Nativism, Open Borders, Mass Immigration and Grandma
By absentee Posted in Immigration — Comments (157) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
From the diaries by Leon. Paul's response is here.
"Andere Länder, andere Sitten"
The immigration debate rages, and it is necessarily complex. I cannot clear it up or straighten it out. I am not in the majority opinion among conservatives. I side more with the free marketers and President Bush. My family on my mother's side are German immigrants. On my father's side they variously stretch back to the American Revolution, revolutionary side, American Revolution, British side, and Native American. In other words, I have a dog in both sides of this fight.
It is an ugly feature of the immigration debate that groups like La Raza and misguided, non-expert television personalities like Geraldo throw around accusations of racism like Democrats throw around tax increases. Worse than that, Republicans like Lindsay Graham echoing such accusatory stances undermine the credibility of opposition within the segment of the population where that credibility is most needed.
All of this is so. However, what is just as destructive is the emergence from the shadows of the actual, factual racists and nativists, and their ability to be embraced into the fold by lipping reasonable positions held by reasonable people. It is those emergent aberrations I want to talk about. There are two reasons. First, if they are so embraced then pointing out their nativism gives the appearance that one is painting the whole opposition with the broad brush. Second, they are making conservatives and Republicans guilty by association in that critical population segment. That there must be a resolution to the immigration debate should be clear. That there cannot be until those elements are exposed should be equally apparent. At least I hope it is.
So what is nativism? I think that is the critical opening question. Answers.com says "A sociopolitical policy, especially in the United States in the 19th century, favoring the interests of established inhabitants over those of immigrants." Dictionary.com says, "the policy of protecting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants." It is also instructive to note that Answers.com includes a Sports Science and Medicine definition that reads "A theoretical perspective that emphasizes the importance of natural endowment as forming the basis of human behaviour, rather than the effect of environment."
In light of my recent discussion with another Redstate poster, I find that last particularly interesting.
At heart the question is how to preserve the national identity and cultural heritage of the United States and its citizens; But this question requires more fundamental questions be answered. What is our heritage? Is it limited to the founding fathers and their generation? Is it, as some have suggested, a heritage of immigrants? Who are Americans? What are they?
Throughout history, nations and peoples have struggled to retain their identity. The Jewish people have been notable in this struggle throughout, to put it mildly. France struggled with her identity, particularly during and after the turbulence following the Revolution. Rome struggled to assert its identity abroad; assimilation through conquest. Sparta fought to retain her "national" identity behind walls and barricades. Egypt passed hers down for centuries through enforcement and deification of her ruling class.
This is not a new thing, nor unique to the United States. It is more difficult to define here, however, because of the relative newcomer status, and the magnifying glass under which she was born.
Responsible people fear for the continuity and integrity of the United States and her identity in the face of mass immigration. Who can doubt that the fundamental character of Europe is under assault, when the growth of independent, unassimilated Middle-Eastern immigrant communities is outstripping the birth rate of citizens? How can that not alter the makeup and integrity of the nations of Europe?
However, observant people can also note that assimilated outsiders can be a reasonable vehicle for continuing a cultural identity. One only needs to observe our own short history to see how descendants of slaves and immigrants have not only been absorbed into the national identity, but have helped to shape the burgeoning culture.
What is our culture? It is easy to identify French culture. It developed over the course of centuries. American? It was not set in place on the day of the founding of the nation, irrevocably to remain evermore. It was, and is, like every single culture in history shaped over time. The civil war, the Old West, the Native Americans, manifest destiny ... all part of the culture. The Texans, the Louisianans, the cajuns. American culture. Yes, Spanish and Mexican influences have been integrated. Culture shapes over time.
To suggest that this shaping is a destruction of America the entity is a dismissal of historic fact, but it is also philosophical nonsense. If you buy a motorcycle in 1945, you will have to repair it at some point. Over the years, more and more parts are replaced. Sometimes gaps of 5 to 10 years between replacements, sometimes many at once. In 2006 the last original part is replaced. Is it the same motorcycle?
