Many people endorse driving a large SUV because it offers more impact protection than smaller cars, and feel no obligation to limit their efforts on their family's behalf. Should we expect a Mexican to resist trying to earn more money for his family? Not if we have any sense or ethics.

So this is the rub. The illegal immigrant is not a criminal generally, only bureaucratically, locally. The illegal is doing something that has to be viewed as moral, if waiting for a visa  means a good chance of no chance. Waiting through the application process only makes sense (for the Mexican) if immigration is unlimited, and his visa is a sure thing. With any doubt, waiting is economically a bad bet, and immoral from his family's point of view. Since unlimited immigration is not going to happen, and not needed, what is the alternative?

It's either The Great Wall or wage/conditions protection, eliminating the low-end jobs. I would personally rather spend a bit more money at the food store or restaurant than in the increased taxes need to build and patrol the Wall. Side benefits would be those farm workers and day laborers could be jobs for our young people. After all, Daylight Savings was introduced to aid the harvest (as were as summer vacations for school).

While I don't care for the vituperative tenor, Michael, I'd like to comment on the sentiment you expressed in your concluding line: "If a nation-state cannot legitimately exercise control over its borders, by what right does it tax people within its borders?"

It's interesting to me that quite a few readers here, me included, want the Dems to press the FISA issue because we feel it's the right thing to do, that Presidents no more than anyone else shouldn't just be able to violate the laws with impunity.

By the same token, following that attempt to abide by a clear principle that we have laws in this country which people are expected to abide by, I don't see how looking the other way from illegal immigrants who, however understandably, have not played by the rules, can be justified to those who do.  How can we Democrats be a party that says what it means and means when it says about respect for the rule of law at home and abroad, while largely winking at illegal immigration?

I am not anti-immigrant.  I am pro immigrant.  But I am for regulated immigration and respect for the laws.  Let's argue about how much immigration we should have.  Whatever conclusion we arrive at, end the caste system which deprives illegal immigrants of elemental dignity.  If people are here legally, they get rights and they don't have to cower in fear of the authorities.  If they aren't, then they don't have a right to be here, however much we might sympathize with their plight. 

I know there are many Democrats who see this as a compassion issue, one on which we need to side with those who live in horrible poverty in other countries. 

But consider that there are about 1.5 million children of illegal immigrants who are US citizens on account of being born in the US, along with about 3.1 million resident children of illegal immigrants living in the US who were not born in the US.   Consider where these children are going to school.  Is it in the upper middle class, low poverty suburbs?  Is it to posh private schools?  No.  Too often, they are going to high poverty, urban public schools which in many cases are already fighting against the weight of large class sizes, too many under-qualified teachers, and gutted tax bases. 

We, many of us, believe we want to help poor African American, Latino and Asian American children of US citizens living in high poverty areas have a realistic chance at the sort of education that can open up doors in their lives.  These folks pay the taxes required of them.  Their kids in too many cases are in the same overcrowded classrooms as the children of illegal immigrants who are not paying all of their taxes.

Or consider the prospect of being a resident legally in the country without health insurance waiting in an overcrowded emergency room for emergency care--behind, sometimes, an illegal immigrant likewise without health insurance who got in the queue before you did.  Suppose you really, really need medical attention very, very soon and don't get it because someone else--a fellow suffering human being who in a utopia would never be rendered a virtual beggar as you are--did instead?

Were citizen or legal resident adults living in high poverty urban areas to think of pro illegal immigrant liberals as a bunch of useless hypocrites, would they have a point?  And if based on their experiences they hold a degree of resentment and anger towards illegal immigrants with whom they have been set off in competition for scarce quality public services in some cases, are such sentiments entirely unfounded?  Our immigration policies, far from offering them succor or hope, would seem to place yet additional barriers in their way.    

Maybe there are great and satisfying ripostes to these questions.  I haven't heard them yet.    

Of course we can legitimately exercise control of our borders, but can we do it effectively? And once someone is here can we violate human rights by denying services? Harsh penalties for those who aid illegals are both immoral and beside the point. Only a huge effort to patrol open areas and/or a Wall stands a chance of stopping the influx. You can't persuade a Mexican not to do what works for himself and his family.

That there are illegal immigrants is bad. (Rule of law.)

That a man (or woman) can find a job to better his/her family's life is good. (Rule of ethics.)

