February 13, 2006

UP COMES THE NEIGHBORHOOD (via Timothy Goddard):

Bilingual real estate agents in high demand: Hispanics moving to Northwest from California (SCOTT MABEN, 2/12/06, The (Eugene) Register-Guard)

Getting ready to move to Eugene from Arizona last summer, Jesus Ochoa and his family knew one thing for sure: They wanted a real estate agent who spoke Spanish to help them find their new home.

The family of six speaks English. But Ochoa and his wife, Laura, both originally from Mexico, feel more comfortable communicating in their native language — especially important for understanding all of the paperwork involved in buying a house, he said.

“Other real estate agents, when they do not speak Spanish, sometimes they just jump to the end of the page,” said Ochoa, who previously owned homes in Arizona and California. He wanted to work with a Spanish-speaking real estate agent, Ochoa said, to make sure he “understood every little thing.”

Bilingual real estate agents are in high demand among Hispanics, the fastest-growing segment of the area’s real estate market, local agents say.

The Ochoas, who recently purchased a three-bedroom home in west Eugene, worked with Chris Suarez at Re/Max Integrity in Eugene, following recommendations from people at their church.

After a few months of looking, Suarez found the family a nice house in their price range and in a desirable location, Ochoa said.

Family, church, home ownership....therefore will the Left join the nativists.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 13, 2006 4:23 PM

Is your repeated insistence that the Left will favor immigration restrictions in the future a way of compensating for the fact that the Left's view of immigration now is the same as yours?

"Family, church, home ownership"

So what? Asians have stable families, attend church, and own homes, yet the majority of Asians vote Democratic. You speak of a highly improbable future as if it were inevitable.

Posted by: Carter at February 13, 2006 5:00 PM

No, the Left supports open borders because they oppose national sovereignty and think poor minorities will vote for statism.

We support regulated immigration that would only allow religious believers, and those prepared to pledge allegiance to the Republic premised on them, but unlimited numbers of such, because they're already American.

Posted by: oj at February 13, 2006 5:26 PM

But on the acknowledged premise that American taxpayers are too cheap to enforce even that legal regime, so the drug runners, gang bangers and Al Qaedists get in too.

Posted by: Random Lawyer at February 13, 2006 5:39 PM


That's just reality.

Posted by: oj at February 13, 2006 5:44 PM

Family, church, home ownership . . . soccer.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at February 13, 2006 5:44 PM

Drug runners, gang bangers and Al Qaedists are going to get in regardless. Just about the only group the government can successfully keep out are conservative families.

Posted by: David Cohen at February 13, 2006 5:55 PM

Typical anecdotal diversion. It's what we engage in when hard data doesn't buttress our argument.
I suppose if I start citing the disturbing statistics showing higher instances of lawlessness, domestic violence, alcoholism, teen pregnancy and truancy, etc. you'll start shouting racism. It isn't the "nativists" who are aligned with the left. If you think all these good Catholics are going to flood the U.S. and save us all from gay marriage, well, I think the left is more than willing to take your bet.
As for the anecdotal, growing up in L.A. County I remember quite a few hardcore gangbangers with good Catholic upbringings and hard working immigrant parents. One even had his back covered with a Virgin Mary tattoo. I somehow suspect you wouldn' have enjoyed making his acquaintance.

Posted by: Dennis at February 13, 2006 7:33 PM


Even nativist males' favorite movie is The Godfather.

Posted by: oj at February 13, 2006 8:10 PM

I also like Part II; the scenes of Europeans processing through Ellis Island are touching, and are a great look at the measured and sane surge of immigration in the early 1900s that was neither open ended nor unlimited.

How about Viva Zapata? That one is a favorite with Latin Americans. We don't come off well.

Posted by: Dennis at February 13, 2006 8:23 PM

Yes, that was when our grandparents were sure the papists and Jews couldn't assimilate. Prior to that was the Germans and so on and so forth.

None of us real Americans let anyone process us....

