But nonetheless, I did grow up in an environment where it was just taken as a given that when we pay for education of the children, it means all children, even "them".

Gee, I hope I am not slipping into some big-city elitist attitude by claiming that we were smart enough to understand that the Chinese kid was going to grow up someday and be a part of our society, so we had an interest in seeing them educated even if they were "strange". While seemingly, folks from other parts of the country cant quite seem to make this calculation.

I guess it is a question of how you define "us". Living in the most diverse place on earth, it is a bit hard to define "us" in a narrow manner. We may start out that way in the neighborhood, but you only have to walk a few blocks and meet the rest of the world. Seems inevitable that eventually you realize that "us" means "all of us".

But, the bottom line is that this is part of any migration of human beings. Despite the fact that I am a white male of protestant derivation who was born in, and lived the bulk of my life in, a former Confederate state, I had an extremely difficult time fitting into to life in a small, Alabama town. Indeed, so much so that my family and I moved to a larger city nearby after several years of trying to integrate.

And, of course, the definition of one's "own" changes over time. There are lot of people I would prefer to hang out with/live with than some of my blood relatives. Heck, I have family in the central part of the state in which I now live with whom I have very, very little in common, despite the fact that my Mother spent much of her childhood among them.

Some places are more used to new comers than are others. I would argue that, in general, California, DC, Austin, NYC, Chicago, etc. are easier to assimilate into because the cultures are used to newcomers and are not based on the roots of their citizens and the long-term relationships between residents and their families.

It's not an irrelevant or facetious question. Experience suggests that it's hard to maintain taxpayers' interest in paying for the education of “their” children or paying for “their” healthcare. And it's for exactly the same reason as (I suspect) that your granny gave her grandchildren presents on their birthdays rather than the folks at the Chinese takeaway.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do these things. All I'm saying is that it's easier to justify when they are us.

Yeah. Negotiating diverse landscapes can be a challange. Problematical, perhaps. Also enriching. And far more interesting than living in a safe, boring monochrome.

Excuse the triteness, but as my granny used to say "diversity is the spice of life".
OK, she actually said "variety is...", but you get the point.

But that's precisely because there's a large cohort of unassimilated Mexicans in those places!

Clearly partially true. But I would argue that a far more significant factor is the much larger cohort of assimilated Hispanics in those places.

I can't see Mexicans having a harder time of assimilation in California or Texas than, say, an Englishman who moves to rural Arkansas or South Florida.

Sure. But that's precisely because there's a large cohort of unassimilated Mexicans in those places! And I'd think a rural Englishman would be fine moving to the rural South; a Londoner, not so much.

Is it your contention that English speaking immigrants are having more difficulty assimilating in California than their African and Mexican counterparts?

Well, not the Africans so much, but in general I can't see Mexicans having a harder time of assimilation in California or Texas than, say, an Englishman who moves to rural Arkansas or South Florida.

If my speculations are correct he is drawing very widespread conclusion from what appears to be a very biased sample. Now I have not read his research. So can anyone confirm or disprove my suspicions that he is sampling a very bias sample.

Have you ever, ever been to California?

A few times. Is it your contention that English speaking immigrants are having more difficulty assimilating in California than their African and Mexican counterparts? Or merely that, given a huge non-assimilated Mexican population, new Mexican immigrants can blend in nicely?

Presumably, British and Canadian immigrants to the United States have an easier time assimilating than those from Mexico, let alone Ethiopia. Shared language and cultural norms make trust and social interaction easier.

Have you ever, ever been to California?

But on the other hand the idea of affiliation to groups with whom we have little significantly less genetic relationship has changed significantly over time, at least it's changed here in the United States. There was a time (and, in places, that time is within living memory) where white Anglo-Saxon Protestants (people of English, Dutch, Scandinavian descent and also some Germans) distinguished between themselves and, well, everybody else. They were “white”; nobody else was.

Slowly others have been allowed into the club: Scots, Irish, and, later, southern and eastern Europeans. Later yet Asians, and so on.

Is there a limit to diversity? I have no idea. I do agree that we're more likely to be willing to offer a helping hand to “our own” than it is to a stranger. Who is our neighbor?

Not all of the change has been in a positive direction. 120 years ago the divide between rich and poor wasn't nearly so high. In most cities rich and poor lived next door to each other or within blocks of each other. Now the distances between where the well-to-do live and everybody else lives can be quite great and I've seen at first hand people making distinctions based on presumed income (even when the ethnic group was their own) that I suspect might not have been made a century ago.