Milagros Camacho made it the hard way, arriving with her parents as Cuban refugees in the mid-70's, struggling to learn English, attending public schools in West New York, making it eventually to NYU law school, and joining the legal staff of U.S. Attorney Chris Christie.

Last month, she stood before the Corzine Immigration Panel, as representative and newly elected President of the Hispanic Bar Association of New Jersey, to urge the panel to recommend a campaign of community education to combat the "misconceptions, stigmas and stereotypes" that tarnish the reputation of immigrants in our state.

Milagros was one of the few speakers that evening to talk about intergroup education and relations, a topic that receives insufficient attention in the continuing debates over immigration and its impact on American society.

Some might say that her concern is a little too soft and fuzzy to be taken seriously. However, I believe Milagros is on to something very important.

Throughout the United States and indeed in most of the developed world, public officials and policy makers are beginning to pay close attention to what is sometimes called "social cohesion," or the ability of people from diverse backgrounds to live and work together in peace and harmony.

As much as we are pulled together, and seemingly homogenized,  by modern means of commerce, communication, and transportation, we are also pulled apart by what New York Times columnist David Brooks calls the growing "fragmentation" of modern life. By this he means the tendency to create ever narrower "lifestyle niches"  based on the desire and ability of people to express their individuality in smaller groups, whether bound together by interest, ethnicity, or some other link.

Inwardness and cultural insularity are also common traits among first generation immigrants, giving rise to accusations of "clannishness" and  disrespect for the norms of the larger society.
 
Social cohesion is also undermined by the merchants of hate and fear who spread their anti-immigrant message on the internet and airwaves, and whose activities were recently documented in a timely but disturbing report from the ADL. History is replete with examples of how entire groups can be targeted and scapegoated by power-seeking demagogues, with often tragic and deadly consequences for the victims, as well as irreparable damage to the climate of mutual respect so essential to the development of vibrant, successful and sustainable communities in the modern world.
 
What steps can state and local governments, as well as private sector organizations, take to counteract these dangerous trends?   The menu of possible strategies and activities is long, and many groups, both here in New Jersey and elsewhere in the country, are showing the way.

One very obvious approach is to understand the reality of immigration and its impact on our society. More than ten years have passed since the publication of Princeton Professor Thomas Espenshade's collection of studies on New Jersey's immigrants. At that time, New Jersey, with its larger proportion of high skilled immigrants and relatively tolerant attitudes, was touted as a model for the nation.

Now, other states seem to be surpassing New Jersey in their attention to immigration, both as an engine of innovation and economic growth, and as a challenge to the adaptability of people and institutions in local communities. In the meantime, New Jersey has coasted on its reputation while its unauthorized immigrant population has surged to an estimated 430,000, comprehensive immigration reform remains stalled in Congress, and some people seem ready to stir the steaming pot of intergroup hatred.

New York, Long Island, and Washington, D.C. have all produced studies on the demographic and economic impact of immigration. Unlike the earlier New Jersey studies, which may have been too dense and academic for the general public, these reports are visually appealing, user-friendly and available on the internet.  Isn't it time for New Jersey to look into its own immigration mirror?  The State of Minnesota has also produced an economic impact study, but under the auspices of the Minneapolis Foundation, has stimulated a state-wide conversation on immigration through its "Minnesota Meeting" program, which attracts a live audience of more than 500 for each session and a radio, television, and webcast audience of tens of thousands.
 
Of course, studies and conferences alone won't change people's attitudes. What really matters are on-the-ground conversations and cooperation between people from diverse backgrounds. I'll have more to say about this in my next blog.