Some would say yes. Some would say no, but may not be able to identify at what point it ceased to be such. A nativist would have you believe it was irrevocably differentiated by the first replacement part.
Mass immigration is dangerous. Large and growing pockets of unassimilated immigrants are not part of your culture. They have co-opted your geography and institutions with their own culture. This is a disruption of our heritage and should not be viewed as beneficial.
However, the heritage and culture of the United States and her citizens should not be viewed as exclusive of immigration. When you decide that the culture is dependent on birthrights and lineage specifically and exclusively to the founding fathers, then you are yourself ignoring the reality of our culture. The Statue of Liberty, herself an immigrant, is as valid a symbol of that culture as the Liberty Bell.
Are we a nation of immigrants? We are not. We are a nation of citizens, a nation of Americans. We are not all original parts, and the nation and the world are better for it. Assimilation and integration are part and parcel of the American national identity. Genetics and natural endowment are not the sole vehicle for handing down traditions, behaviour, and identity. A responsible immigration policy is about balance, not exclusion.
The debate about immigration will rage on. There are two points to be resolved: how to handle our border; what to do with those who are here. There are valid, good-faith arguments to be made on both sides. However, when you begin to entertain the notion that immigration is destructive by nature, I believe you have crossed into the wilderness. Responsible immigration is part of our identity. The barest examination of history will confirm this.
The American story is neither the French story nor the Spartan. It is the American story, and my family is part of it, not destructive of it.
absentee
for my wife to finally get US citizenship. She had a green card in high school and got ragged to teh dogs about it.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
It takes years for law abiding people to earn permanent residency, keep their permanent residency and eventually earn citizenship. It also costs thousands of dollars. These people are very valuable to the future of the country.
The problem we have now is there is a double standard in who can immigrate to this country. We have one standard for people that cross through an open border, undocumented, stealing identities, committing crimes and a different standard for everyone else.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
You refer a lot to the danger immigration poses to "American Culture."
Just a question: What parts of American culture are under assault from Mexico/Latin America etc.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Broadly, usurpation of one culture for another within the constructs of the former is bad. Balkanization is undesirable from a cultural and economic standpoint, and usurpation for a host of reasons. When we become the imported culture then we are the imported nation. I like the American identity, even our misnomer of being a nation of immigrants. I'd rather remain the sometimes intemperate mixture than to become homogeneous, be that homogeneity a result of too much immigration or too little.
absentee
look to Canada to see what happens to a country that tries to be bi-lingual. We need our immigrants to learn English, pure and simple. OR we lose our national identity.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
An official language is critical and should be a priority. I'm not entirely convinced that bilingual doesn't work, as it seems to work in some countries and not in others. However, it stands to reason that a bilingual nation would work best if it naturally evolved thus, by virtue of bilingual people.
Bilingual people are good. Two monolingual peoples living as one nation seems not so good.
absentee
It fell just a few shorts of becoming the national language. I don't think we have a national identity based on the English language, which if you ask the actual English is quite bastardized as it is. What we say, and do is much more important than the language we say it in.
Not based on the English language is right. But based on the common use of a single language.
There are tremendous problems with the idea of having multiple official languages. Also with the idea of having government officials other third parties translate official documents written in English into another language for the use of non-English speakers. The reader has to be able to do the translation, otherwise he's at the mercy of the translator.
The language is what unites us. If you don't believe me, how is it that even though we've fought two wars against them, the British and the rest of the English-speaking world always seem to be on the same side of major issues as us?
Look at what we're doing here. A new poster simply can't participate if he insists in doing it in French, unless we are all typing in French as well.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
are native American cultural elites, activist courts that usurp we the peoples' power to govern ourselves and the breakdown of the family.
Legal immigrants make BETTER citizens. They learn our heritage and love it.
Are too many illegal immigrants too soon a potential threat? yes
Can that de-stabilize communities? yes
But the main issue is, even if the border was secure, we would need to assimilate the LEFT that teaches minds fill of mush children their PC moral and cultural relativist rot.
