Fostering Immigration Without Segregation

On April 24, the 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court threw a clean white sheet of respectability over de facto segregation by declaring that its existence was once again acceptable, unless proven deliberately discriminatory, reversing decades of hard-won progress. [The court ruled states and schools can’t be used for racially biased policies unless they’re deliberate.]

Now, less than 90 days later, unsurprisingly, we hear from Evelyn G. Aleman (“Segregation to Some Serves as a Protective Niche for Others,” Commentary, July 16) that it’s all simply a matter of seeking the comfort of the familiar. Ah, the new rallying cry: They only live where and how they do because it makes them happy. Welcome to the new era of patronizing sanctimony.

David C. Rawson

Hollywood

Like the external forces that compelled immigrants from Ireland, Germany, Russia, Hungary and Italy from the 1820s to the 1920s to cling together in immigrant wards, today’s immigrants face the same plight and dilemma. As mentioned in Aleman’s commentary, the duplication of support systems mimicking immigrant enclaves of decades past are being fast reproduced in many cities throughout the United States.

This cultural niche of support systems and the building of a distinct religious, legal and political subculture may very well be a plus. However, if a “niche system” becomes a means of preserving ghetto-like barrios like the Pico-Union district, then demographers and policy analysts have not learned much in the past 40 years about developing policies to eradicate poverty. It will take more than an influx of new immigrants and a special niche to break the chains of segregation.

John Mendoza

Pomona

About Little Phnom Penh: So much for the U.S.A. as a melting pot (“Cambodian Community Makes Banner Statement,” July 15). It seems that many immigrants have a goal to set up their home country in this country and base all political decisions on what they believe is best for that original homeland. This is not a good thing for the U.S. It is divisive and accentuates the cultural differences between ethnic groups in a negative way. It is part of the problem created by too many people coming into this country too rapidly, without time to blend into our culture.

Many of our problems, such as water shortages, threat to animal habitat, traffic congestion, etc., are complicated by this situation. Some of the organizations that should be helping us solve these problems have instead adopted the philosophy of “restrict land use, not population growth.”

Homer Meek

Torrance