If jobs are attractive to American workers they will have a big advantage (living nearby, speaking the language, etc.) in getting those jobs. The big question is why we tolerate exploitative wages and conditions, if we don't want foreign people to try and fill them. Focus on why they come.

It's interesting how many self-described "progressives" are one-world cosmopolitans when it comes to immigration laws, but staunch patriots and nationalists when it comes to taxes, demanding that we enforce tax laws against "unpatriotic" corporations

I'm sure there's a way for a "progressive" like you to support your GOP-not-so-Lite agenda without sounding like a complete dick.  Maybe you should spend some time thinking about what that might be, and take a break from writing this stuff down for the rest of us.

See, people tend to get our sympathies because they're, you know, people.  Corporations, though our law frequently treats them as people, don't often get much sympathy, because they ain't.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Dupes?

 You're about to be buried in the ashcan of history.  Globalization is under serious siege,

Michael would do well do have something more substantial to say than "dupes"

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Dupes?

 You're about to be buried in the ashcan of history.  Globalization is under serious siege,

Michael would do well do have something more substantial to say than "dupes"

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

This colloquy is about a meeting yesterday of a Texas county Democratic County Convention- there's the future Michael. Wake up and smell the coffee. The cholos are waking up in Texas, not properly domesticated I suppose.

In Cahleefohnia, they're mad as hell and so too the 21-30 demographic.  You'd best watch out for thosse "dupes"

11608. robertjayb - 3/27/2006 1:47:00 AM

County democratic convention yesterday. Slightly less pathetic than in some recent years. We now have a few steady contributers and may (gasp) accumulate enough cash to have an actual budget. Up from a $150 bank balance two years ago. Such is the plight of dems in bush country.

We passed the usual ream of useless feelgood resolutions favoring bluer skies and greener grass, etc. I was surprised and disappointed by the vehemence of our hispanic brethren wrt the currently proposed immigration legislation. They want no part of it and say so loudly and angrily.

We had a short talk from Congressman Chet Edwards, sole survivor of the DeLay-led redistricting scam faces a pretty boy ex-marine Iraq veteran with old Exxon money in his family. Chet says he wants to continue as Bush's congressman. Ha. Maybe.

11611. jexster - 3/27/2006 4:33:23 AM

The fact that UR surpised and disappointed isencouraging. I always axe my brother - what  is wrong with Tejas hispanics? Why aren't they like Cahleefohnia hispanics...more democratic each cycle ever since Pete Wilson wrecked the GOP's fortunes getting re-elected via immigrant bashing.

My brother could answer beyond opining that the community has been "domesticated" - Southern styl.

Robert it is about time they put down their leaf blowers and mobilized for action.

I am glad they are pissed. They won't fooled again by the GOP and you know the best part Rohbuhrt? When you start bashing Hisparnics, the Asians start voting more and more democratic- each cycle.

Shit we'll sweep for California to the Sabine River and maybe Florida too.

It is just a matter of time and cojones ese

The Future Marches in LA -- and Denver, Chicago and...

An army of a million people loyal to Mexico occupies all major American cities a few days ago and demands our borders be undefended, and the home state of the Alamo, of William Austin and Sam Houston, doesn't say anything at all.

Either Texans have no pride left or Texas democrats are missing a golden opportunity to sweep the state.  I have to ask, does  Brokeback Mountain really represent the new Texas legend? If so, perhaps you ought to revise the qualifications for your candidates.

Uh huh. And when Irish-American legislators in the '80s wrote in the massive immigration exception for Ireland which brought over a million Irish immigrants to the US in the early '90s and legalized hundreds of thousands who were here illegally, were they agents of Ireland who should have been shot for treason?

Sam Houston and William Austin are relevant to this discussion. They were early proponents of the notion that we ought to steal Mexicans' land and relegate Mexicans to the status of second-class citizens. It seems never to have crossed their minds that by keeping our southern neighbors poor, politically unstable and disenfranchised, we were guaranteeing problems for ourselves down the road. Mean-eyed bullies who welcomed the chance to kick a neighbor in perpetuity to show how tough they were. Perhaps Texas does need some new legends.

 The illegal immigrant is not a criminal generally, only bureaucratically , locally.

I'm not sure that that justification is one that would (or even should) fly.

