TheAgitator.com
Immigration, Then and Now
Saturday, July 3rd, 2010Terrific and timely op-ed from Jeb Bush and Robert Putnam debunking the myth that there’s something uniquely threatening to American culture from Hispanic immigrants.
On language:
Proponents and opponents of immigration agree on one thing: Learning English is crucial to success and assimilation…
Most recent immigrants recognize that they need to learn English, and about 90 percent of the second generation speak English, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Research by sociologists Claude Fischer and Michael Hout published in 2008 suggests that English acquisition among immigrants today is faster than in previous waves.
On geographic assimilation:
Half a century ago, sociologist Stanley Lieberson showed that most immigrants lived in segregated enclaves, “Little Italy” or “Chinatown,” for several generations. This segregation reflected discrimination by natives and the natural desire of “strangers in a strange land” to live among familiar faces with familiar customs….
That many of today’s immigrants live in ethnic enclaves is thus entirely normal and reflects no ominous aim to separate themselves from the wider American community.
On intermarriage:
Immigrant intermarriage, then and now, also demonstrates steady progress over generations. In the 1960s, more than half a century after Italian immigration peaked, about 40 percent of second-generation Italians married non-Italians. This pattern characterizes today’s immigrants: 39 percent of U.S.-born Latinos marry non-Latinos, according to the Pew Research Center. Intermarriage among second-generation Asian Americans is even more common. Today’s immigrants are, on average, assimilating socially even more rapidly than earlier waves.
I’m not sure about all of their policy recommendations, but they’re dead on here. We’ve seen the same criticisms with each new wave of immigrants: They’re not assimilating. They don’t speak the language. They’re just here for a handout. They’re bringing disease. We’re getting the dregs of the rest of the world.
I guess it would be subjective to say that each wave of immigrants has made America stronger, though that’s certainly my opinion. But when it comes to the retread fears about assimilation the critics have been wrong every time.
So you mean to tell me that the conservative narrative about immigrants and all the problems they cause for real American is… *GASP* … not based on facts???
It’s refreshing to see a conservative like Jeb Bush write something like this. Immigration has become just like abortion: black-and-white binary divisions with no common sense or willingness to listen to the other side.
Spoken like someone who’s never lived in the Southwest.
Spend a year in SoCal and watch your opinions change quickly. This wave is very different from the others.
It’s not about immigration… it’s about illegal immigration. People here legally to assimilate and contribute to American society and culture. Those who aren’t hear legally usually try to fly under the RADAR and cannot afford to risk the optics associated with immersion into American society, less they be deported. Additionally, Italians, German, Irish, etc., came here to leave the oppression of their homelands – they wanted a better opportunity. Many Mexicans fly the American flag upside down, march publicly about retaking lands legally purchased from Mexico, riot, commit vulgar crimes, and send much of their earnings out of the country.
Of course, I feel compelled to point out that part of why today’s immigrants are receiving a less hearty welcome than their past-counterparts of 100 to 250 years ago is the upswing in “socialized programs” in those years.
Like the epigram about Starnesville in Atlas Shrugged, when you know that your neighbors are living off your work, it’s hard to not foster resentment against them. And you see this reflected in a large number of the arguments against illegal immigrants. “They cost money at the hospital, in the schools, etc.”
When every Hector, Tran, and Celine that comes across the border effectively becomes “another mouth to feed” at the public trough, it’s not hard to see why the Americans of today might be less welcoming than our grandparents were.
Though I’d like to note that my proposed solution isn’t “curb immigration”, it’s “ditch the socialized cost programs”. No point in covering up one bug with another one.
All of the points about immigration are spot on, but there is a significant difference between then and now. The difference doesn’t make an open and shut case against immigration, but it’s something to be considered.
There was no dominant multiculturalist, anti-Western sentiment in the universities and among the intelligentsia the way there is today. To wit, as a particularly illustrative example, there was no notion among the Italians, Ashkenazi Jews, Chinese, et al, comparable to the Mexican Reconquista advocated among the more radical, ethnic circles.
I’m sorry, but there is something to be concerned about. Unrestricted immigration is not an unqualified good.
Perlhaqr is correct. I’d add that the important difference between this wave and previous waves are:
1) Proximity / “reconquista” — Italians and Irishmen never felt American land belonged to them and was theirs to retake; a majority of Mexicans and immigrants from Mexico believe the seven Southwest states that used to belong to Mexico should and will be returned. It’s a Quebec-style secessionist situation in waiting.
Previous waves were physically cut off from the home country, so assimilation was more likely; now, the home country is right next door, so again, it’s more Quebec or Belgium you’re looking at than Italians in the 1890s.
2) Entitlements — Italians and Jews in the 1890s didn’t have huge government incentives to come here. I know Radley doesn’t support these entitlements, but they are a fact for the time being and, again, Radley’s brushing aside of complaints that illegal aliens are closing hospitals, crowding schools with non-english speakers, etc. speaks only to his never having lived in Southern California.
3) Size — we used to have a few decades of high immigration, then a few decades “time out” — low imimgration to let those who came assimilate. Now we’ve had 45 years of high immigration, and it’s high time for one of those time outs.
4) Elite anti-assimilationism — in previous waves, assimilation was encouraged by the media, universities, and government. Now, multiculturalism demands that the host country bend to the will of immigrants rather than the host country demanding assimilation. Not good.
Immigration is generally a good thing for the US, but we have to do it right — and anyone can see that we’re not. We should be more selective choosing who we allow into our country — like Canada, for example, has done for decades. We should reestablish the concept that immigrants should assimilate to American norms rather than vice versa. We should secure our southern border so not just anyone with $1500 to pay a coyote can sneak in — which is unfair to everyone, including legal immigrants. And we should reduce our levels of immigration for a decade or two to allow cultural assimilation to take place.
Radley, i think you’re a little naive on this issue. If you get sick of Nashville in a few years give Los Angeles or Tucson a shot — especially if you start a family — and again, I suspect your views may shift a bit.
….a majority of Mexicans and immigrants from Mexico believe the seven Southwest states that used to belong to Mexico should and will be returned.
Cite? It’s one thing to point to a few academics and fringe groups. But I doubt a “majority” of Mexican immigrants are coming here to take back the Southwest. They’re coming here for jobs.
Entitlements
And again, study after study has shown that immigrants, including illegal immigrants, contribute more to the economy than they take out of it. Also, the argument that they’re coming here for handouts is undercut by the fact that since the economic downturn, illegal immigration has fallen off. The jobs dried up, the immigrants stopped coming. Note that during this time, we did not stop handing out entitlements.
Now we’ve had 45 years of high immigration, and it’s high time for one of those time outs.
The wave from Mexico started in the early 1990s, if I’m not mistaken.
Elite anti-assimilationism — in previous waves, assimilation was encouraged by the media, universities, and government. Now, multiculturalism demands that the host country bend to the will of immigrants rather than the host country demanding assimilation.
And yet the data, cited above, show that Mexican immigrants are assimilating at a rate equal to or greater than previous waves of immigrants. I’m dubious of the notion that your average Hispanic day laborer is going to refuse to let his kids speak English because some academic is spouting about multiculturalism on NPR. The illegal immigrants I’ve known (and I lived smack in the middle of the largest Salvadoran community in the country) want their kids to assimilate, because they want them to be successful.
Thanks, Radley. Debunking the myths that fuel a lot of the anti-immigration mindsets is important. Let’s hope people are willing to listen.
Separately, I also don’t understand the HUGE issue with assimilation. Why must immigrants assimilate? As long as they aren’t asking any more from you than to simply respect the culture and traditions they choose to adhere to, what’s the problem? The idea that immigrants MUST assimilate seems misplaced to me. Shouldn’t they be entitled to decide for themselves how they live?
“Radley, i think you’re a little naive on this issue. If you get sick of Nashville in a few years give Los Angeles or Tucson a shot — especially if you start a family — and again, I suspect your views may shift a bit.”
Ezekial, essentially you are asking for emotional responses instead of rational ones. Radley opinion is informed by hard evidence: statistics, studies, etc. Your opinion, it would seem, is informed by anecdotal experiences which, while real and relevant, should not determine policy. For everyone person with a negative “immigrant” story there is someone with a positive one. Instead of seeing who can appeal to emotions the greatest, let’s rely on the facts.
2002 Zogby poll showing that a majority of Mexicans say the U.S. southwest “rightfully belongs to Mexico,” and that Mexican citizens should be able to come into those areas freely, without U.S. permission.
The poll found that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, “The territory of the United States’ southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.”
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27941
There are other similar polls you could Google. I don’t know why this should be surprising — land usually won in war leaves resentment and irredentist feelings from the losing side.
The question isn’t whether Mexican day laborers “are coming here to take back the Southwest”. They’re pawns of the Mexican government, who encourage them to come here — and who very much want to take back the land they lost not so long ago. It’d be odd if they didn’t want that land back.
