Coming soon: NLNA?

That would be "No Latinos Need Apply." I read "Backlash Emerges Against Latino Culture" (CSM, July 19, 06) and my gob was officially smacked:

Last month, the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners became one of the first in the country to ban mobile taco stands, which officials said were cluttering street corners. One Gwinnett politician described the proliferation of rolling taco stands as "gypsy-fication."

Nashville, Tenn., is now considering a similar law. "I don't think you'd see this generalized fear if they were selling grits," says William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

Others have taken even more flagrant actions toward Hispanic immigrants. A Philadelphia sub shop owner, Joseph Vento, has a sign up that reads: "This is America. When Ordering, Speak English." In Ohio, Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones has put up a yellow sign saying "Illegal Aliens Here," with an arrow pointing to the county jail.

The mayor of Hazleton, Pa., Friday signed a law that punishes landlords for renting to illegals and mandates that all official city business be conducted in English.

I realize that these measures are like trying to ban a full moon. I'm just kind of amazed that after a few centuries of immigration, we Americans seem incapable of changing our attitudes regarding new emigres. Exploit them for cheap labor, yes. But heaven forfend that same otherness that makes them vulnerable to American exploitation be too visible to the people who do benefit from the arrangements.

One part of the article did seem a little sketchy to me. There was this quote:

"What we're seeing is little towns in Kansas trying to ban people from sitting on their front porch, because that's what [Hispanics] do," says Gabriela Lemus, of the League of United Latin American Citizens in Washington.

without any accompanying citations backing up this allegation. I did a few Google searches to see if there were any news reports, and I checked the League of United Latin American Citizens, but nothing doing. Anyone who can point me to some cites backing up the allegation that Kansas burgs are outlawing porch-sitting ... please bring 'em.

Kansas may be a victim of its own bad press -- this is where a kid was suspended for speaking Spanish in the hallway at school, after all -- but until I see a story about front-porch hysteria sweeping through Witchita, I'm skeptical.

However, the rest of the article is still appalling.

Comments

[drunken monkey]

I did a Factiva search going two years back, and the only relevant return I got was the CSM article from today.

[Lisa]

Yeah, that's what bugs. I also lexis-nexis'd it and perhaps I lack the search-fu today ... nothing.

[Kerry]

Someone needs to start citing Congressional hearings from 1964 when they reformed the 1924 immigration law and the national orgin quotas. There's nothing like reading testimony about how Hungarians are surprisingly good neighbors and assimilating well despite their foreign ways to make you realize that we're always scapegoating the newcomers. Sheesh!

[Shotrock]

My opinion is that this issue is so tough to deal with because it's actually several issues - it just looks like only one:

1) Prejudice against a particular immigrant group (cf: banning taco carts - why not hot dog carts?).

2) Concern about the relative benefit (cheap labor) and cost (health and human services) of immigrants (cf: landlords can't rent to illegals).

3) Concern about losing what used to allow everyone to fully participate in the daily life of the U.S. - learning a common language, namely English (cf: Geno's Steaks in Philly, which is the "sub shop" in the article).

In terms of #1 (anti-immigrant prejudice) we've been through this before. Some group is always identified as the Invading Horde, whether it's the Irish or the Chinese or the Hungarians or the Latinos.

In terms of the economic issue (#2) - same thing. From the Irish who worked on the Erie Canal to the Chinese who built the railroads to Hispanic hotel maids, treating immigrants like crap while they do the scut work is an age-old American tradition. The only difference is that now, with expectations of various welfare services our 19th century governments and corporations didn't offer, we have a (significant) cost side to the equation. The Union Pacific RR didn't have to worry about health benefits for the Chinese (illegal or otherwise) who worked for them, and neither did the U.S. Congress circa 1869. Now the government provides Medicaid, and Wal-Mart provides zilch, and instead of Doc Baker we've got overwhelmed public hospital/clinic systems.

