USpolitical.com

According to Ruben Navarrette Jr., a contributor at CNN, it is culture. His somewhat blanket assertion of nativism is the epitomy of the current position of illegal immigration advocates.

This is what I wrote to him upon reading his article:

Your recent article was a good read.

I agree that nativism is a really indefensible stance for any American to take. We ought to be forcefully refuting nativism. We are all a conglomeration of immigrants here in the United States.

However, you only point out those that hold extreme positions against Hispanic culture while ignoring the arguments of the majority of people that welcome legal immigration. You need to clearly identify and represent these elements of the immigration debate in an article that claims to address the immigration debate. You briefly mention that it “…it goes well beyond words like ‘legal’ or ‘illegal.’” Why not stop there and dissect the arguments about legality? Why so little mention of it? Do you honestly believe that the immigration debate is predominantly fueled by things other than legality?

As a professional, you should more soundly isolate and identify arguments against immigration, clearly separating the fundamental premise of each argument. Your use a broad brush to confuse different groups of people with very different opinions.

Thanks. Your articles are enjoyable to read. I’ve come to recognize them as great examples of how the immigration debate is distorted by yourself and others with like views. You do this by avoiding true debate and discussion of fact by asserting racism and nativism towards opposite viewpoints.