If you can cite (rather naively, I have to say) a study claiming that * illegal* immigrants — don’t lump the doctors from India in there — in aggregate, contribute more to the economy than they take out — well, I’d love to see it. If this was true they wouldn’t be shutting down hospitals and overcrowding schools. Common sense — often better than agenda-driven studies — tell me that a day laborer with limited English and three kids in public schools isn’t contributing more to the economy than he’s taking out. I think you need to be a little more skeptical of these studies.
The wave from Mexico sure didn’t start in the 1990s. The big waves have all begun since the 1965 immigration act. That’s 45 years.
In your last graf you seem to be equating speaking English with assimilation. It’s part of assimilation, sure, but not the whole picture. That Salvadorans born here will grow up speaking english — and spanish — is a non-starter. But there’s an awful lot more to it than that — where will their loyalties lie, especially if they’re encouraged by media, schools, the government etc. to retain allegiance to their old country? That’s one good question. There are others.
BSK — like Radley, you don’t seem skeptical at all of these studies that tell you things you want to hear, even when they don’t conform to what you can see all around you. If the weatherman tells me it’s snowing out and I can see sunshine and grass through the window, I know I’m being lied to.
If a study tells me that *illegal* immigrants put more into the economy then they take out, I know that they’re using some funny math to get there (projecting out extremely rosy scenarios for future generations, lumping legal immigrants in with illegal, etc.). I’ve met, observed and worked closely with hundreds of illegal immigrants in several states, and there’s no way that can be true.
PS BSK — be sure to differentiate between *legal* and *illegal* immigration. Above you write “For everyone person with a negative “immigrant” story there is someone with a positive one.”
Yes I agree, but add the word “illegal” to that statement and the story is much different. And there are many millions of illegals in this country as you know.
BSK writes:
“Debunking the myths that fuel a lot of the anti-immigration mindsets is important.”
Again, you’ve got to differentiate between *legal* and *illegal* immigration. I’d guess that 90% of what you’re (intentionally, i suspect) labeling “anti-immigration” sentiment is really anti-*illegal* immigration sentiment. Which is why you’re blurring the distinction, unless I miss my guess.
“I also don’t understand the HUGE issue with assimilation. Why must immigrants assimilate?”
Aha…
+1 on Jim and perlhaqr. I really wish people would stop conflating opponents of illegal immigration with opponents of immigration generally. The only people in that latter camp are Pat Buchanan types who barely hide their racism in a cloak of demographic concern and the semi-rational statists who recognize that unlimited immigration would wreck the country if we retain the welfare state as is.
It’s perfectly reasonable to demand that immigrants enter the country through the proper channels. What we need to do is to blow open the quotas and streamline the system while cutting back the safety net.
The difference between then and now is that now there are more illegal immigrants than ever before. People dont have a problem with immigrants, they have a problem with ILLEGAL immigrants. It’s like no one is listenin and just claiming racism and isolationism and going right past the fact that these people shouldn’t be here the way they came. They need to go back and come in the right way.
I’m glad my Irish ancestors came over with engraved invites from Tiffany. And Mario, I didn’t recall seeing a lot of Mario’s on the Mayflower registry. Could it be your people came over uninvited?
It’s perfectly reasonable to demand that immigrants enter the country through the proper channels.
It’s only reasonable if the “proper channels” are reasonable. And there is nothing reasonable about those channels.
It’s like no one is listenin and just claiming racism and isolationism and going right past the fact that these people shouldn’t be here the way they came.
Not everyone is claiming racism. Personally, I claim statism. The same people who rightfully believe that the government manages very few things well are indignant, indignant I say, that people who are willing and ready to work hard for a living haven’t followed the arbitrary rules set by the wise and righteous government.
I think we need an easier path to citizenship. There is probably a bit of Xenophobia going in in regards to the recent hispanic influx to this country.
We should be proud they want to call this country their own and maker it easier for them to do so. But stop with the handouts when they arrive, and try to deter people from crossing over “illegally”. Give them a proper, sane, and easy way to assimilate, and I think we’ll see less people crossing over in the dark of night.
After reading the WaPo op-ed piece, I could not help thinking how different history would have been if Jeb Bush had been elected president instead of his half-wit brother.
I think the a good number of people in Iraq would at least be better off (i.e. not dead) and we’d have about a trillion dollars less in debt for one thing.
Im sure the Paleocon bloggers that read your posts wont like this and likely scream amnesty stooge like they did to Dick Armey (I cant believe Im defending that guy).
#15 “And there is nothing reasonable about those channels”
I would like to respectfully disagree with you. I am an immigrant to the US an I didn’t find anything unreasonable about it. The US immigration system is based mostly on employment. Find an employer to that’s willing to hire you and that thinks you gonna be a valuable asset to their company and they’ll apply for a “green card” for you. The whole process from 0 to permanent resident takes anywhere from 6mths to one year. Unless you’re from India, China etc which is another story.
Compare this to Canada where an application takes about the same time but you do not need to have employment when you get there so a lot of newcomers end up underemployed or not emplyed at all.
The idea of “multiculturalism” has to be done with. When new immigrants come to the US they better adapt to the new ways. After all they left their native country just because whatever they were doing wasn’t working out.
How come 80 percent of Mexican-Americans vote Democrat? Didn’t the waves of immigration in our history all come to the control legally and under tight controls? Weren’t the Italian, Greek, Jewish, and Irish immigrants of the 19, and early 20th century carefully counted and given full citizenship rather quickly so they were not taken advantage of? Secure the border first.
@7 “There was no dominant multiculturalist, anti-Western sentiment in the universities and among the intelligentsia the way there is today.”
Amen brother, and Radley screw your stupid studies man! Don’t you ever go to Walgreens or WalMart?
Do you trust Radley Balko’s opinion? If so, please compare what he writes to my discussion of the same column:
http://24ahead.com/n/10087
Take a look at that – and the links provided – and then let me know if you still trust Radley Balko’s opinion. Note also that I’ll be adding even more reasons the column is misleading later.
“People dont have a problem with immigrants, they have a problem with ILLEGAL immigrants.”
I don’t have a problem with smoking pot. I just have a problem with smoking pot illegally. Therefore, we should expand the war on drugs. Amirite?
“How come 80 percent of Mexican-Americans vote Democrat? ”
You have heard how conservatives view immigration from Mexico, have you not?
The GAO issued a report, number GAO-05-337R, entitled “Information on Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal and State Prisons and Local Jails” on May 9, 2005, prepared for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. It noted:
“At the federal level, the number of criminal aliens incarcerated increased from about 42,000 at the end of calendar year 2001 to about 49,000 at the end of calendar year 2004–a 15 percent increase. The percentage of all federal prisoners who are criminal aliens has remained the same over the last 3 years–about 27 percent. The majority of criminal aliens incarcerated at the end of calendar year 2004 were identified as citizens of Mexico. We estimate the federal cost of incarcerating criminal aliens–BOP’s cost to incarcerate criminals and reimbursements to state and local governments under SCAAP–totaled approximately $5.8 billion for calendar years 2001 through 2004. BOP’s cost to incarcerate criminal aliens rose from about $950 million in 2001 to about $1.2 billion in 2004–a 14 percent increase.”
I agree with skunkie. We elected the wrong Bush. Even now, among all the republican hopefuls, Jeb is a least worst choice, but his bro effed up the family name so much he doesn’t have a chance.
“It’s only reasonable if the “proper channels” are reasonable. And there is nothing reasonable about those channels.”
I believe I said that implicitly…
#20
I’m going out on a limb to assume you have some sort of valuable skill that is in demand by employers. It’s quite easy for a Fund Manager or a Software Engineer to “Find an employer to that’s willing to hire you and that thinks you gonna be a valuable asset to their company and they’ll apply for a “green card” for you.” If your skill set is your strong back and willingness to work in a slaughterhouse, it’s a whole different ball game.
Those commenters opposed to “illegal” immigration think they own the border.
A truly free society not only wouldn’t have ID cards restricitng movement between states, it wouldn’t restrict movement INTO the country at all.
As said many times, the solution is to end subsidies and welfare entitlements, NOT restrict immigration. I haven’t seen any Senators or Congressmen advocating a real expansion of current immigration quotas. If there are any, please cite them.
So-called illegal immigration presupposes that the nation owns the border and has the right to keep anyone out who doesn’t jump through quota hoops. What you are arguing for is not allowing unauthorized immigration – which means that if a landowner in Texas or Arizona is willing to allow nonviolent workers across or onto her land, the federal government can overrule her. THAT is un-American.
Radley said: And again, study after study has shown that immigrants, including illegal immigrants, contribute more to the economy than they take out of it.
The big problem with this analysis is that it misses the trees in examining the forest. It ignores the more local effects while talking about the big picture. But most people don’t live in “the economy”, they live in one little “tree” of it.
So I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. I’ll state up front that I accept that immigrants (legal or not, and actually, the illegal ones are probably better for “the economy”) contribute more to the economy than they take out of it.
But those benefits are distributed to the economy primarily through trickle down economics, in that the people who are able to take advantage of sidestepping the overburdensome regulatory state by hiring illegals end up with higher profit margins than they would if they had to comply with minimum wage laws, etc. Which also trickles down more directly in giving consumers lower prices, and allowing us to inflate the economy by stretching our dollars.
So that’s the “economic benefit” of immigrants going into Column A.
