I am categorically opposed to illegal immigration. I abhor it, period.

However, many "conservative" writers who discuss immigration, including MacDonald in this case, almost invariably blur the line between legal and illegal immigration. Her conclusion speaks for itself:

"Immigration optimists, ever ready to trumpet the benefits of today’s immigration wave, have refused to acknowledge its costs. Foremost among them are skyrocketing gang crime and an expanding underclass."

With a great majority of immigrant ethnic groups the benefits for the society at large vastly outweighs the costs. For example, a good portion of Asian-Americans are either first-generation immigrants or their recent progeny, yet the average income per person, education level, SAT scores and other measures of "success" for them is actually higher than those for Americans of European descent.

The problem is not immigration per se, but rather the propensity among certainly ethnic groups to refuse assimilation into "the American dream." Yet writers like MacDonald rarely, if ever, make the distinction.

It is my suspicion that they are, in general, anti-immigration, period, even if they pay occassional lip service to being "only against illegal immigration."

James, actually Mac Donald's City Journal article does talk about assimilation, to quite an extent. She even calls it the "million-dollar question." Here are some of those parts. I'd be interested in any further reaction you might have.

"Even Mexico’s former foreign minister, Jorge Castaneda, acknowledges the unprecedented character of Hispanic immigration. “Mexican immigration,” he wrote recently, “does have distinctive traits that do make [assimilation] difficult, if not impossible. This is . . . a matter of history.” That “history” holds that the U.S. robbed Mexico of its natural territory in the nineteenth century, as some Mexican immigrants never seem to forget. “It’s kind of scary,” says Santa Ana gang intervention officer Mona Ruiz. “I hear, ‘I was here first; this used to be Mexico. You stole it from us.’ ” Mexican-American Ruiz is herself called a “traitor” for becoming Americanized.

While proponents of the “reconquista” of “Alta California” (as Mexican nationalists call the lost territory) are a small minority of Hispanic immigrants, a much larger proportion hold on to their Hispanic identities. Few of the American-born students I spoke to in Southern California identified themselves as “American.” Many said they were “Mexican,” “Latino,” or “Mexican-American”—usages encouraged by the multicultural dogma in the schools, a far cry from the Americanization efforts of classrooms a century ago.

....As the limited education of Mexican-Americans depresses their wages, their sense of being stuck in an economic backwater breeds resentment. “The second generation becomes angry with America, as they see their fathers faltering,” observes Cesar Barrios, an outreach worker for the Tepeyac Association, a social services agency for Mexicans in New York City. This resentment only increases the lure of underclass culture, with its rebellious rejection of conventional norms, according to Barrios. For this reason, he says, many young Mexicans “prefer to imitate blacks than white people.”

The Spanish-language media, which reaches two-thirds of all Hispanics, reinforces the sense of grievance. Stories about America’s cruelties to immigrants and the country’s shocking failure to legalize illegal aliens dominate news coverage. A billboard for Los Angeles’s Spanish newspaper La Opinión conveys the usual tone: “Justice,” “Abuse,” “Deportation,” and other hot-button topics blare out in massive lettering.

...Without prompting, Ruiz brings up the million-dollar question: “I don’t see assimilation,” he says. “They want to hold on [to Hispanic culture].” Ruiz thinks that today’s Mexican immigrant is a “totally different kind of person” from the past. Some come with a chip on their shoulder toward the United States, he says, which they blame for the political and economic failure of their home countries. Rather than aggressively seizing the opportunities available to them, especially in education, they have learned to play the victim card, he thinks. Ruiz advocates a much more aggressive approach. “We need to explain, ‘We’ll help you assimilate up to a certain point, but then you have to take advantage of what’s here.’ ”

Ruiz’s observations will strike anyone who has hired eager Mexican and Central American workers as incredible. I pressed him repeatedly, insisting that Americans see Mexican immigrants as cheerful and hardworking, but he was adamant. “We’re creating an underclass,” he maintained."

Matt, it is a valid point that the rate of assimilation among Hispanic immigrant groups is relatively low. I do not dispute that fact.

What I have trouble with those like MacDonald is that they then extrapolate this fact about a very particular immigrant group into a general statement about ALL immigrants just as her own conclusion states.

Samuel Huntington, of "The Clash of Civilizations" Fame, makes an articulate case for why Hispanic immigration is unique (read here: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2495). He brings up some unique legitimate concerns about Hispanic immigration. But he is, to some extent, optimistic that assimilation will occur even with Hispanics.

Francis Fukuyama, of "The End of History" fame, makes a reasoned rebuttal to Huntington regarding special concerns over Hispanic immigration (see here: http://slate.msn.com/id/2101756/).

I do not exclusively concur with either view: I think there are important points in both arguments. What I note, however, is that neither extrapolates the "problems" of Hispanic immigration in order to develop arguments against legal immigration as a whole, a distinction that, in my view, MacDonald does not make clearly.

my father made me immagrate by throwing me in the river and telling me to swim to the other side. Mind you i was 5 years old