This sorta sums up my view:
Quote:
Racial and cultural issues loom large in immigration. Anti-immigrant groups that purport to be "colorblind" because they focus on economic and environmental issues, actually exploit racial and ethnic stereotypes (about crime, fertility rates, wasteful consumption) to argue against immigration.
Pro-assimilation groups argue that they are only advocating for immigrants to adapt to their new home. Yet they maintain a narrow definition of what it means to be "American" and require that immigrants quickly learn English and uncritically take on the values of a dominant culture.
Both these types of groups discount that racism poses an obstacle for many immigrants. A smaller number of organizations argue that non-White immigrants pose a threat to the nation, which they explicitly define as White, Anglo-Saxon, and Christian.
Even though racism is a factor in most anti-immigrant sentiment, it is important to distinguish explicitly White supremacist arguments from assertions by groups that claim to be racially neutral. These groups do not create tension out of thin air; they depend on the embedded bigotry of a community as a whole. The community's attitudes also must be addressed in a sensitive manner.
Using terms like "hate group," "racist," or "fringe" to describe all anti-immigrant groups tends to polarize debates and alienate people who feel they have legitimate concerns about immigration. A more effective way to reach these people is by carefully dissecting the opposition's analysis. This includes pointing out the misconceptions and resentments the opposition exploits and responding to the valid community concerns the opposition claims to address.
|
ADG