The funding for hospitals and schools comes out of Column B, way over here on the other side of things, with only the most tenuous connection between them. Benefits-From-Cheap-Labor LLC gets the advantage of hiring illegals under the radar, but gets to externalise the costs of health care and dependent education across the general population. So even if the health of the economy as measured on a GDP level is enhanced by the presence of high numbers of illegal immigrants, people see their local ER drowning in a sea of people who show up, have to be serviced, and often end up putting the cost of their care back on the hospital, which in turn sticks out its hand to the government for more tax dollars.
—-
Again, I think the solution is to stop funding those services with tax money. Failing that, I think we’d be best off by ending “illegal” immigration by granting people a “guest worker” status, because large communities of people who have to live under the radar provides a huge target for exploitation by criminals, and an underclass of half-slaves who can’t complain to anyone in a position of legal authority about mistreatment.
And as much as it pains me to say this, if we’re not going to do the right thing and eliminate socialized cost programs, we need to at least collect “proper” tax receipts on these workers, to fund the programs that they end up using. (And speaking as a health care worker, if we could manage to transfer the visits from these folks to less critical care clinics, in order to lessen the burden on our ERs to let them take care of truly emergent cases, that would be awesome, too. Also, I’d like a pony.)
TomG nailed it:
So-called illegal immigration presupposes that the nation owns the border and has the right to keep anyone out who doesn’t jump through quota hoops. What you are arguing for is not allowing unauthorized immigration – which means that if a landowner in Texas or Arizona is willing to allow nonviolent workers across or onto her land, the federal government can overrule her.
Like so many laws today, those restricting immigration are in complete opposition to the right to private property.
perl-
Great analysis. However, I think you, also, are missing the big picture. You underestimate the way in which lower prices are also distributed across the masses. Everyone benefits from the low cost of labor or produce facilitated by undocumented workers. If employers were required to meet wage/benefit/tax requirements, one of two things would happen: MUCH higher prices for these goods/services OR companies that could would move overseas to keep costs down, taking with them not just the jobs of immigrants, but also lots of “middlemen” jobs. Both of these would have far reaching impacts across the board.
And you are right that the costs are also distributed. However, for most people, the benefits they derive from the current relationship outweigh the costs. What you pay in higher taxes is mitigated by what you save in reduced costs, as is true for most people.
Now, that says nothing of the ethical issues of this relationship and all that. But economic analysis of individual “trees” must look at what people are putting in and what they are getting out. We can’t just look at an individual’s total tax burden, because much of that would exist with or without immigrants; you need to look at the marginal difference, how much EXTRA they are putting out as a result of immigrants. Then hold that up against how much is saved from the reduced cost of goods and services and you can see each person’s individual impact.
Why assimilation? Because America is a good thing. I think it’s pretty good as it is, but even as it shifts, national unity is a good thing.
I visited Coney Island and saw young people talking among themselves in Spanish. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were American-born, but they haven’t joined in.
Then we went to Brighton Beach because I wanted to see Little Odessa, and it wasn’t there any more. My host said it was a lot more Russian 10 years ago. They didn’t all move back, so I assume they became Americans.
When my grandparents came over a century ago they learned English. They didn’t get ballots in their native languages. Besides the welfare state (and whether or not immigrants are actually using it more or less than natives it certainly exists more than it used to) this polylingualism is different.
“I’m not sure about all of their policy recommendations, but they’re dead on here.”
I’ll clear it up for you then. The only moral policy is open borders and abolition of the welfare state.
Simple, really.
Is it immoral for the nation-state to exist at all?
How rid of the welfare state would things have to be before open borders would not be a recipe for destruction of the state, in a despoilage of the commons kind of way? (I’d rather stop people at the border than have every municipality enforcing its vagrancy and no visible means of support ordinances.)
Open borders + no welfare state might be better than closed borders + welfare state, but open borders + welfare state is even worse.
“Do you trust Radley Balko’s opinion?”
Radley is a good writer and thinker, but like all people who write on politics and society for a living there are professional repercussions for changing your mind. So I find Radley quite naive on this issue, but also quite stubborn: his posts on immigration and illegal immigration tend to simply brush aside valid complaints on our current situation as boorish, nativist, naive, anti-property rights, etc.
Imagine if Radley or a similar writer did have a change of heart about illegal immigration. Would he be able to write about it? A few writers do go with their changes of heart, but usually cognitive dissonance prevents it: he’d be mocked and discredited if he did a 180 on illegal immigration (or even turned 90 degrees), since he’s written so much about it already.
So from that sense, ironically, people who publicly write on issues are not always the best people to seek truth from.
David Chesler@40 – in the usual meaning of the term “nation-state”, I’d say YES.
“I’ll clear it up for you then. The only moral policy is open borders and abolition of the welfare state.”
This kind of impractical ideological impurity is what gives libertarianism a reputation as a philosophy that cannot govern.
Libertarianism, for me, is a guide: the ideal is the maximum amount of freedom for the greatest number of people. But open borders? What would happen if we literally had open borders? conservatively I’d say we’d have 200 million people come here in the first five years.
So while I agree in an ideological sense that it’d be nice if everyone on Earth could live anywhere they want, in a practical sense it’d be a catastrophe, destroying quickly the nice society that attracts so many people in the first place.
So while I guess it makes people feel good to shout for “open borders” on website comments sections, it can’t happen — and you wouldn’t like it if it did. Don’t believe me? check out California’s financial and social situation over the past 45 years — bankruptcy, ethnic strife, growing irredentism, lousy public schools, stratified society. And this is a state that was arguably the best place in the world to live just 40 years ago — and now has a net outflow of natives!
Amazing — open borders would be that times 50.
BSK writes:
“Everyone benefits from the low cost of labor or produce facilitated by undocumented workers.”
Except the public schools that are overcrowded with their children, the hospitals that close because their emergency rooms become overcrowded with illegal aliens, the state budgets busted by enormous social services given to illegal immigrants, the state and federal prisons burgeoning from illegal immigrant populations, etc.
Sure, BSK — businesses can make a better profit by exploiting illegal immigrant labor. Agree 100%! But only by shifting the human cost of that labor onto the taxpayer.
But you know all this.
“which means that if a landowner in Texas or Arizona is willing to allow nonviolent workers across or onto her land, the federal government can overrule her”
OK but these are human beings we’re talking about not simply “workers.” They have needs — security, schools, medical care, an enormous range of social services, etc. culture matters — you can’t simply brush it aside, and when you do you exhibit the kid of childishly naive worldview that makes libertarians look silly.
If you import 1,000,000 Mexicans into, say, Minnesota, that’s going to have a complex and enormous impact. You can’t pretend otherwise.
Wow Zeke! You nailed it. I think Balko has fallen into the trap that America is the problem, not the solution. Where in the world do we have open borders that third-world citizens are free to cross into a Western country? None! Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, nope! They all keep close tabs on who comes and goes.
One thing about those upthread praising Jeb Bush over George W. Bush: the Bushes are a crime syndicate going back four generations. Nothing more, nothing less. That Jeb takes this position on illegal immigration and George W. takes another, that one writes an op-ed with this position and another with that — it’s all show.
The interests of the Bushes and the rest of the US and global elite is the same now that it has always been: securing and increasing their own power. Their positions and opinions flow from this, not from any ideological underpinnings or interest in the general welfare or the nation.
Ezekial-
Wait to take issue with one sentence in an otherwise long posts that talks about exactly what you are getting at. There are pros and cons to immigration as it currently looks in our country. Some people experiences more cons than pros, some more pros than cons. Most of us, ultimately, experience more pros than cons, only we don’t realize it. We see issues at local schools and hospitals and think that is the only impact. We ignore the fact that construction costs are a fraction of what they would be otherwise or that food prices are at historic lows and plummeting. So, yea, your tax burden is a bit higher but your cost of living is significantly less. It’s a net gain for a majority of Americans.
That’s not to say that the current situation is tenable and should continue. There are other factors that must be considered. But the idea that immigrants are coming here and overburdening “real Americans” financially is simply not backed up by ANY facts.
Can you provide evidence of a single hospital that has closed because of illegal immigrants frequenting it?
“Wow Zeke! You nailed it. I think Balko has fallen into the trap that America is the problem, not the solution. Where in the world do we have open borders that third-world citizens are free to cross into a Western country? None! Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, nope! They all keep close tabs on who comes and goes.”
Andy-
Why does where they come from matter? Europe allows open immigration through the EU. But since the people immigrating aren’t “third-word” AKA brown folks, it’s all fine and dandy?
America has a long history of “otherizing” immigrants. We viewed Irish and Italian immigrants as being less than American standards and the dregs of European society. Now we are doing the same thing with immigrants from Latin America. It proved ethically and morally wrong the first time we did it… how about we learn from history?
Radley is a good writer and thinker, but like all people who write on politics and society for a living there are professional repercussions for changing your mind.
Ah, yes. My position couldn’t possibly have anything to do with principle, reason, or empirical data. It couldn’t possibly be that I don’t find your arguments persuasive. Must be something else. Must be stubbornness! And naivette! And a fear of professional repercussions for changing my mind!
