Today's New York Times has an interesting article about generational differences in attitudes toward immigration and immigration reform. Here are a couple of paragraphs that give the gist of the article:
Meanwhile, baby boomers, despite a youth of "live and let live," are siding with older Americans and supporting the Arizona law.
This emerging divide has appeared in a handful of surveys taken since the measure was signed into law, including a New York Times/CBS News poll this month that found that Americans 45 and older were more likely than the young to say the Arizona law was "about right" (as opposed to "going too far" or "not far enough"). Boomers were also more likely to say that "no newcomers" should be allowed to enter the country while more young people favored a "welcome all" approach.
The generational conflict could complicate chances of a federal immigration overhaul any time soon. "The hardening of this divide spells further stalemate," said Roberto Suro, the former head of the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center.
And the causes are partly linked to experience. Demographically, younger and older Americans grew up in vastly different worlds. Those born after the civil rights era lived in a country of high rates of legal and illegal immigration. In their neighborhoods and schools, the presence of immigrants was as hard to miss as a Starbucks today.
In contrast, baby boomers and older Americans—even those who fought for integration—came of age in one of the most homogenous moments in the country’s history.
I think this could go a long way toward explaining what might seem to many of us like a puzzling attitude toward immigration from some quarters. It also fits with the demographic profile of the Tea Baggers (as older, whiter, and wealthier than the general population), many of whom are anti-immigrant and in favor of Arizona's new law (and probably in favor of more draconian measures!).
While the article doesn't paint an optimistic picture—it makes the point that younger folks are less likely to vote—it is nice to hear about the sit-in at John McCain's office to press for the DREAM Act (and by undocumented college students, no less).
Here's another story about excellent grassroots activism against Arizona's new law, involving immigrants themselves directly confronting the Tea Baggers. It is inspiring enough that even the lbo-talk "Marquises de Grouchy" (to quote a memorable post over there by Chuck Grimes), who sometimes seem to pooh-pooh any activist effort, took notice. The beginning of the story:
On the one hand, there is a strong nativist movement afoot in Arizona that is overwhelmingly white, mostly over the age of fifty, and largely male. They fear that "illegals are invading" and causing all manner of mayhem, from home invasions to overcrowded emergency rooms to automated voices forcing them to "press 1 for English." They are represented by the Tea Party and local politicians such as State Senator Russell Pearce. Their goal is to hound and harass all "illegal aliens" out of Arizona—and if they have to check the papers of every brown-skinned person in the state to do it, fine. "Attrition through enforcement," Pearce calls it. That phrase is now written into Arizona law. At their demand, SB 1070 turns every cop in the state into an immigration officer, practically requires racial profiling, and denies the freedom of Arizonans to associate with whoever they please, documented or not. With the passage of 1070, nativists are confident that they control the territory.
But what happens when you hold a Tea Party and a bunch of "illegals" show up?
Facing down the nativist faction is a ragtag, underfinanced, increasingly fearless, and thoroughly working class movement that seeks to destroy SB 1070 and replace the Tea Party's bogus call for "small government"—by the way, how is a government where every cop is empowered to check your papers "small"?—with a real call for freedom of movement and association. The hope for Arizona rests with this group that is fighting at the grassroots for the freedom to live, love, and work wherever you please.
One of the first battles between these two forces took place last Tuesday in the small mountain town of Flagstaff, Arizona (population 60,000). The Flagstaff City Council voted 7-0 to sue the state government to prevent SB 1070 from going into effect. (Earlier that day, Tucson's city council voted 5-1 to do the same thing. Now other towns, such as Yuma and Naco, are also threatening to file an injunction.)
The rest of the article is well worth reading.
Finally, check out this fact sheet from the Institute for Women's Policy Research about economic/social conditions for Latino/as in Arizona.
—CS