As the second generation of an Italian immigrant in 1907, I'll tell you what Grandpa told me when I asked him why he came here:

"There was nothing there in the Old Country.  America was the place I wanted to be".  So I sympathize with all immigrants coming to a place where there is for them a better life.  However:

Grandpa (with a sixth grade education in Italy) emigrated at 14 and taught himself the language and learned to read.

He became a citizen.

He worked some pretty S*** jobs till he could improve his skills to move to better ones.

The discipline of his household was that to be a good American, you had to speak English and participate in the society.  Italian was not spoken around the children.  He encouraged education in his children and they passed that on to us (the grandchildren).

So to all those immigrants that are here with those goals, welcome!

To all those "guest workers" that are just here as "economic refugees" for the work, go home.  You see, this is America.  You will either use the system or be abused by it.  This government will not prosecute the real criminals, the real felons.  Those businesses that hire you for substandard wages, work you in substandard conditions, and prey upon your subterrainian status will only profit from your condition.  The I-9 laws will not deter them.  Only removing you from their grip can begin to dismantle their criminal enterprise. 

If a business model requires an illegal component to be profitable, then they might as well be selling crack, and should be dealt with as such.

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada

From Americans who work for a living and have felt betrayed by the Democrats ever since they pushed through NAFTA and globalization under Clinton. Bring those people back in and you win. These people used to be your base after all.

IOW appeal to the working class like FDR did, don't tell them to drop dead like Newmann is asking or ridicule them as stupid and lazy as many liberals do now. 

Its a lot better than flooding the country with 10's of millions of illegals hoping their kids vote Democrat.

BrooksFoe: The topic under discussion in my comment was about Progressive strategies for Texas Elections. You can read an entry in my blog about that subject. http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/27994

As for the issues you raise, well, thats an issue to be discussed in another conversation. You are welcome to email me if you want to continue. I would be interested in your arguments and any supporting evidence you might supply.

Although I normally study Sino-American economic relations, I do know enough about "non US" American issues to have a somewhat different view, and I would be interested in reevaluating my knowledge of the area.

"From Americans who work for a living and have felt betrayed by the Democrats ever since they pushed through NAFTA and globalization under Clinton. Bring those people back in and you win. These people used to be your base after all."

The problem is that I don't think there's any chance whatsoever that we can outdemagogue the GOP on immigration, so why shouldn't we pursue the Hispanic vote instead?

"Its a lot better than flooding the country with 10's of millions of illegals hoping their kids vote Democrat."

It's not about waiting for anyone's kids. There are plenty of Hispanic citizens already registered to vote, and plenty more every year.

California used to be a reddish-purple state until the state GOP tried to demagogue the immigration issue, and now California is solid blue. If the national GOP starts foaming at the mouth on immigration, watch Texas flip next.

All that said, I think Michael Lind is one of the smarter out-of-the-box thinkers in the Democratic party, so I'm curious how he sees the electoral calculations of his stance playing out.

Interesting. exactly how long have you lived in Guatamala and where?

Were you Mestizo or European? Are you making your comparison to pre or post Hurricane Stan or Mitch? Are you former URNG?

The fact of the matter is that 36 years of civil war and two hurricanes has destroyed most of Guatamala.  Could you possibly explain how it is America's responsiblity to take care of Guatamala citizens suffering from climactic and political upheaval?

How exactly does are responsibility divide between our own Katrina victims  of the gulf states and the Stan and Mitch victims of Guatamala? We do not have enough resources for both.

Umm, last I looked, that group was a minority. Pretty much by self identification as well as census.

That would imply that there is a majority that is NOT them, by the laws of math. It might be that Lind feels that appealing to a majority might be better than appealing to a minority, especially one that is in favor of non citizens, who, by definiton, cannot vote.

We, many of us, believe we want to help poor African American, Latino and Asian American  children of US citizens living in high poverty areas have a realistic chance at the sort of education that can open up doors in their lives.  These folks pay the taxes required of them.  Their kids in too many cases are in the same overcrowded classrooms as the children of illegal immigrants who are not paying all of their taxes.

Yes...and given America's track record with non-immigrant minorities, like African Americans, Latinos, and Hmongs....then we can expect a lot of disparity and gaps when it comes to opportunities due to the poor education in their communities despie paying taxes.

Minorities have much higher unemployment rates, lack of health insurance and poor access to healthcare as compared to the mainstream population.  So, it seems that all this 'compassion' does not equate to real meaningful outcomes for most of those who are born citizens in this country but are members of ethnic minorities. Yet, we have some pie in the sky view that somehow it is going to be different for illegal immigrants?