I’m not saying your position on immigration isn’t based on principle. I’m saying that if you (or any other professional writer) does change their mind on immigration (or any other important issue), there are powerful external forces (discrediting, ridicule) that would discourage public airing of the shifted viewpoint, and a powerful internal force (cognitive dissonance) that would rationalize not shifting the viewpoint.
BSK — of course it matters where immigrants come from, since the closer the immigrants are ethnically and culturally the easier it is to assimilate them. This is common sense and you’re feigning ignorance on it.
It’s much easier for a Norwegian to assimilate to Swedish society than Kurd — the Norwegian looks similar, speaks a similar language, and has similar cultural norms to the host country.
Yes America assimilated Italians, but it was more difficult to do so — and took longer — than it did to assimilate, say, Dutchmen or Swedes. And it will take even longer to assimilate groups from further afield than that, so we have to be careful with it.
I find it odd that you don’t even believe immigrants even *should* assimilate, as you stated upthread, and now you’re feigning ignorance on the idea that some immigrants are easier to assimilate than others. Disingenuous.
BSK writes:
“Can you provide evidence of a single hospital that has closed because of illegal immigrants frequenting it?”
“Between 1993 and 2003, 60 California hospitals closed
because half their services became unpaid.”
http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf
Google is your friend, BSK — assuming you’re interested in truth and not in propaganda. There are many more of these hospitals that have closed since this paper was written.
I guess I’m to understand that you’ve formed a strong enough opinion on the pluses and minuses of illegal immigration to post repeatedly on a website — all without being aware that a single hospital in the United States has closed due to illegal immigrants swamping their resources?
This kind of impractical ideological impurity [sic] is what gives libertarianism a reputation as a philosophy that cannot govern.
If you mean “govern” in the non-consensual sense — and I have little doubt that you do — then I would accept that reputation with pride.
How rid of the welfare state would things have to be before open borders would not be a recipe for destruction of the state, in a despoilage of the commons kind of way?
Your state is doomed anyway by economic reality. But beyond that, didn’t anyone ever tell you that two wrongs don’t make a right?
Read this, too BSK:
http://www.cis.org/feere/hospitals
“In Mexico, hospitals are different. There you have to pay.”
Wait a second… aren’t Mexicans closer, geographically and culturally, to America than, say, Russians? Yet no one is talking about stemming the tide of immigrants from Russia.
I suppose it depends on how we define “assimilation”. If you are saying that immigrants should check their language and culture at the door, sorry, that doesn’t fly with me. If you are saying that they should abide by the larger cultural norms and expectations, then I would agree. And I think, with only a few exceptions, every immigrant group ultimately achieves that.
Assimilation, in the general sense, implies that there is a unified, monolithic culture that defines a nation. That may be true in small states that have remained relatively homogeneous. But how does one assimilate to being American? America has such a range of cultures internally. Does a Mexican immigrant to Kentucky have to adapt Southern culture while a Mexican immigrant to New York have to become a New Yawka?
Assimilation is a term that is thrown around and, ultimately, means very little. Absent British immigrants insisting on driving on the left side of the road or Mexicans insisting that Americans shouldn’t celebrate the 4th of July, what MAJOR immigrant wave has ultimately refused to assimilate?
The only example I know of is the Hmong people, though they are a different case because they were forcibly emigrated to America in most circumstances and didn’t really want to come here in the first place.
…and a powerful internal force (cognitive dissonance) that would rationalize not shifting the viewpoint.
Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. So I think you’ve accidentally made a valid point: Radley’s position on immigration is unlikely to change because it would then conflict with his relatively strong stance on property rights.
RWW — “purity” I meant, not “impurity” — but you knew that.
My state? lol. I don’t support big government at all. And I agree our current monetary system is on the verge of collapse.
No RWW, you can value property rights and still be against open borders. I meant the cognitive dissonance of a brain that says to itself, “I’m forced by my situation to think this way, therefore I’ll self-deceive into thinking that I *want* to think this way.” Happens all the time, and not only with libertarians.
RWW — “purity” I meant, not “impurity” — but you knew that.
Hey, I don’t like to make assumptions — especially given your strange misuse of the term “cognitive dissonance.”
My state? lol. I don’t support big government at all.
No, just that the government’s claims on the borders overrule the basic rights to property and freedom of association.
Ezekial-
I never said that no hospitals have ever closed. You made the assertion but refused to back it up. You’ve provided some evidence that I’ll have to look at. Asking you to cite sources is not inappropriate when you’ve made positive assertions. The burden of prove is on you.
Again, did I say that there was no negative impacts from illegal immigrants? Far from it. Instead, I said they were outweighed, for most Americans, by the positives. Let’s imagine the inverse, where hospital beds are in good supply but most families can’t afford housing because construction costs have pushed home prices and rents beyond a lot of families’ means. Suddenly we’d be bemoaning the fact that our overly-strict immigration policies were putting people on the streets.
We certainly need immigration reform, which should also be coupled with other reforms as well. I’m not advocating for the current system. But demonizing immigrants as the cause of all America’s problems is simply bullshit. Look at the facts Radley supplied. I know it’s frustrating when the truth gets in the way of the narrative you’ve constructed, but that’s how it works when you’re wrong.
No RWW, you can value property rights and still be against open borders.
Oh? Who owns the border?
BSK writes:
“aren’t Mexicans closer, geographically and culturally, to America than, say, Russians? Yet no one is talking about stemming the tide of immigrants from Russia.”
Geographically is irrelevant; a New Zealander is closer geographically to a Japanese than to an Englishman but would have a much harder time assimilating in Japan than in england.
“what MAJOR immigrant wave has ultimately refused to assimilate?”
All have so far (pre-1965 I mean), but that had a lot to do with forces that are now gone: elite support of assimilation, decades of low immigration to assimilate the newcomers (1924-1965), etc.
The point of Radley’s post in the first place was that the Mexican wave is the same as previous waves, but it’s not — in important ways I outlined above (proximity, size, irredentism, elite anti-assimilation policies). So my point is that the Mexican wave is the first to be likely to not assimilate, to develop into a permanent Quebec situation. It’s already happening, and has been happening for a long time.
“Asking you to cite sources is not inappropriate when you’ve made positive assertions.”
Yes but you can Google as easily as I can. Your exact words were “Can you provide evidence of a single hospital that has closed because of illegal immigrants frequenting it?” which leads me to believe that you either were unaware of such hospitals — in which case the value of your opinions on the pluses and minuses of illegal immigration comes into question — or you’re intentionally wasting time.
By the way, Ezekiel, why do you object to my calling it your state? When you say things like “We should be more selective choosing who we allow into our country,” and “We should secure our southern border,” I think it’s fair to say you’re claiming some kind of deep affiliation with the state.
BSK writes:
“Let’s imagine the inverse, where hospital beds are in good supply but most families can’t afford housing because construction costs have pushed home prices and rents beyond a lot of families’ means.”
We have way too much housing in this country, as plummeting real estate prices, abandonded neighborhoods and half-finished condos shows.
I think I know where you’re coming from in this, BSK — I’m coming from the same place, if my guess is right — but I’d respectfully ask you to read up a bit on the negative aspects of illegal imigration, especially in places most hard-hit by it (SoCal, Arizona) before recommending it for the entire country. It’s not an exaggeration to say that unfettered illegal immigration has, in the past 45 years, significantly lowered the qaulity of life in SoCal, which was previously perhaps the best place to live on the planet.
And yet people want to move *away* from it now, not *to* it. Why? Unfettered illegal immigration. Ad the vast majority of Americans agree.
Anyway, Seacrest out. Thanks for the discussion.
A[n]d the vast majority of Americans agree.
In the end, it always comes down to “might makes right.” Property rights be damned.
Ezekial-
Your rebuttal to Radley is based more on conjecture than fact. As such, it doesn’t really hold much water.
You also are acting as if perception is reality. Is life in SoCal REALLY worse? Or are people just PERCEIVING it to be worse? I know that California is facing a lot of issues, some relating to immigration, but a lot are the result of other completely unrelated issues as well. Again, to single out immigration is unfair and simply plays on fears relating to racism, jingoism, xenophobia, and the like. It is a rhetorical tactic that ultimately should not be what dictates policy.
And as RWW said, submitting to the tyranny of the majority is the first step toward the further erosion of rights.
So, you’re saying that Russians would have an easier time adapting to the pervading culture of wherever they set up in the US than Mexicans would because… why? The close and long lasting cultural and economic ties our forefathers have had with slavic states? Theological and religious mores stemming from the long history of dominance by the Orthodox church in American society? Our interdependant history since the founding of both nations?
…it can’t be because “they” look more like “us”, can it?
Against the rules to accuse racism only *after* I’ve already said “Seacrest out.” But predictable, as selective outrage always is.
“California is facing a lot of issues, some relating to immigration” is my nominee for Orwellian understatement of the thread.
“California is facing a lot of unsolvable issues, almost all of them directly caused in large part by illegal immigration” would be right.
Seacrest out for reals!
