I rather suspect that properly naturalized immigrants appreciate American liberties *better* than ungrateful, unprincipled native sons, who often have not read the Constitution, or do not take conformance to it seriously.
And how can this be otherwise, when not even ostensible Christians take their Confessions or church constitutions seriously, if my experience is at all indicative?
Example: one of my prior "pastor disasters" repeatedly railed against wicked Supreme Court justices. Yet, in order to expedite a merger he desired, he proposed a temporary suspension of his own just-ratified church constitution to get around elder & membership requirements! What hypocrisy! But we were outvoted, since the other members apparently didn't care. The church has since dissolved (for reasons unknown to me).
Neil, I agree with your comments entirely. The problem is that many immigrants, both legal and illegal, do not have any respect for American traditions, including the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is added on to the problem that many "born in the USA" types have lost the Protestant Ethic besides.
If "Hispanic" means something like "a Spanish-speaking person," or "descended from Latin Americans," then using the term in opposition to "white" or "black" is absurd, since many Cubans are "black," & many Mexican nationals are as "white" as Celts (as I see every week at our local Costco). Are these people "white" or "Hispanic?" Most of Latin America received many European immigrants; they are not all Indian or "Mestizo." Then again, what are Filipinos - Asians or Hispanics?
For that matter, many Asians are "white," too. And not a few Italian & German citizens I've seen have less-than-pale skin.
My point is, ethnic or color labels like these are hopelessly ambiguous & imprecise, & therefore should be abandoned in lawmaking, where precision is vital (quite apart from Bill of Rights issues). They are only of marginal colloquial value.