We must stop courts from dictating what can be said and not said in local schools.
We must maintain THE institution that turns wild animals into tomorrows adults, and it takes tow parents to do that effectively.
more later
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
But the main issue is, even if the border was secure, we would need to assimilate the LEFT that teaches minds fill of mush children their PC moral and cultural relativist rot.
I don't quite know what you mean by this, so I am wondering if you can elaborate a little. "The Left," depending I guess on how you define it, can mean up to half of this entire country - are they all not really part of American culture (thus needing to be assimilated)? I am a Liberal Democrat, but I feel as American as anyone. I mean, I was born here and lived all my life here, so if I am somehow not really American I don't know what I would be.
When you say "The Left," do you mean all left-of-center people? Are you referring to a smaller group (activist judges, some others)? Given an arbitrarily chosen Liberal Democrat, would you say that they need to be assimilated into American Culture? Am I way off here?
explanation of what I refer to is Bork's book
Slouching Towards Gomorrah
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Of course most bad ideas and policies are a result of the efforts of native born elites. Whether its the 'living Constitution' and king-like judges, or unbridled welfare, or multiculturalism, or racial preferences, or income redistribution, the source can usually be traced to white leftwing elites. But their most brilliant bad policy is perpetually high levels of immigration (legal included), because it will guarantee the entrenchment of all the others through the pro-Democrat demograhpics shifts it is bringing about.
Most in immigrant communities have favored, now favor, and will continue to favor the Democrats. Mass immigration itself strengthens the factors that makes this so, so it is not reasonable to expect this to change unless the GOP caves and plays 'me too' to the Democrats on a lot more than just immigration policy, because the reasons immigrants favor the Democrats goes beyond just immigration.
The free market you cherish is not truly "free" when business hire illegals pay an illegal wage and undermine the competitor...they do not follow the "rule of laws" set up to protect the worker and to protect the free market. The construction company who abides by the law will go under while the the one who does not reaps the benefits of lawlessness.
This is not a complicated issue...there are those who would like to laud it as such...it comes down to one thing only...the law..do we follow it or do we all ignore it and allow anarchy to reign?
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Is jaded meant to convey cynically worn out? I didn't really advocate anything illegal, I'm pretty sure President Bush didn't either. But that's not really my point.
Your analysis of why it isn't complicated is, yes, simplistic. It does not come down only to the law. If we merely enforce existing laws we aren't going to fix a thing. The border would remain porous and illegals would continue to evade. Obviously there needs to be some type of action taken over and above merely verbally affirming existing laws. What good could that possibly do?
absentee
worn out...I am as engaged and plugged in as I always was...I am just more adept at seeing the bs spouted as fact that I did not see when I was younger.
The advocacy of President Bush on this issue was to reward those who have done something illegal....if you are to take a group of people who are not American and give them a pass on illegality than perhaps there are a whole group of Americans who should enjoy the same benefits of a clean break....Why lets just give each and every lawbreaker in the country a clean record and move on....and start the process of seeing whether they themselves will be forthright citizens after their amnesty....This whole issue is about "right vs wrong" and feelings and I "feel" that everyone should benefit from amensty and I mean everyone...lets not be choosy...that would be "unfair"....and we are not an "unfair" people.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
But it would be a more free economy if there were no governments or boundaries to interfere with the flow of commerce by definition. Sort of makes you think about those hippies "fair trade" stores.
A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have. Thomas Jefferson
to this country and expired visa holders staying over are the main concerns by the majority of Americans including myself.
Even the MSM reported that the majority of americans that were concerned about border security would have no problem with those already here having a path to residency or citizenship after the borders were restricted.
I speak for myself of course but I believe others will agree that it isn't about maintaining an "American Culture". I believe an argument can be made that the variety of cultures and the freedom to choose amongst them is the true American Culture. The problem with rampant illegal border crossers is that they don't become part of the country nor do they want to be. Many stick to their own kind, self-segregating themselves. Fortunately their children become more American over time but that type of assimilation isn't working because of the volume of illegals.