Fine, RWW, let’s pretend for a minute that the owners of each plot of land adjacent to the border can allow anyone into his land that he wants. Who owns the street directly adjacent to his property? Presumably these imaginary kindly ranchers aren’t intending to have these people settle permanently on their land.
BSK said: You underestimate the way in which lower prices are also distributed across the masses. Everyone benefits from the low cost of labor or produce facilitated by undocumented workers.
And then BSK said: There are pros and cons to immigration as it currently looks in our country. Some people experiences more cons than pros, some more pros than cons. Most of us, ultimately, experience more pros than cons, only we don’t realize it. We see issues at local schools and hospitals and think that is the only impact.
Ah. No, I understand that, but my commentary on this thread has been primarily aimed at the question of “why are Americans today so much less welcoming than our Grandparents were?” I have not been very carefully formulating my arguments in this discussion, most likely because even if there weren’t any illegal immigrants at all, I’d be opposed to tax funded hospitals and schools. (I’m one of those crazy Market Anarchists. ;) ) I apologize for my lack of clarity.
I agree that overall, we end up benefiting, but people mostly don’t see that as much as they see the influx of illegals crowding schools and hospitals, which they know are tax-fueled entities. So, the perception of things is what ends up driving the policy sentiments of the country.
And the strain on those systems is still real, even if the overarching economic benefit works out in the general advantage of the population. So that contributes to the sensation that “hey, those guys are running up my tax bill and running down my hospitals and schools” even if it’s not a very accurate view of the world. It’s a lot easier to see that effect than it is to see “hey, I can buy a pineapple at Wal-Mart in December for a dollar” and understand that the reason for that is massive cheap labor.
Who owns the s?treet directly adjacent to his property?
I don’t know. Do you have a suggestion?
(I also don’t know where that question mark came from.)
Two wrongs don’t make a right? (RWW@54) It seems to me it’s more like you’re advocating jumping off the boat mid-ocean because we shouldn’t have been on this cruise in the first place. I tell you I agree we might have been better off staying home, but now that we’re in the middle of the ocean we have to finish the journey. Going to this less-than-ideal destination is a lot better than drowning.
If the nation-state self-destructs, it will not be there for anyone to come to. Now if that is your goal (that was why I asked #40) then you may as well lay it out, because we can’t come together on what’s best until we know what we’re aiming for.
If the nation-state self-destructs, it will not be there for anyone to come to.
They’re not coming here for your state.
But you’re right on one thing, David: I don’t expect to make much headway with someone who thinks, speaks, and acts as part of a collective.
Are they coming for the waters?
But so noted, the anarchist position is that there should be no state.
perl-
Gotcha. I agree. The problem is when we allow “perception” to dictate our actions when, in fact, perception is not aligned with reality. I’m not saying we deny the perception. People are seeing what they are seeing and feeling what they are feeling and that is very real. That needs to be addressed. But it should be primarily addressed through education. People need to see the facts, as Radley and others have laid out, that demonstrate how people benefit from immigration as it stands. We’re destined to fail if we never address the fundamental difference in how we perceive and evaluate a situation.
Again, I’m not advocating for the current system. It ultimately screws a lot of people, illegal immigrants and citizens alike. There needs to be a LOT of reform. But I think it’s foolish for people, like Ezekial, to continue to harp on the “Immigrants are the cause of all our problems” meme, especially in the face of boatloads of evidence to the contrary. Even when I concede that there are legitimate issues with our current immigration situation with regards to how it impacts citizens, he calls me Orwellian. I guess I shouldn’t even bother with folks like that, eh?
Loadtoad-
Well played, sir. Great comment!
Ezekial-
What the hell does “Seacrest out” mean anyway? And I didn’t accuse anyone of racism. I simply noted how racialized views factor into people’s perception/analysis of this debate. That’s a reality of the situation, not an accusation on any individual.
“One thing about those upthread praising Jeb Bush over George W. Bush: the Bushes are a crime syndicate going back four generations. Nothing more, nothing less.”
You just disqulified yourself idiot!
The anti-illegal camp here is missing something very important here and that’s supply and demand. There is a demand for illegal labor in this country. They wouldn’t be here otherwise. Our government is hampering supply from meeting demand. It’s not any different from price controls or oppressive regulation. Every time this happens, black markets occur. Occurs with prohibition of booze, drugs, prostitution, and laborers.
The legal avenues for supply to meet demand are poor. The arguement shouldn’t be, “what can we do to stop illegals?”, it should be “why isn’t our government allowing the free market to work as it should?”
All of the arguments about taxes paid and services taken, assimilation and non-assimilation, are missing the real issue here.
Mattocracy
It’s still not an excuse for them to come in illegally. The border needs to be secure thats priority number one but I do not believe that police state tactics which are openly supported by conservatives are in order to kick out illegals are in order. Another indirect issue would be the minimum wage, let employer and employee agree to a wage and not the state. I would support a guess worker program because then the said worker is in the country legally.
…the anarchist position is that there should be no state.
Well, a lot of people call themselves “anarchists” while wanting to use coercion to achieve their goals, so I don’t find that label useful. I prefer “voluntaryist” myself, since I think it’s more clear. Besides, I don’t really care if someone wants to live under a state, of whatever flavor (communist, republican, monarchic, etc.), as long as it’s really their own choice to do so.
And I know that for the realistic and foreseeable future, there will be a state. The best I can do is point out the absurd hypocrisy of claiming to believe in liberty and property rights while advocating immigration restrictions.
[The] government is hampering supply from meeting demand. It’s not any different from price controls or oppressive regulation. Every time this happens, black markets occur.
Good point there. It may be that repealing minimum wage laws would curb illegal immigration (not that I understand why someone would want that outcome). Repealing social programs might also have that effect. Personally, I’m not sure if those actions would make a significant difference, but they’re the only legitimate options available for those who (for some reason) want to stem the tide.
All of the arguments about taxes paid and services taken, assimilation and non-assimilation, are missing the real issue here.
They’re also completely grounded in collectivism.
The border needs to be secure thats priority number one…
Why?
I would support a gues[t] worker program because then the said worker is in the country legally.
Why this weird fetish with what’s legal? Does government approval somehow determine the morality of an action?
Once again, for those who say they’re not opposed to immigration, but only illegal immigration, I have a solution so simple you’ll feel stupid for never having thought of it: Just legalize it. All of it. Solves the whole problem with no effort at all!
If you blanch at that, then your problem is not with “illegal immigration” but with immigration that you think ought to be illegal because of some other property (maybe because you think there’s too many Mexicans around or something, or for whatever reason).
Those who say the problem with Mexicans is that they are “illegal immigrants” unlike earlier generations are spouting nonsense. You can’t really have a transhistorical discussion about “illegal immigration” because there was no such thing as “legal” vs. “illegal immigration” until about the late 1800s, and even then only if you were Chinese. Then in the early 20th century you start to have quotas for Europeans. Mexican immigration was not numerically restricted (though certainly regulated in other ways) until the Hart-Celler Act in 1964 and the quotas were set at arbitrary and quite low ceilings, unrealistically low in light of the agricultural labor market and the history of movement back and forth across the border. I don’t see the usefulness of using this word “illegal” as though it somehow transcends all historical periods. If your great-great-grandparents came here “legally” that is only because there was not yet the “legal” apparatus for the regulation of immigration that we have today. It’s sort of silly to sit here and speculate about whether your great-great-grandparents *would have* followed all the rules had there been rules.
Also, people’s anecdotal stories about their grandparents assimilating more quickly, etc. are also, simply, not backed up by historical fact. In Wisconsin, for instance, there were all German speaking public schools for several generations. e.g. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102523977
“If your great-great-grandparents came here “legally” that is only because there was not yet the “legal” apparatus for the regulation of immigration that we have today. It’s sort of silly to sit here and speculate about whether your great-great-grandparents *would have* followed all the rules had there been rules. ”
My great-grandparents and grandparents were law-abiding. I resent the implication that they were not. They obeyed the laws that were in place. There is no reason to think they would have violated laws that were not in place, had they been in place.
“people’s anecdotal stories about their grandparents assimilating more quickly, etc. are also, simply, not backed up by historical fact. ”
I don’t know about “historical” fact, but my maternal grandfather came over at age 14, and he had to sit in a first-grade class until he learned English. That didn’t take him generations, it took him about a year. And it’s not because Hungarian is so close to English. By the time I knew them, half a century after they’d come over, their English was unaccented. They knew that to get ahead they had to learn English. My parents, the first-generation born in America, spoke English at home growing up. My mother can understand some spoken Hungarian and make herself understood for basics; my father knew only a few expressions in Yiddish. I’m probably more fond of cabbage and gefilte fish and chopped liver than the average American, but my identity is much stronger “American” than anything else.
My great-grandparents and grandparents were law-abiding. I resent the implication that they were not.
My grandparents were law-abiding as well. They lived in Germany (they still do) during World War II; my grandfather was a soldier and my grandmother was a member of the Hitler Youth. I am neither proud nor ashamed of them for obeying the law. They probably did it because they felt they had to for their own safety. Likewise, being a legal immigrant (as opposed to an illegal immigrant) is nothing to be either proud or ashamed of. Bowing down to the state in that way is just something people do for safety.
