The Christian Science Monitor has an article that nicely summarizes the current state of immigration in the U.S. these days. While the article doesn’t really offer anything new that I didn’t already know, it succinctly captures the main points of controversy these days in regard to immigration issues -- border patrol, the “Minutemen Project,” conservative opposition and the recent rise of nativism, and whether certain rights should be given to illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children:

Organizations patterned after the controversial “Minuteman Project” along the US-Mexico border have sprung up in New England, the Midwest, the South, and the Pacific Northwest. This has led to demonstrations and shouting matches with those opposed to what they call “vigilantes.”

State and local officials are working to limit government services to illegal immigrants and their children (such as college tuition and worker’s compensation), requiring proof of citizenship to get a driver’s license and cracking down on day labor sites where men - many in the country illegally - gather to seek work.

Concerns over terrorism, identity theft, and the national methamphetamine epidemic (which is fueled by Mexican drug cartels and Hispanic gangs operating far from the border) are part of the picture. But some observers warn of an upsurge in “nativism” - the kind of anti-immigrant feeling that has swelled at other times in US history. . . .

In some areas, the rise in extreme anti-immigrant sentiment has resulted in attacks on Hispanic men, and conspiracy theories. One theory warns of “la reconquista,” the invasion of the US southwest by Mexicans determined to take back territory lost in the 19th century.

Like I said, the article basically serves as a concise summary of the main points of controversy these days regarding immigration (legal and illegal). As a liberal and an immigrant myself, I (along with many other scholars) have written numerous times that immigration as a whole constitutes a net benefit for society, even after factoring in the costs of illegal immigration.

However, as research has shown, certain localities and states bear a disproportionate share of the costs associated with illegal immigration, so it’s not surprising that residents of those states are more likely to be anti-immigration (or at least anti-illegal immigration). And like many other contemporary social issues, there are bound to be extremist elements on both sides.

As the demographic makeup of the country continues to evolve like tectonic plates slowly shifting across time, fault lines and conflicts like these are pretty much inevitable.