Especially given it is these very same communities which will bear the disproportionate impact of illegal immigrants, crowding their schools, clinics and unemployment offices.

"Of all the issues you could have fought on, you picked the one that hurts hard working Americans the most. They suffered through NAFTA, off-shoring, corporate pension fraud and now they get a stab in the back by Democrats."

Well, during the horrible suffering of NAFTA, real median wages in this country increased during the Clinton administration for the only time in the last 30 years.

Given the tenor of your criticism, waltc, I'd suggest your problems with immigration have more to do with cultural issues than with the fate of the American worker.

Is the triple posting a word play on "dupes"?

   What an opportunity then, since the latinos recognize that the Republicans are not in their corner, The democrats don't have to pander to them either, where else can they turn.

   Now maybe we can address healthcare issues that effect all the people, tax reform to help midddleclasss America. Job creation for all.

Not just Latino issues.    

By virtue of having lived on the border for a lifetime, I could add a few dozen or so first-hand but by definition anecdotal observations that would fit almost any argument on any side of this question by way of "proving" that this guy is wrong and that guy is right.

What does that tell you? (And don't start shooting the messenger, please.)  What it tells me is that this is a political minefield, without any clear ideas or solutions as long as we remain foolish enough to see that it is a no-win situation.

I submit that we need to start thinking anew about where to go, based on an acceptance of some essential facts that have nothing to do with hypothetical proposals involving establishing laws or policies that ignore those facts.

First, the millions of new citizens, citizens-to-be, resident aliens, undocumented immigrants, guest workers, and scores of others who somehow fall between the cracks in that collection are either here to stay or well enough entrenched in our communities to be a permanent fixture of our American society.  Second, there is no likelihood at all that, given current attitudes and lacking any new proposals that provide a magic bullet, the porosity of our southern border either can or will be transfigured.

That leaves us with no option but to concentrate on correcting an untenable problem that is now internal rather than external in nature.  Some of the posts here have attempted to define or at least suggest things like tax incentives, penalties for noncompliance with local ordinances, greater emphasis on promoting social integration of immigrants, etc.  This is a beginning.  But as we know, macro policies like blanket amnesties, guest worker programs, and the utterly foolhardy "war on drugs" are little more than willful delusions.

Ok, I am being a wet blanket.  Or you can say that if I have nothing positive to add I should shut up.  But believe me, people, this is not just another opportunity for one party or the other to gain votes or win arguments; it goes to the very heart of where this country has been and where it's going.  And in that sense it is not a "liberal" or "conservative" issue to be sliced and diced in blogs and editorials.  We are badly in need of some real leadership here.

RG

Folks

This is a really hard issue. Name calling Michael Lind style seems to be the order of the day.  I guess that is to be expected when we are confronted with a hard issue. I would think Lind would be better than that, but I guess he is as human as the rest of us.

Why is this a hard question, well, we are talking about 11 to 12 million illegal aliens. Most of them have been in our country for more than 5 years. They are doing low wage, hard work jobs for us. Tending our babies,  cleaning our rugs, picking our fruit. Not many young Americans (the land that hard work forgot) are willing to take on those jobs.  I don't think they pay taxes because their employers pay in cash. As a result they add greatly to the taxpayer's burden.

On the other side, nobody is saying that the farmers, low wage employers, or even some of you who hire a gardner to tend your yard or house keeper to tend your children should bear any responsibility for your decision to exploit poor undocumented (illegal) aliens.  Or if they are saying it, they aren't saying it too loudly.  God knows you want the votes and campaign contributions.  The Republicans do.

Anyway it is a pretty safe bet that we aren't going to actually deport 11 million people. Nor are we going to put a bunch of farmers or upper middle class republican home owners or low wage employers in prison for hiring them.We might put a few priests and nuns in prison for giving them aid and comfort. But hey they are democrats and not republicans.

What to do, what to do?  I don't like a guest worker program that doesn't have citizenship at the end. We would end up like Germany with a permanent indentured servent class.  A wall with machine guns seems a pretty bad message to send to the rest of the world.