By the time I knew them, half a century after they’d come over, their English was unaccented. They knew that to get ahead they had to learn English.
If that’s so, why do you feel a need to inflict legislation upon other immigrants to force them to conform?
I’m probably more fond of cabbage and gefilte fish and chopped liver than the average American, but my identity is much stronger “American” than anything else.
What does it even mean to identify as American?
Historian for the win!
David, you seem to subscribe to the idea that there is one type of “American”. Your ancestors had to eliminate their accents to get jobs. Do we REALLY want that to be the case? “Sorry, folks, only native speakers employed here?” Unless mastery of the English language is required for a job, as long as the person has the prerequisite language skills, who cares if their English is accented?
Again, the idea that Mexicans (and other Latin Americans) are coming here and trying to turn America into Mexico is just nonsense. Does every Mexican immigrant, legal or otherwise, speak English? No. But what evidence is there that their children don’t? Presumably, if they are here raping and pillaging the welfare state, overburdening our schools, they’re learning English, right? With VERY few exceptions (immersion charter schools), American public schools still speak English, right? So if the argument is going to continue that they’re stealing our public education, then we need to give up on the argument that they aren’t learning English. They might not be as fluent or perfect-sounding as native born, but they’re learning it within a generation, just as previous ancestry groups did. And I’m thankful that current social norms don’t dictate that they must abandon their own culture and language, but instead still allows room for them to maintain that and find ways to engage in American society.
Also, what do we do about Puerto Ricans??? They’re American but *GASP* most speak Spanish.
Absent a good reason not to, obeying the law is generally a good quality (and wanting to cut to the head of the line isn’t a good reason.)
If that’s so, why do you feel a need to inflict legislation upon other immigrants to force them to conform?
As long as they don’t demand I don’t change (by printing ballots in multiple languages, by making bilingual skills a job requirement) and don’t want citizenship, I’d be happy to let them be.
What does it even mean to identify as American?
I see BSK denies there is such a thing. There is the idea of the nation, the shared welfare. Language is a unifying element; bilingual nations tend to have division. Culture, for instance Americans should have an appreciation of Mark Twain. Shared holidays like Thanksgiving and Independence Day. Americans should have a knowledge of American history and American civics. American schools ought to allow students to wear a shirt with the American flag to school any day they choose.
With VERY few exceptions (immersion charter schools), American public schools still speak English, right?
Fluency in Spanish is a requirement for various positions in the school system.
Unless mastery of the English language is required for a job, as long as the person has the prerequisite language skills, who cares if their English is accented?
Someone who is wondering whether they’ve been speaking English for half a century, for one. I offered it as an counter-example to historian’s German-speaking Wisconsinites, genuine immigrants whom I knew well, who came to America and became as American as they could.
But what evidence is there that their children don’t?
See at #38. (This being New York, the Hispanics are mostly Puerto Rican, not Mexican.)
There’s plenty of room for variation, by ancestry as well as region. Several of my closest friends are from various places in East Asia, and they have worked hard to become American. Language is a primary indicator (I don’t have long conversations about politics and civics with people I pass on the street.) I’m not seeing that striving in all immigrants, and I am seeing lawsuits to print ballots in various languages.
Absent a good reason not to, obeying the law is generally a good quality…
The only considerations I find proper in decided whether to break a law is the morality of the action and its potential dangers.
…(and wanting to cut to the head of the line isn’t a good reason.)
Oh, how droll. By what right does your government create this line? I’ve heard that the proper rights of a government are derived from the individual rights of its citizens, and its authority rests on the their consent. Am I mistaken? I suppose I must be, since I have no right over the property of my neighbors, including their ability to hire or house whom they please, nor do I consent to their being denied those property rights in my name.
As long as they don’t demand I … change (…by making bilingual skills a job requirement)…
There are three ways an immigrant can make bilingual skills a job requirement:
1. By owning the business.
2. By “demanding” it as a customer in the market.
3. By agitating for its legislation.
Options 1 and 2 are completely proper for anyone with even a semblance of respect for individual rights. Option 3 is, of course, highly objectionable as an interference with the peaceful operation of the free market (just same way that you seek to interfere).
…and don’t want citizenship, I’d be happy to let them be.
This part of your statement makes no sense. You clearly are not happy to let immigrants who do not seek citizenship be. I’ve grown accustomed to contradictions from your side of this argument, but this one doesn’t even seem to serve any rhetorical purpose, so it’s very puzzling.
There is the idea of the nation, the shared welfare. Language is a unifying element; bilingual nations tend to have division. Culture, for instance Americans should have an appreciation of Mark Twain. Shared holidays like Thanksgiving and Independence Day. Americans should have a knowledge of American history and American civics. American schools ought to allow students to wear a shirt with the American flag to school any day they choose.
Okay, let me try to translate that into a direct answer to my question (and strip out the weird collectivist notions): To identify as an American, you must speak English, appreciate Mark Twain, celebrate Thanksgiving and Independence Day, go to government school (at least for history and civics), and maybe sometimes wear/fly the flag. Anything else? Anything more substantial or less arbitrary, maybe? Also, what should be done to “citizens” like me who don’t meet a single one of these criteria, other than speaking English out of convenience?
Sorry for the several typos; it’s a bit early.
I guess that being born in raised in Texas probably effects my opinions a lot on this, but something that’s bothering the heck out of me from some posters is this fear/loathing for multilingualism. Who cares if people talk to each other in Spanish/Vietnamese/German (happens in TX all the time for ANY of those, y’all) when they’re not talking to you?! I practice Japanese/German/Spanish with my cousins sometimes when we walk around. Is THAT ok, since we’re white?
Also, for the record, when living abroad I was very grateful for signs and instructions in English. They made my life easier. But I guess after moving to Japan I should have been instantly fluent and able to navigate the complexities of getting my residency card/health insurance/cell phone without the assistance of English. I mean after all, I moved there (to study the language), shouldn’t I be able to understand EVERYTHING? To the few this applies to, get over yourselves. (Oh snap, anecdotal evidence. The anti-immigration folks favorite kind.)
There are so many other things to talk about when it comes to immigration, but this particular topic just irks me to no end.
The only considerations I find proper in decided whether to break a law is the morality of the action and its potential dangers.
There’s no particular moral imperative that green means go and red means stop, but I don’t weigh the morality every time I stop at a red light. I guess that makes me a brainless collectivist.
…(and wanting to cut to the head of the line isn’t a good reason.)
Oh, how droll. By what right does your government create this line?
Once you deny that the state gets to have and control its borders, or even to exist, none of this makes sense.
There are three ways an immigrant can make bilingual skills a job requirement:
1. By owning the business.
2. By “demanding” it as a customer in the market.
3. By agitating for its legislation.
Options 1 and 2 are completely proper for anyone with even a semblance of respect for individual rights. Option 3 is, of course, highly objectionable as an interference with the peaceful operation of the free market (just same way that you seek to interfere).
Option 3 is what I’ve come up against. I am seeing it. Not sure where I’m interfering with the free market, other than that which we’re discussing, open versus regulated borders. (I don’t agree that free markets require open borders.)
…and don’t want citizenship, I’d be happy to let them be.
This part of your statement makes no sense. You clearly are not happy to let immigrants who do not seek citizenship be. I’ve grown accustomed to contradictions from your side of this argument, but this one doesn’t even seem to serve any rhetorical purpose, so it’s very puzzling.
English ought to be a requirement for citizenship by naturalization. It needn’t be a requirement for visiting or even residency. As Midori says, it’s not likely that people will learn English before visiting (although some people do, with the intention of immigrating.)
You asked What does it even mean to identify as American? and I gave some examples. This is a comment thread on someone else’s blog. The examples ought to give you an idea of what it means, not a definition. If you really don’t know what it means to be American, what it is that many immigrants have wanted for their children for generations, if they can’t achieve it themselves, we’re not going to stop talking past each other in this thread.
Midori, you want to talk in Japanese/German/Spanish/Portuguese/Mandarin/Russian/Jamaican patois/Haitian creole/etc, that’s your business. But if you can’t speak English, you’re not trying hard enough.
Most of the points I might make seem to have been made in the first half(ish) of the comments, so I will summarize one point that hasn’t been much touched upon and make one other:
- Strong property rights and open/closed borders have no relation. I believe in strong property rights, and I believe in border control. I am not alone, and there is no dissonance in those beliefs. The STATE owns the border, essentially by definition – indeed, that’s one of the few real purposes of a central government.
- The people who keep saying everything is fine almost universally don’t live in border states. When your house is on fire, I’ll tell you all about how it’s really not, or, if it is, it’s really beneficial to society. And as you burn and say that it hurts, I’ll just call it an anecdote. Same when your children say it. And everybody else in the house. All just anecdotes. Doesn’t matter that EVERYONE who is on fire actually says it burns, the studies say it doesn’t.
The economy benefits? Great – let’s just confiscate Bill Gates’ fortune. The economy would benefit… that’s sufficient to run over just one person, right? Anybody who would make that argument and say they are for strong property rights would get laughed out of the room, but that’s what is getting said here. The people who are actually paying the price of these “benefits to the economy” are actually having the gall to complain! Don’t they know that the economy is benefiting?!? If it’s such a benefit, YOU come pay the price for it for a while!!!