Posted by: oj at February 13, 2006 8:25 PM

Our granparents were wrong about something fundamentally different from what we're talking about today.
Has it ever occured to you that all that admirable Catholicism and familial tradition has failed to make Mexico free and prosperous? Or that the Catholic church in Latin America has been downright Marxist in the past? Do you think that if the vast majority of second and third generation immigrants remains poor relative to the rest of the population (as has been the case) they are going to be assuaged with supply side economics and speeches about the entrepreneurial spirit? Or are they going to be collected into the demagogic hands of race baiting leftists (who are standing by, eagerly)?
Are you paying attention to the leftward, anti-American drift in Latin America right now?
Sorry, I'm not going to roll over and play dead because people once said the Italians and Jews wouldn't make good Americans.
If you take the traditions of Europe and the Jewish diaspora into account, and of the very different atmosphere into which they emigrated, you see that we are engaging in something unprecedented now.

Posted by: Dennis at February 13, 2006 8:47 PM


No, it's always the same mistake, generation after generation, in domestic and foreign policy. The "other" can never be civilized/Christianized/democratized/Americanized, but then, in the event, it turns out to have been rather easy.

Posted by: oj at February 13, 2006 8:50 PM

Yes, our great successes in Vietnam, Iraq, and East L.A. If you look abroad you find that no one has been "democratized" that hasn't already had the civic traditons in place; if you look at home you find that civics mean little or nothing in communities that are linguistically and racially distinct.
We are failing to democratize Iraq and de-democratizing entire communities in America.
Study the history of Texas. Always the same mistake indeed.

Posted by: Dennis at February 13, 2006 9:07 PM

Unless I miss my guess, Dennis is quickly proving OJ's point...

Posted by: Timothy at February 13, 2006 9:38 PM

I wonder why Dennis didn't mention South Korea, Taiwan or Kurdistan. The Iraq experiment is not yet determined, and IMHO South Vietnam would be like South Korea had we not betrayed them in 1975.

While I disagree with OJ that every single society is capable of becoming a liberal democracy, I do think our ability to predict which ones can is no better than random. I.e., we can't know until we try. Maybe even the Palestinians will surprise me.

Oh, and Dennis, I will warn you about the OJ bait & switch, where (as in this thread) he will switch between immigrant groups who assimilated into American society and the evolution of foreign societies in to liberal democracies as if these are the same thing. Note that he responded to your point about Mexico by talking about how Mexican immigrants to America assimilated. That's interesting but hardly addresses the question of why Mexico is still a basket case despite its Catholicism and strong family traditions.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at February 13, 2006 9:57 PM

Texas is a democracy, no?


Mexico followed the French example, not the American. It's a democracy but not a Catholic one, a rationalist one.

Posted by: oj at February 13, 2006 10:10 PM

My point regarding Texas is that immigrants loyal to the U.S. settled there, revolted, and joined the U.S.

Posted by: Dennis at February 13, 2006 10:32 PM

Mexicans are powerless before the "French example" then? How appropriate that it is the French example; this is Rousseauvian hooey.

A culture of governance doesn't descend on a people as an alien force. Even a dictatorship is a product of a nation's zeitgeist.

You seem to be suggesting that the condition of Mexico has nothing to do with Mexicans.
Forget democracy, that's advanced governance, but one could predict with a fair degree of accuracy the nations that are capable of relatively advanced, civil, open market societies; you just can't do it puclicly without being shouted down as a racist.

Posted by: Dennis at February 13, 2006 10:55 PM


No, they aren't powerless. They come here by the millions.

Posted by: oj at February 13, 2006 11:02 PM

"it turns out to have been rather easy"

It only seems that way because we restricted immigration between 1924 and 1964, allowing assimilation to occur. So by all means, let's use the past as a guide.

Posted by: Carter at February 13, 2006 11:18 PM

Forty out of our four hundred years hardly seems key, but your partner has already made pretty clear what the objection is.

Posted by: oj at February 13, 2006 11:24 PM