Unexpected 'bonus': someone I had linked to approvingly took slaps at not only my intelligence but my ancestry, the latter of which I foolishly made public here on my blog for all to see. I regret having done that, too.
I still stand by what I said about many (and no, I never said 'all' or '100 percent') of certain ethnic groups having other allegiances and other loyalties which are at least equal to or in conflict with their American loyalties. If this does not apply to you and yours, why get miffed? If the shoe fits, wear it, and if not -- why take offense?
It should not even have to be said, for the hundredth time, that a generalized statement always, always allows for exceptions. Yet the fact that there are exceptions does not in any way invalidate the rule. How hard is that to understand?
Evidence that many Ellis Island-era immigrant descendants have sentimental feelings about their own immigrant family history which translates into sympathy for today's immigrants is plentiful. Anybody with their eyes open, and with no personal biases, can find it.
One example: Michael Barone, one of the prominent pro-immigrant voices.
...Barone–himself of Irish and Italian ancestry...
And then there's Peggy Noonan, who, although she may be a restrictionist at a given moment, always lapses back into swooning over immigrants and 'wanting to kiss their hands.' Yes, she actually wrote those words in a silly piece after the mass illegal protests in 2006.
And let's not forget the fourth-generation Kennedy family, Teddy being the most prominent example. Are they exceptions, or the rule?
And here, in a piece from Center for Immigration Studies, Fredo Arias-King makes similar observations.
Many Americans of Irish, Jewish, Italian, Polish, and other "second-wave" immigration descent tend to sympathize with more recent waves of immigrants. Many of these "white ethnics" recall how their great-grandparents suffered discrimination by the "WASP" (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant) establishment of the time. They also feel certain pride that despite this, they and their descendants succeeded in the United States.
It seems that the WASPs were affected as well by that legacy. This group seems to feel embarrassed of their ancestors’ behavior, as many of those groups that were not originally welcomed have indeed become successful and have largely integrated. In addition, this author has noticed a certain discrepancy between the private and public attitudes of these WASPs. While as common citizens they tend to be privately cool toward the idea of immigration, this changes when they feel the public light is shone on them (as when they become public officials). Then they become pro-immigration advocates and even deprecating toward their own kind. An example is the metaphor that ended George W. Bush’s inauguration address, in that the sun was setting in west (traditionally white and higher-income) El Paso, whereas it was rising in the eastern (mostly Hispanic and poor) side.
Several congressmen in this group cited their "white ethnic" heritage to defend the right of Mexican immigrants and to express sympathy to this author about their plight. Similarly, the apparent vestigial guilt of congressmen of WASP descent seemed to be a factor that restrained them from opposing such immigration. Other WASP congressmen were quite vocal in their support for the immigrants. One of them recalled a story from a paper he had read, stating that California had begun to have more non-white births than white births. Jubilantly, this (WASP) congressman raised his hand to offer me a "high five."
Emphasis mine, by the way.
These observations are not unique. They've been made many times.
Arias-King mentions the role played by WASPs in the pro-immigration movement. WASP elites get skewered here too, but I think that the guilt piled on White old-stock Americans, primarily because of the grievances by the 'second-wave' immigrant descendants, has caused them to overreact in the opposite direction, as a way of making up for past 'sins'. WASPs who are on the wrong side are liable to criticism too. They get more than their share of it, while immigrants and immigrant descendants can play the victim card perpetually.
I stand by what I said. I may have painted with a 'broad brush' as some critics say, but I do that here. The situation is too dire for me to deal in subtlety and understatement. Sometimes a broad brush is the only way to get the message across, especially after decades of PC-footing around. One can paint with a broad brush and still be generally accurate.
And I will say it again just for good measure: if my broad-brush strokes are unfair to you or yours, who are exceptions to the generalizations, then more power to you, and there's no need for offense if you know you are an exception. Otherwise, please don't expect an apology or response from me.
[One last thing: a word to the wise for the three commenters (you know who you are) who are posting after being banned, in two cases, after being banned under several IP numbers. I've been tolerant and tried to give those three another chance, but that won't last forever; my tolerance is finite.]