This article attempts to find common ground on the issues of illegal Latino immigrants, Islamic refugees, and the African-American underclass experience.

::::::::

In the heat of discussion about the status of legal and illegal immigrants, building the wall, and Islamophobia, it might help to consider a few aspects not generally brought into the conversation. Since early in our history, a mass of oppressed and impoverished peoples have flocked to our shores to seek haven and opportunity in the New World. With notable exceptions, they have always been welcome and have contributed fundamentally to the character and prosperity of our nation.

As the nation became more settled and populated, limitations were imposed on immigration according to economic conditions, country of origin, and other factors reflecting social and political attitudes peculiar to the time. In general, peoples from different cultures and countries have adapted well and, over time, blended into a common American style of living while retaining and contributing something of their native cultural identity - such as St. Patrick's Day, which everyone celebrates.

Among the notable exceptions are the harsh treatment and restrictions imposed upon Chinese immigrants during the 19th and early part of the 20th centuries, and the unconstitutional imprisonment of Japanese, including native-born and naturalized citizens during World War II.

The eleven million or so undocumented immigrants from Latin American countries are a special case, requiring special treatment. Some of their ancestors were here before our nation existed. They have blended into the larger Latino community and have contributed immensely to our nation's well-being, commonly in essential menial jobs and at the sacrifice of better opportunities for self-improvement open to immigrants of legal status.

Granted, in a normal world - which doesn't currently exist - a nation would have control of its borders. But in the current state of affairs, borders are very fluid where countries are commonly transgressing each other's borders as flows of military forces and as exploitive economic policies of globalization create floods of political and economic refugees. A wall is not a permanent solution to keep out invasions of illegal immigrants. Walled fortresses and cities are the method of medieval times as required under perpetual hostilities. They reflect the medieval mentality of our present administration. We must look at the conditions causing the flow of immigrants and do something to correct them. And they are obvious.

Wherever there is great economic and political disparity, people will always migrate from poverty to better livelihood possibilities, and from oppression to relative freedom and opportunity. The flow will wax and wane but will never cease until some sort of equilibrium is established. The mere presence of our prosperous modern economic nation next to a region struggling under the backward plantation-like economic conditions of many Latin American countries acts like a magnet for immigration. On top of that, despite our government being in denial, our historical interference in the political and economic affairs of Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Chile, Columbia, Argentina, etc., has contributed significantly to the flow of immigrants.

If we could change our policies towards Latin America to a "Good Neighbor" policy envisioned by Franklin Delano Roosevelt - rein in our corporate exploitation there, change our trading, lending, and privatization practices that tend to drive some countries towards bankruptcy, as described in John Perkins' "Confessions of An Economic Hit Man" - that could curtail immigration.

This, of course, will never happen with our present political/economic system, where private corporate interests take priority in all government policies. Perhaps one day, as a consequence of globalization (in the good meaning), we will establish in North America something like the European Union - but better realized - where people can move freely between states and enlightened economic policies would promote better living conditions in impoverished regions.

The attitudes towards and restrictions against immigrants from Islamic countries, intensified now under present conditions of world turmoil and terrorism, present a somewhat different set of circumstances. Because of fears for security, there is a lot of hysteria and suspicion among some people about anyone who may resemble a terrorist. The problem is aggravated by a heightened climate of racism and bigotry that often accompanies economic and political troubles. To add to the problem, any discussion suggesting the need for adaptation by Muslim immigrants may be taken as Islamophobia.

As mentioned above, earlier immigrants, for the most part, have blended well over time and have become part of the general American culture that they have helped establish. The relative small numbers of those who cling strictly to their native cultures and communicate almost exclusively in their native language, retire into their own communities and have minimal contact with the general population, such as the Hassidic Jews of New York.

Some of the recent immigrants and refugees coming from starkly different cultures will not immediately blend into the general population. Their different habits of dress and religion, etc., challenge the tolerance of some people here. But most of them may quickly fit into the general American life style, as they have already experienced some degree of liberalization from strict Islamic traditions in their home country. (Re: "The Islamic Enlightenment" by Christopher de Beliague.) The critical factors are how deeply they have been imbued with archaic traditions from centuries ago, and to what extent they can think independently to re-evaluate the importance of some of those traditions and be able to adapt well to their new surroundings. The classic rule for adaptation is "When in Rome, do as the Romans do", although that should be taken with a grain of salt.

The situation of African-Americans often resembles that of the recent immigrants, although their ancestors have been here for centuries and they are entitled citizens. Many exceptionally motivated and talented people among them, and most of those having middle-class jobs have fully integrated into the common culture and economy. But, regardless of their position, they may still be subjected to discriminatory and demeaning or even injurious treatment on occasion that may prevent them from having the security of being fully accepted into the general society.

A large segment of this population remains underprivileged, in economic and cultural despair. They have never been fully integrated into the common American society despite attempts at school integration, civil-rights movements, and social-welfare programs. In fact, remedial social-welfare programs for the poor sustain the status quo by acknowledging poverty as a permanent condition for these people (and others).

In contrast, the conscientious promotion of the general welfare as a basic democratic and constitutional social right could permanently lift these people out of economic and cultural despair and integrate them eventually into mainstream society.

Part of the problem of the underclass African Americans is that they have self-consciously separated themselves culturally by clinging to folkways that contrast conspicuously with mainstream America - particularly in the economic world. I refer mainly to language. To illustrate, think of the contrast in England between the stereotype cockneys and those who speak "the king's language". This is a separation that is difficult to overcome. I am not suggesting that they give up their native ways but, like the successful immigrant, they should be able to adapt to mainstream America rather than avoid it as a reaction to rejection.

Of course, the problems discussed here are not merely an individual's choice to resolve, although many have overcome these obstacles. These problems lie mainly with the nature of our diverse national culture that has not sufficiently matured to a state of equality of humanity - despite patriotic slogans to the contrary. They lie in the failure of our educational systems and of our governments to prioritize these matters. In any controversy, an enlightened government should always take the high road, as our Constitution proposes in the Preamble.

Authors Bio:

Veteran, retired from several occupations (school teacher, technical writer, energy conservation business, etc.) long-time Sierra Club member