The LDS church and immigration

I've had a difficult time over the last few years reconciling my beliefs about immigration with those of other members of the church.  Obviously, being married to an immigrant, and having many friends of different statuses within the immigrant community informs my opinions.  I decided to blog about it after reading this piece in the huffington post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/13/mormons-immigration_n_861263.html

I guess I just have to agree with the leadership on this one.  I don't see what it is about being an illegal immigrant that makes you a bad person.  Speeding is just as illegal, and more dangerous, but most of us do it, and no one judges us as bad people for doing it.  Of the dozens of people who are immigrants that i know, I can't make any judgments about their character and see them reflected in their legal status. 

The reason for laws about immigration, as far as I can tell, is to prevent overwhelming short term immigration that would create economic difficulties due to extreme growth.  To a lesser extent, I think it's possible that these laws are in place to protect 'culture' or prevent overpopulation.  The US, from what I know is number 179 out of 240 countries in density.  This according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density  Really we've got plenty of space in the United States.  One of the most important variables in judging the overall power and influence of any country is the size of its population.  A huge adjustment is taking place right now, where more populous countries like China, India, and Brazil are increasing in power and influence, while less populous countries with the traditional advantages of Western democracy and capitalism are becoming less powerful and influential by comparison.  So will a larger population harm the United States?  I don't believe so. 

As far as protecting the American culture I personally have no concern.  People say that previous groups assimilated, while the Latino migration has not.  That's true today, but it won't be in 50 years.  Previous groups went through the same steps as the Latino migrants will.  First generation migrants adjust to the new culture.  Younger migrants learn English, older ones don't.  ALL OF THEIR CHILDREN LEARN ENGLISH!!!  Almost all of those that don't wish they did, or wish they could.  When I taught English as a Second Language, there were some pretty old people trying to learn.  Many of them couldn't.  But they all wanted to.  In either case, the children learn English.  Not all of the children learn Spanish, which is sad.  In any case, within a couple of generations, they will be like us.  Only distinguishable by physical features and last names. 

I don't think you can find any period in history where a non-violent migration has taken place to populated areas, when the migrants take on the roles of the lower and middle classes, and then they changed the official language and the culture of the rich and powerful group that was already there.  It doesn't make sense. 

There are people that will claim that the Latinos are all criminals and that are afraid of them.  But think of the archetypal thug.  Who is it?  A younger guy.  Maybe you associated a different race to him.  Maybe you didn't.  Is 80 year old Grandma latina woman going to rob you?  No.  If you want to be biased and afraid of anyone, be afraid of males ages 18-25.  Race is a much less important predictor than sex and age for crime.  So why do we use race instead of age and gender?  It allows us to focus on the characteristic about "them" that's different from "us."  About half of us have been males of that age range.  The other half know males of that age range.  But we don't want it to be "our" problem.  It's somebody else's problem, and if we can identify "them" visually, so much the better, right?  It's so much easier than having to deal with "us" having a problem that "we" need to deal with. 

Another crime variable is socio-economic status (SES).  Now, consider that, of the recent large scale migration, a large percentage of migrants are males.  A large percentage of migrants are young.  A large percentage of migrants don't have a high SES.  Should we expect crime rates for "immigrants" to be higher?  Yes.  Are they higher?  No.  Here are some statistics: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717575,00.html  1st generation Mexican immigrants 45% less likely to commit violent crime.  2nd generation immigrants 22% less likely to commit violent crime.  Immigrants that have their documentation in order are much less likely to be criminals than those of us that were born in the USA.  Immigrants that are not legal know that if they are caught in a crime, they'll get deported.  My experience has been that illegal immigrants are here because they want to work and get ahead in life, and they won't jeopardize that with crime. 

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/27/reading-ranting-and-arithmetic.html  Here's another article that reviews research that shows that the cities with the biggest immigrant influx had the biggest decreases in crime rates. 

The actual act of crossing into the country illegally, or overstaying a visa, is illegal.  I don't suggest anyone do it.  But at the end of the day, like speeding, or stepping onto private property, it doesn't make you a bad person. 

An SLP versus A SLP

It's an historic moment... well not really. For me at least. But using "a" versus "an" is a question and a bit of a pet peeve of mine. I haven't 'looked up' the correct usage, but I'm gonna say how it is on my own authority. Because you know me... the all knowing and all and such and whatnot and that. Read at your own risk...

The only reason that "an" exists is that there are words that start with a similar sound to "a." If you were to say "I want a apple" at a conversational speed, it would sound like "I want apple." It sounds like you aren't using the article "a." As far as I know, no one denies that this is the reason for the existence of "an." That extra letter N helps us understand that a speaker is using the article "a"

Picture from theblogofrecord.com

Now lets move to SLP. It starts with an S. Why does it sound better with an "an"? Well, because S doesn't start with S. S starts with "eh" Two parts: "eh" and "s". S So you could say "I'm a speech therapist," or you could say "I'm an SLP." Personally, I wouldn't say or write "I'm a SLP." Even when I do say it, I tend to put a little pause (glottal stop) between a and SLP. Another example might be university. You wouldn't say an university. It's a university. Because university starts with the y sound, which is a consonant.

Picture from askaurinal.com

Spanish has similar rules. If you use o (or in English) before a word that starts with o, you change it to u. Agua is feminine, but the water is "el agua" because if you were to say "la agua," it would sound like one word.

In the modern world, language takes oral and written forms. An SLP sounds better, while a SLP may be said to look better. The written form is a reflection of the oral form, and in my opinion, should follow changes in the oral form.

Picture from skiptucker.blogspot.com

As far as "An history", this clearly breaks the "Use 'an' only before vowels" rule. I'm not sure how it gets justified, and I don't really care. As far as I'm concerned, it's "a history," and others can do what they want. At the end of the day, the purpose of language is almost always communication, and either form communicates the information.