To me, it's the third issue that's actually the thorniest. With the other issues, as noted, we've kind of been here before. But an Asian immigrant today knows one exact same thing that his ancestor knew 100 years ago: learn English, or make sure your kids do, to fully participate in your new country. The unwritten social contract between native-born and immigrant groups was: keep your culture alive at home/church/fraternal organization if you wish, keep your language alive at home/church/fraternal organization if you wish, but the only way to make this melting pot work is to have a couple of key things in common - like the Constitution, and English.

For the first time, there is an expectation that the machinery of commerce and the state should serve the language needs of ONE non-English speaking ethnic group. It's often presented in the media as a native-born Anglo vs. Hispanic thing, which I think is shortsighted. I live in New Jersey, which is one of the Big Five immigration states, and we've got tons of immigrants, and not just Spanish-speaking ones: Brazilians, Russians, Pakistanis, you name it. They don't get government forms printed in their native language. They don't get to take a driver's test in their native language. This is where the rules of the immigration game have really changed, and it's going to be really interesting to see how it plays out going forward - not just between "Anglo" Americans and Latino immigrants, but between Latino and non-Latino immigrants.

[ginger]

I just wanted to point out that "gypsy-fication" is - of course - a slur against the Pavee (Irish Travellers) and the Roma. Not that it's relevant, but it does show the thoughtless bigotry underlying all this foofarah.

[mike]

Some random comments:

I was waiting and waiting for, say, Congressmen to be up in arms about Norwegian-Americans carrying -- gasp! -- Norwegian flags on Norwegian Indendence Day (acknowledged around here, ya, sure, you betcha) or people carrying the Irish flag on St. Patrick's Day, but ... silence. Which seemed odd compared to the apoplexy that accompanied Latinos carrying a Mexican flag during various pro-Latino marches.

Second, just, you know, as a general note, let's remember that anti-immigrant attitudes are hardly new (as noted) nor by any means only an American trait. Why, certain cultures whose names start with, mmm, J, or G, or even Fr, as but some examples, have been known to be quite explicitly prejudiced (and unashamed) in the way they treat their own immigrant communities. At least we eventually get around to assimilating everyone. Sometimes to the immigrants' dismay.

Third, it is a misconception that only Spanish speakers are catered to. Come on up here sometime (Seattle) and get a gander at the flyers that the city sends around to electric-utility customers, say, or literature from the DMV or the library. Why, it's a vertiable linguistic stew! The elementary school where my kids went officially recognized 14 languages as spoken among the student body.

[Shotrock]

Thanks for the post, Mike. I think it's great that Seattle makes an effort to respect *all* its non-native speakers. If I had the same plethora of forms at the average New Jersey DMV, I'd get a warm-fuzzy melting pot feeling about all this.

I think there are great cities like Seattle, who look at their grab bag of immigrants and adjust accordingly. Some locations have more specific immigrant groups that they have learned to cater to, language-wise (the Hmong in Minnesota come to mind). As I said, what I think makes this particular bi-lingual issue so toxic is that's arising from the perception, justified or otherwise, that we are moving towards a semi-official nationwide favoring of *one* ethno-linguistic group.

I had a discussion with my parents on this issue just the other day. FWIW, both lived and worked in South America for 20 years before moving back to the states. They are fluent in Spanish, and I'm pretty good at it myself (mas o menos). Their take on it is based on their own experience: Both learned Spanish when they moved to Peru not just to communicate more effectively (after all, they had plenty of English-speaking friends in the American and British expat community - as Latinos have their own communities here - so Spanish wasn't absolutely necessary for social networking) but because they both considered it the height of arrogant rudeness NOT to learn it - they were immigrants, Peru's offical language was Spanish, so they learned it, full stop. My mom still gets pissy thinking about the Anglo and American wives who lived in Lima for YEARS and couldn't say much more than "buenos dias." So to them, it's primarily a courtesy issue.