Oh, and the immigration system is indeed insane and needs an overhaul, quite possibly involving much larger allowances of immigrants or a “guest worker” program of some sort. That’s not the point.
Thumbs up for Deoxy. (Except when you say “guest worker” please don’t target only my industry for guest workers, as is currently the case, which is yet another discussion.)
I said, “The only considerations I find proper in decid[ing] whether to break a law is the morality of the action and its potential dangers.” You respond with: “There’s no particular moral imperative that green means go and red means stop, but I don’t weigh the morality every time I stop at a red light.” Is this seriously your response? I strongly urge you to read my statements in their entirety before responding to them in the future. That’s assuming you’re not willfully ignoring things because of the weakness of your position. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Once you deny that the state gets to have and control its borders, or even to exist, none of this makes sense.
For the sake of argument, I’ll willingly give you the right of a state to exist, for the purpose of the defense of its citizens against crime. But that doesn’t change anything.
Not sure where I’m interfering with the free market…
Let me make it plain, then: you would restrict me from hiring, housing, and doing business with peaceful individuals.
English ought to be a requirement for citizenship by naturalization. It needn’t be a requirement for visiting or even residency.
You said “As long as [immigrants] …don’t want citizenship, I’d be happy to let them be.” I was pointing out that this statement utterly contradicts a position against illegal immigration. So, are you now saying that you’re fine with illegal immigration (while actual citizenship needs to have certain conditions attached)?
You asked What does it even mean to identify as American? and I gave some examples.
Right, and I asked you a question about them. Are you going to answer it?
The examples ought to give you an idea of what it means, not a definition.
Are you capable of giving me something approaching a definition?
If you really don’t know what it means to be American… we’re not going to stop talking past each other in this thread.
And how, pray tell, are we to have any kind of real discussion if you’re unwilling to define the vague terms you use? What am I to make of someone who uses an ambiguous and apparently subjective phrase and then refuses to explain it with any precision?
I believe in strong property rights, and I believe in border control.
And I believe you have no idea what property rights are. But your further comments show this to be the case.
I am not alone…
Ah, the old appeal to the majority. What a pitiful refuge — and just another form of “might makes right.”
The STATE owns the border…
By what right? How did it supposedly come to own that particular land? And what if an immigrant travels by sea? Does your state own every mile of the coasts? And if the immigrant travels by air? Does the state own all aircraft? You have an intriguing notion of property rights, indeed. It seems to me that you claim, for your state’s ownership, any land convenient to your argument.
The people who keep saying everything is fine almost universally don’t live in border states.
I lived in Southern California for most of my life. Try making an actual argument, instead of irrelevant (not to mention incorrect) assumptions.
The people who are actually paying the price of these “benefits to the economy” are actually having the gall to complain! Don’t they know that the economy is benefiting?!? If it’s such a benefit, YOU come pay the price for it for a while!!!
Could you be a little less vague? Until then, I’ll assume that the “price” you’re referring to is the immigrants’ use of welfare programs in all their forms (including public education). Assuming such programs should even exist (I think not), and that immigrants take disproportionate advantage of them, how is it that people born on this piece of land have a greater claim to them than people born on some other piece of land?
Now, as for arguments referring to the supposed benefits to the economy, as someone who has studied Austrian Economics, I find the very idea of measuring such benefits ludicrous and meaningless. All that can be said in that regard is that when anyone engages in peaceful, voluntary exchange, he is benefitting himself and others, and when anyone steals or uses force, he is harming others.
“With VERY few exceptions (immersion charter schools), American public schools still speak English, right?
Fluency in Spanish is a requirement for various positions in the school system.”
What does that have to do with anything? Is that supposed to be evidence that there are schools that are NOT teaching English? Yes, some schools look for teachers fluent in Spanish, so that they can ensure Spanish-speaking students are still learning the basic content in addition to English. The problem with a lot of ESL/ELL programs is the kids spend their first experiences in school ONLY learning English, and fall behind in other subject matters. A lot now focus on teaching them basic content (math, science, historical facts) in their native language while also teaching them English and then transitioning them to all-English programs.
Again, you can’t claim that immigrants refuse to speak English AND are bilking our public education system. The two situations are essentially mutually exclusive. There are not swarms of kids, sitting in American schools, refusing to learn English, yet demanding all their other educational needs be met. Is it possible that they cost slightly more to educate as a result of bilingual education? Sure. But again, you can’t argue both these points at the same time without talking out of both sides of your mouth and hoping people don’t notice.
Last I checked, American citizenship didn’t require an extensive appreciation for Twain or a particular way of celebrating Thanksgiving. If we want to deny these people the opportunity to pursue citizenship because they lack these, we might as well just appoint a counsel of citizenship and allow them to decide willy-nilly who will be considered one.
Hi. I’m one of those people who lives in a border state (Texas, to be precise) and is fine with current levels of immigration, legal and illegal. (Although I’d MUCH prefer we vastly simplify and expand legal immigration.) And really — if you’re saying it’s immoral to immigrate when it’s against the law, I have to ask — if you could provide for your family by breaking that (somewhat arbitrary) law, or abide by the law and watch your family suffer extreme poverty, which is more moral? In my opinion, laws of governments are secondary to laws of nature/God (pick your poison), one of which is that we are bound to do our utmost to provide for our families.
“By what right? How did it supposedly come to own that particular land? And what if an immigrant travels by sea? Does your state own every mile of the coasts? And if the immigrant travels by air? Does the state own all aircraft? You have an intriguing notion of property rights, indeed. It seems to me that you claim, for your state’s ownership, any land convenient to your argument. ”
This is pure asininity. The state by any realistic definition has the legitimate power to decide if an alien can enter its jurisdiction. Total ownership of border lands, coastal lands, and other internal points of entry is not required to exercise this control, which you surely know if you’ve ever actually crossed a national border or gone through airport customs in your life.
The state requires a minimal cession of control over certain properties in order to achieve its legitimate ends – and those ends do exist, like it or not. We can argue about the extent of the powers we should yield – and I do believe they ought to be minimized – but they are necessary to maximize the security of the rights of the people. You can be an anarchist if you want, but all anarchy does is ensure that the strongest collective wins, since collectives will form, and they will be stronger than individuals.
Not sure where I’m interfering with the free market…
Let me make it plain, then: you would restrict me from hiring, housing, and doing business with peaceful individuals.
Do you mean because I would insist that these peaceful individuals not be here, because they would be on the other side of the border? Or do you think I am saying it ought to be illegal to hire someone who does not speak English. I’m not interested in scoring points with word games.
English ought to be a requirement for citizenship by naturalization. It needn’t be a requirement for visiting or even residency.
You said “As long as [immigrants] …don’t want citizenship, I’d be happy to let them be.” I was pointing out that this statement utterly contradicts a position against illegal immigration. So, are you now saying that you’re fine with illegal immigration (while actual citizenship needs to have certain conditions attached)?
You caught me again with my imprecision.
I do not think borders ought to be open. I am fine with those who are here lawfully not learning English, as long as they understand they aren’t going to become naturalized, or get much beyond the basics, without it.
Those who are here in violation of the immigration laws (as messed up and without moral foundation as they may be) I am not fine with, even if they speak perfect English. (And since Midori implied it, even if they’re whiter than I am.)
I acknowledge it’s a messed-up system. If the federal government had wanted to control the borders it would not have let 12 million people enter or stay illegally since the 1986 “this time we mean it” amnesty.
If you really don’t know what it means to be American… we’re not going to stop talking past each other in this thread.
And how, pray tell, are we to have any kind of real discussion if you’re unwilling to define the vague terms you use?
It may be impossible. The concept itself is vague, and lacking bright lines.
People have lots of groups they identify themselves as part of: a region, a religion, a sports fan base, alumni, politics, nationality. I have not defined those terms. I think they’re well understood. We could probably find someone who has written about it cogently.
If you want to declare victory because I’m forfeiting on defining the term, go ahead.
If you want to have a fruitful discussion, I’m thinking of people who self-identify as “American”, or “American of ____ descent” as opposed to “A ____ who is living in America for the time being”.
“American citizen” is more clearly defined: Someone who was born in the US, or who was born to US citizens under certain circumstances, or who was naturalized.
RWW to Deoxy: I am not alone…
Ah, the old appeal to the majority.
No, it’s an appeal to “Come on, you know it’s not a crazy position, please don’t pretend that it’s so outlandish, even if you disagree with it.”
The state by any realistic definition has the legitimate power to decide if an alien can enter its jurisdiction.
That may be; if so, it’s one small part of why I find the concept of such a state to be immoral on its face. But then, I’m not sure how the definition of a state can establish whether one of its self-appointed powers is legitimate. It seems to me that any reasonable notion of a state’s legitimate powers would exclude a power its citizens do not individually possess. But I’ve already made that point and it has been ignored so far.
Total ownership of border lands, coastal lands, and other internal points of entry is not required to exercise this control, which you surely know if you’ve ever actually crossed a national border or gone through airport customs in your life.
