was limited on purpose, but when the chosen limits on a given research project render the outcome unreliable for practical use, why do that tunnel-vision study at all?
'Nowhere in this report is there any mention of illegal vs. illegal immigrants. They're always just called Latinos or newcomers. Are we to take it that IU is talking only about legal immigrants? Or are we supposed to make an equal effort to integrate them all, whatever their legal status?'
'Leo's concern about the gaps in Indiana University's report on the state's Latino explosion phenomenon is valid.
The institution cannot hope to make any sensible assessment of or contribution to our understanding of Indiana's recent Latino population explosion if its reports only account for selected fragments of the relevant available data.
I.U. may claim that the scope of this research study was limited on purpose, but when the chosen limits on a given research project render the outcome unreliable for practical use, why do that tunnel-vision study at all?'
Golly gee! I.U. does a study on Latino assimilation/integration within the local communities in Indiana. Because they don't tell us whether the study subjects were legal or illegal, then the study is somehow flawed? Maybe they were a combination (seems more likely) of both. Why is the 'legal status' important in the study of assimilation?
If you really think it is, then explain how you can tell the difference between legals and illegals. What exactly are the chosen limits that render this report unreliable?
Ask yourself where society usually houses people who break our laws, vs. where we house the people who don't.
You know society's answer to your Golly Gee question perfectly well; you just don't happen to like what you know.
So all illegals are housed in prisons? Lol, are you in for a surprise!
One of the many interesting phenomena that people with no argument use to pretend they have one is something called "willful misunderstanding."
When Mr. Boley derives from my comments that "all illegals are housed in prisons," he is swimming in his own stew, hoping some of you will be fooled.
On the other hand, if he is implying that all law-breakers should be in the court system (which I doubt he is), then I'd agree.
His problem is that nobody in this society overlooks lawbreakers, much less offer them the benefits and social serviced due citizens and legal immigrants.
But this is not what he wants to talk about. He wants to talk about non-enforcement of illegal activity and "assimilation" of an unknown percentage of crooks in a population of new state residents.
He even wonders (and this is a dead giveaway) how you tell immigrants from illegal aliens. He has clearly heard of a green card but blocked it from his train of rationalization.
I wish I could say this with less prejudice, but that might only permit some folks to avoid the point. Illegality matters in a law and order society. Nobody seriously claims we are otherwise. In fact, a whole lot of us complain when laws are not properly enforced.
Any study that hopes to shed light on the nature of the current Latino population explosion with any expectation of helping us figure out how to deal with it is going to have to account for who came here legally and who didn't.
Otherwise, you might as well complain that a segment of new residents are not getting their due while hiding the fact that their names are Bonnie & Clyde, Richard Speck and Charlie Manson.
The crime of illegal immigration is not violent, but it is a serious crime, not a misdemeanor.
Nobody can make any sense of this if they try to ignore, and encourage the rest of us to ignore, a "newcomer's" legal status -- legal or illegal, green card or no green card -- unless and until WE ourselves change the applicable laws to say it doesn't matter anymore.