How about making staying in Mexico attractive? What if we were to insist that the Mexican oligarchy treat its citizens with respect? You know Mexico isn't really a poor country.  It has lots of oil, and natural resources. It has the 2nd largest number of billionaires in the world. It has really, really bad wealth distribution.  A bunch of rich who don't give a shit about their own citizens, and much, much larger group without any hope.  What about universal education reform?  No more poor uneducated Mexican kids running around the streets. What if we insisted they improve their health care system?  What if we insisted they spend money on environmental protection? Cleaning up their country would create lots of jobs.  What if we insisted they install real democracy?   What about making it harder for illegal aliens to ship money to Mexico?  What if ws spent a fraction of the money we are spending on Iraq to improve the infrastructure of Mexico and Central America?  I don't know, maybe none of these ideas work, but it seems that we have to be more creative than creating 20 million felons. Our prisons aren't big enough.  What would be the Mexicans incentive to do what we ask.  how about NAFTA.  How about the fact that we have the biggest army in the world.  If there was ever a national security issue this is it.  The only solution is to make life better in Mexico and Central America so those "global economic refugees" don't have any reason to seek refuge.

Don't tell me we are not into nation building. Iraq puts the lie to that one.  

Ron Byers

I'm having trouble understanding what Mr. Lind's point is.  Aside from sarcasm and PC-bashing, what does he propose?  That the US stop collecting taxes until the illegal immigration problem is solved?  I do like the framework of that argument.  "Until a nation does X, what right does it have to collect taxes?"

I think murder is a more serious problem than illegal immigration.  How about "Until a nation drops its murder rate to zero, by what right does it tax people who are not completely protected by the police?"

Cancer is a more serious problem than illegal immigration.  "By what right does a nation tax people who are not protected from terminal diseases?"

It sounds like Mr. Lind has been to one too many cocktail party with whiny corporate cronies who have nothing better to do than bitch and moan about "political correctness" and about how their luxurious lifestyles are hampered by the occasional tax bill.

It doesn't particularly affect whether this argument stands in its own context, but one thing that troubles me about this argument is that it doesn't, to my mind, adequately describe the obligations of the president.  As the embodiment of government, the President's obligation to obey the law, if anything, should be even stronger than the obligation on the rest of us.  There are laws that constrain the actions of everyone, and actions that only apply to government agents - Presidents who don't obey the former are corrupt, and those that don't obey the latter are verging on the tyrannical.  Individuals who don't obey the laws that apply to them are guilty of crimes, but their actions (in isolation anyway) are not nearly as corrosive to society.

What worries me about the rule of law argument that you and others are making is that it can be used against us - see you folks don't really believe all this rule of law stuff, you're just cynically using the NSA thing because you hate the president.  I think you can be lax on immigration and hard on the President consistently, because one is just more serious than the other.  But either way, inasmuch as many on the left aren't going to accept the criminalization of immigrants, the more this argument is out there, the more it will be used against us in the larger context. 

There are protests against against foreign investment in France, the United States but as the Schumer Graham visit to China demonstrates globalization is expanding not shrinking. 

 If globalization ended the three immediate impacts would be poor and working class people in America would pay a lot more for virtually everthing, mortgage rates would go up and in all likelihood every exporting industing, for example agriculture and software, will undergo enormous job cutbacks.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

"Of course we can legitimately exercise control of our borders, but can we do it effectively?"

Not if we don't even try.

Dan K --
I really don't see that you have any reason at all to call Lind "anti-immigrant" or "nativist" or "left-hating." You say that you're "shocked" that "progressives" are lining up with laissez-faire Republicans and cheap-labor conservatives. Well, how shocked are you, exactly?

Apparently not so shocked that you can't immediately turn your attention to the "important question" of scooping up Hispanic votes.

I hate this high-minded middle-class liberal shit. The working class in America is being ground to dust by outsourcing, the suppression of unions, and the hiring of illegal immigrants. Spare us your fucking chin-pulling and pearl-clutching about "nativism" and figure out whose side you're on.

The "local" nature of the crime is that the instant before a Mexican's foot crosses the border he is acting morally on behalf of his family. When there is better work across the border we can't expect the guy to stay home.

If Italy shared a border with the US there would probably have been many who came for work and went home or sent the money home. I might be wrong but I would guess Mexicans have been coming here for work for a hundred years. We have grown dependent (we think) on them. Now they are the source of the problem?

While our standard of living has climbed (higher rents, food costs, etc.) we have failed to enforce a reasonable floor at the bottom of the wage range. If we do, Americans will fill those jobs.