And as you would know if you were following the context, I was responding specifically to the claim that the state owns the border, as a basis for national immigration restrictions.
The state requires a minimal cession of control over certain properties…
Well here’s some honest language, at least.
…in order to achieve its legitimate ends — and those ends do exist, like it or not.
You have certainly made that claim. But the burden of proof should be on the aggressor (that would be you, in this case), and I find myself unconvinced. In fact, I was once in your camp, so to speak, but I couldn’t reconcile that view with any real belief in basic morality, property rights, or the operation of a free market.
We can argue about the extent of the powers we should yield – and I do believe they ought to be minimized – but they are necessary to maximize the security of the rights of the people.
From what I’ve seen, any connection between immigration restrictions against apparently peaceful people and security is tenuous at best. And again, the burden of proof is on you who wish to take “control over certain properties.”
Do you mean because I would insist that these peaceful individuals not be here, because they would be on the other side of the border?
Yes. If they harm no person in moving from one location to another, there can be no legitimate reason to stop me from engaging in peaceful and voluntary trade with them.
Or do you think I am saying it ought to be illegal to hire someone who does not speak English.
No, that was not my impression.
I’m not interested in scoring points with word games.
I’m not interested in your empty metacommentary.
If the federal government had wanted to control the borders it would not have let 12 million people enter or stay illegally since the 1986 “this time we mean it” amnesty.
It does seem that many people in high places either do not care much about illegal immigration, or secretly cheer it on. Thank God for small favors, I suppose.
If you want to declare victory because I’m forfeiting on defining the term, go ahead.
Declare victory? What would that even mean in a discussion like this? Is this really how you think, or just another empty rhetorical flourish?
It just seemed to me that you consider it deeply important that immigrants identify themselves as “American,” so I wanted to know what that means. But is your concern simply their terminology — that they refer to themselves as American? Even I would use that word, in its geographical sense, to describe myself. And I am probably one of the last people (other than actual criminals) you would want to be naturalized, if I hadn’t had the random fortune to be born here.
No, it’s an appeal to “Come on, you know it’s not a crazy position, please don’t pretend that it’s so outlandish, even if you disagree with it.”
I wouldn’t call it crazy — it’s just vile, like so many other opinions that were once held by a majority.
Chesler-
Does that mean the Amish, Mennonites, and other groups already in America will have their citizenship revoked, because they don’t speak English? What if you are one of the so-horribly-monikered “anchor babies”? You are a citizen, but if you grow up speaking your native tongue, does that get stripped away as well? Or do these rules only apply to naturalized citizens? And, if so, what does it mean to have higher standards for naturalization than for native-born citizens? We already sort of have that in place, but is it ideal?
BSK @ 89: Presumably, if they are here raping and pillaging the welfare state, overburdening our schools, they’re learning English, right? With VERY few exceptions (immersion charter schools), American public schools still speak English, right?
I replied that the ability to speak Spanish was a requirement for working in the school system. You answered What does that have to do with anything?
What it has to do with is that it demonstrates that the people in American public schools don’t all speak English. The schools themselves, if we’re going to be picky, are made out of bricks and except in Peanuts comics they don’t speak at all.
The year my grandfather spent learning English didn’t irreparably harm his education – within a few years he had been admitted to Cooper Union.
My understanding is that bilingual education as it is practiced does not have the desired results. The students do not become fluent in English, and their overall education suffers. See for example http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/98may/biling.htm
Yes, there ought to be higher standards for becoming naturalized than for remaining a citizen. The alternatives are either no requirements for those who wish to become naturalized, and as we discussed that’s not going to work in a vacuum, or a system whereby natural-born citizens could be stripped of their citizenship, which could get very ugly. First of all, what happens to the resulting stateless people?
David-
You completely glossed over the entirety of my post in which I demonstrated WHY bilingual teachers were sought after and how bilingual education is approached.
The problem with most bilingual education programs is that it is a one-size-fits-none model. Some kids do best in immersion, some do best learning content in their native tongue while mastering English elsewhere, some do best in a truly bilingual environment. A lot of the failings of our programs is that they use one approach and one approach only. This is a general trend in our public school systems and is not unique for bilingual ed.
The fact remains is that most, if not all, of these kids are ultimately learning English. Maybe not as much as we want them to, but they are. They wouldn’t get through school enough to “drain” the school system without learning English. So again, you can’t hold two mutually exclusive arguments in your hand at the same time.
And, this assumes that bilingual ed is only for illegal immigrants. What about legal immigrants who come here with kids who don’t speak English? Should the kids be required to learn English before the parents can immigrate here? Often times parents will be more fluent than children, having learned English in their own schooling or as necessary for work. I had a Greek student in my class recently… didn’t know a word of English, though his parents spoke decently well. I don’t know their citizenship status, but presumably, that child should not have been allowed in public school, right? He has since learned English and is thriving.
So, again, I just don’t see the logic in insisting that the children of illegal immigrants are overburdening our public school system AND SIMULTANEOUSLY not learning English. It just boggles my mind that both can be happening. Either the kids are in the system long enough to overburden in and gain at least basic English skills or they are washing out, not going to school, and not speaking English. But the idea that there are droves of kids in public school, spending years on years in them, speaking only Spanish is simply a delusion.
The base note, and my discussion, is not limited to illegal immigrants.
The base note is about assimilation and “the myth that there’s something uniquely threatening to American culture from Hispanic immigrants.”
RWW has proven there is no such thing as American culture, so Hispanic immigrants can’t be threatening it.
For those who believe there is such a thing as American culture, the plain meaning of that so-called myth is that the current wave of Hispanic immigrants are changing the culture in more substantial ways than the marks made by earlier waves of immigrants.
They wouldn’t get through school enough to “drain” the school system without learning English.
I don’t see where you’ve supported that assertion.
Should the kids be required to learn English before the parents can immigrate here?
No, but they should be required to learn English before continuing other studies. They can put off learning subjects for the year or less that it takes to learn enough English to make it in a class which is taught in English.
Are they less able to learn English than were early 20th century immigrants? (Maybe in Wisconsin or Lancaster Cty. there were enough German speakers; in New York there were too many different people coming through.)
But the idea that there are droves of kids in public school, spending years on years in them, speaking only Spanish is simply a delusion.
That’s what the Atlantic article said. It’s supposed to be at most a three-year program, but students were staying in bilingual programs much longer than that.
If as you say they are learning English, why are ballots printed in multiple languages? A ballot ought to be of interest only to a citizen, and becoming naturalized is a multi-year process. I thought English fluency was a requirement; if not there is no reason to accommodate those who choose not to learn English. There need be no invidious purpose in limiting official documents, other than those of close to an emergency nature, to one language.
“But what evidence is there that their children don’t [learn English]?”
The demand for bilingual ballots. Immigrants cannot vote until they have learned at least enough English to pass a citizenship test. They aren’t the ones needing ballots in their native language. Their children, though, are citizens without having to pass a test. If there is a true need for bilingual ballots, it appears that far too many of their children are not learning English. (Two other possibilities: leftist politicians are pushing for expensive policies that aren’t even wanted by the supposed beneficiaries. Or they are attempting to make illegal voting common. But only right-wing wackoes believe that, right?)
Why does this matter?
1. How many languages are you going to put on those ballots? French Canadian? (My Canuck grandfather learned to speak accentless English back when not only were there no accomodations for French-speakers, but “Canuck” was an abusive word.) Thai, Cambodian, Laotian, Malay, at least two different Chinese languages, Korean, and Japanese? Odawa, Ojibwa, Iroquois, and 10,000 other native American languages? It’s quite impractical for any government agency to cover them all. So you cover just a few languages: the most numerous, and the most politically demanding.
This teaches the other groups that they should subordinate all other political considerations to ethnic group identity, and noisily agitate for the “rights” of their ethnic group. It’s poisonous politics, and is antithetical to libertarianism.
2. I’ve worked in a factory where everyone spoke English (although now and then I’d have to strain to understand an accent), and one where half the hourly workers primarily speak Spanish. There’s a considerable loss of efficiency when not all of your people can directly communicate. And that situation privileges Hispanic immigrants over the rest. (One engineer was born in Laos, one of the technicians is a recent immigrant from Lithuania, etc.)
3. Perhaps the most important consideration is that language is often a marker for culture. Adult immigrants may simply be unable to learn English well, but when their grandchildren are still primarily using the old-country language, this is strong evidence that they are not assimilating. This is not the same as immigrant communities where the kids often spoke English among themselves but also learned their grandparents’ language.
It’s poisonous politics, and is antithetical to libertarianism.
Democracy itself is antithetical to libertarianism.
There’s a considerable loss of efficiency when not all of your people can directly communicate.
As far as that is any business of yours, there are ways to address such an issue in the marketplace, without resorting to the violence you advocate.
…when their grandchildren are still primarily using the old-country language, this is strong evidence that they are not assimilating.
What does that even mean? And again I wonder: what business is it of yours? It is amazing to me that someone can speak favorably of both “libertarianism” and “assimilating” in the same argument.