a rational perspective on the immigration debate

this came across via myspace. yes, there's actually more out dere than silly surveys and chain ltrs. thanks 'n' a tip o' the hat to tammy gomez for posting and claudia acosta for reposting.

Carlos Guerra: The Clash of Symbols Often Drowns Out Immigration Debate
05/02/2006 12:00 AM CDT
San Antonio Express-News

Debates over Monday's "Day Without Immigrants" will rage for weeks. And, predictably, media demagogues will deliver simplistic rants to boost their ratings, while closet racists will use their new vocabulary of code to vent their hatred and clueless xenophobes will continue to seek a return to an isolationism that never existed.

So what else is new?

The immigration debate has been raging since the tribal Departments of Homeland Security failed to stop the English, German and Dutch hordes pouring into the Eastern Seaboard. It was later fueled when waves of Irish, Scots, Italians and other Europeans came, eager to take jobs earlier immigrants no longer wanted.

And for the record, the notion that all "good" immigrants of yore embraced the prevailing culture and traded their native languages for English in one generation is false. Were that true, there wouldn't be dozens of communities across the nation where languages other than English or Spanish are spoken widely, and usually by multigeneration native-born Americans.

Granted, we need to deal with border issues, but in a rational, comprehensive manner that first recognizes that our vulnerability isn't limited to our Southern border, or even our other land border. We also need to control the entirety of our coastlines and to develop better ways to deal with the 40 percent of "illegals" who overstay work, student and tourist visas.

Most important, we must focus on substantive issues instead of emotional, symbolic ones.

Amazing, wasn't it, that after the first wave of pro-immigrant rallies drew unexpectedly large peaceful crowds, the fear mongers were left with only the number of Mexican flags to disparage. How dare they demand fairness and wave Mexican flags, the talk show hosts fumed, as if any of them ever went to any Six Flags theme parks to protest at least four of the banners.

Nor do I recall them outraged at orange-white-and-green flags at St. Patrick's Day parades or even the French tricolors at Bastille Day celebrations.

Then, when the next round of immigration rallies drew millions nationally, and American flags outnumbered those from Mexico, the complaint became that immigrants were usurping our national symbol.

The most venomous talk, however, erupted after some Latino stars recorded a Spanish translation of "The Star-Spangled Banner." Even President Bush, whose campaign once claimed that he is bilingual, got into that action, declaring that the national anthem should only be sung in English.

But where was the outrage over "Das Star-Spangled Banner," a German translation published in the early 1900s, or in 1919, when the U.S. Bureau of Education (a federal agency) commissioned a Spanish translation of the national anthem and distributed it widely? And was anyone angry about the 1943 Yiddish translation?

"The outcry over the (latest) Spanish translation of 'The Star-Spangled Banner' is an outgrowth of the current political crisis over immigration,"reasons John González, who teaches (wouldn't you know it) graduate and undergrad English at UT-Austin. "Immigration reform has become the surrogate forum for anxieties over cultural change."

So, let's have real, substantive discussions, and leave arguments about symbols to the symbol-minded.