What's so bad about picking lettuce? Maybe the crappy wage and the inhumane work standards? Should food have low costs if it requires slaves? Obviously not. Should food costs be low if it requires wages that no American would accept? Apparently yes, but I disagree.

If day labor paid better American youth would be out there taking those jobs.  

Exactly where in Nathan's posts does he say we should just open our borders to everyone?  I did not read that in his posts.

The straw man I am referring to is the notion that the only choices are either opening wide the borders or cracking down and making illegal immigrants felons and also punishing anyone who helps them.  Nothing you have said changes my mind on that.  As for Lind's suggestions, I certainly can agree that we need strong and well defended borders.  Building a wall is not, I think, a very good idea.  A poster on DKos has a very interesting diary where he showed pictures of the geographic madness of that idea.

As far as your other arguments are concerned, well of course there are those who put compassion and empathy at the top of their list and sure there are those who are "politically correct."  But to lump progressives all together is just plain incorrect.  You go look at DKos again and all the other blogs -- you'll see there are many many posters there who are very concerned about this situation and want strong and secure borders; there are also, unfortunately, those on the left who are as xenophobic about Mexicans as those on the right.

Frankly, to me this is only a progressive issue insofar as how immigration reform is carried out.  The Republican Congress and Bush are interested only in scoring points.  I can't say at the present time the Democrats are doing much better in terms of bold proposals.  But I would trust Kennedy over Kyle even given the criticisms Lind has posited.  As for your criticisms, have you read the legislation?  I haven't and I'm not about to take Lind's word for it as to his criticisms.

"Should we expect a Mexican to resist trying to earn more money for his family?"

No, we should just keep him on the other side of the border.

Nobody's saying this, nobody's saying that. We can't do this, we won't do that. Jeepers, it's just too hard! Let's do nothing.

Not really. A much better idea would be to impose a transaction cost of some kind, say, the forfeiture of a large tax discount if caught.

For example, lets raise employer taxes  50%, then offer a 50% discount to all employers who are NOT convicted of hiring illegal aliens.  The employer would then have to balance the cost of illlegal labor against the cost of being fined all the tax rebates they have received AND losing the right to any future rebates.

Employers would be a lot more worried about that than prison.

You catch more flies with honey, especially if their wings are covered in the stuff.

ONWARD AND UPWARD!   

seth,

I live in a neighborhood in The Bronx with immigrants from perhaps 50 nations surrounding, and I love it; I love it so much, the story of NYC, that I can be driven to proseletize that balanced (nations, cultures. classes) legal immigration is the solution to a lot of problems, and that it is at the heart of what's special about the "new world" of places like the U.S., Canada and Australia. So I wholeheartedly go "rah, rah" at several of the things you say.

BUT you are ignoring the main issue at heart here because you are lucky enough to live in NYC were we haven't had to deal with the problem that the entire Southwest has dealt with for decades. They have no mix, they have an influx of Central Americans.  Our situation in the U.S. right now gives incredible preferences to Central American immigrants and most notably Mexican ones, over all others.  They come illegally because they are lucky enough to live in the right geographic place and unfairly take the places of others trying to play by the rules. It's killing Mexico and making a mockery of true belief in the good of continuous immigration.

Those who use the historical 19th century Irish example as an excuse is bogus.  Anyone who has studied it in detail knows that that legal mass migration caused many of the same problems we are once again dealing with.  Those Irish were even used as cannon fodder straight off the boat in our Civil War, they lived in wretched poverty in slums, and were just as hated and abused and misused, if not more so, as the most wretched Central American migrants now....there are many other similarities....it was all because of their massive numbers. Immigration from one single country to another single country is not a good or efficient solution for severe problems in the originating country; just doesn't work.

All of these comments and nobody has mentioned Marge Simpson's lament on Apu's (almost) deportation as an illegal immigrant: "His only crime was violating U.S. law!"

Interesting, could you deifne "white" Or forthat matter of fact, "European"? Or AMerican?

Its a practical question. Am I any of theose categories? I am Jewish, of Russian, German, Spanish, Polish and (eventually) middle eastern) descent...as a matter of fact I can trace my mothers family back to 1200AD Spain, and 1800 B.C. Miodle East, and my fathers to at least 400 A.D. Rhine Valley, Germany.  And culturally, I have internalized elements of hindu, chinese and black cultures.