Even the language isn't really a problem, it's the attitude. Canada has it's problems because the Quebeque turned inward and never felt nor wanted to feel, part of Canada. They maintained the language as a defiance against the political and physical takeover of "French Territory". Many illegals and some citizens from ex-spanish territories maintain their language as statement against American Culture and our political and physical takeover of "Spanish Territory". (which is ironic considering that the Spanish usurped "their" territory from the natives).
The real problem is the attitude which appears to be either "we want to have a better life and the americans have it, so we're going to cross their border for it" or "we're just trying to better ourselves and we're very industrious". If this attitude has any validity as an argument then burglary shouldn't be a crime. The argument that "we are a nation of immigrants" is a false one when applied to the current influx of those who arrive here with only the thought of money to be sent back to their true homeland and doesn't compare with the steady but slow flow in the late 19th and early 20th century from Europe of people who did not care to return to their country of origin (even that slower immigration was a problem and was argued against for similar reasons).
btw re: nativists; just because someone has some unsupportable opinions doesn't mean that all their opinions are incorrect or subject to suspicion of motive. (but it is wise to point them out).
The best way to point out some of the inconsistencies concerning "racism" as being the point of the anti-illegal immigrationists is to simply to state that "the United States is entitled to have and enforce the same immigration/border policy that Mexico has itself." Mexican Immigration Policy by Human Events
You say that as if it is a surprise the media would highlight a poll that goes along with their own leftist agenda on the issue.
And the poll results themselves are not surprise at all when respondents are presented with the bogus two option scenario of mass deportations vs path to citizenship for illegals. The other option -- attrition -- polls quite well when it is fairly presented, and that is probably why it is rarely presented.
But it is a fascinatingly complex issue. It would be interesting if a truly in-depth poll could be taken to try and truly gauge public opinion about immigration. I will admit that the path to citizenship often polls well, but so too does public support for either reducing legal immigration or maintaining current levels. So would the public support a path to citizenship if they knew it would result in a large increase in legal immigration?
I don't know the answer to that (though I'd bet that's it is NO), and I probably never will since its just one more of those questions that will never be asked.
Is a Canadian. Back in the mid-90's, I was trying to get her to this country and Joel Hefley's office was instrumental in helping me get her here.
Well, I say "instrumental"... looking back, all that really happened was probably nothing more than the INS liason telling me to fill out this form, that form, and this other form and include a handful of photos, phone bills, and maybe a birthday card or two and everything will work out fine.
At the time, though, I was just a kid in my 20's and had never had to deal with a mess of paperwork to that degree. It was so intimidating that I was tempted, more than once, to just grab a truck and tell her to meet me in Saskatewan
and we'll drive down the prairie and live the way we oughta. With each other. (What can I say? I was in my 20's.) This was, I repeat, in the mid-90's.
I can't imagine what it must be like after 9/11.
My wife makes this country better. She's college educated (Bachelor's Degree!), bi-lingual (fluent in both English and French... though she does use extraneous 'u's), and works 37.5 hours a week at a salaried position and pays her taxes like every good American can be expected to do.
And it was the biggest pain in the tuckus to get her here. I felt like I needed help from my Congressman's office to make it so we could get married.
That ain't right.
We need to make it easier to immigrate. Not harder. There are a lot of really good people out there in countries that are almost, but not quite, as good as ours (I won't let her read this entry) and making it a huge hassle to join our country will have them staying where they are... which will leave us worse off.
Because people who have contempt for the law will still be jumping fences to get here.
We need more good people to come here. The bad people will always be coming here. We need to make it easier for the good ones.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
What do you mean by that? Do you mean that we should make it easier for people like your wife to immigrate, or do you mean that we should just massively increase already high levels of legal immigration so that its easier for just about anyone (with the usual caveats about criminals and terrorists) to come here?
I ask because conservative supporters of mass immigration usually base their position in large part on what they see as economic needs, and on the individual success stories of immigrants like your wife. But what I always wonder is why such conservatives don't at least get behind efforts to end extended family chain migration and Ted Kennedy's Diversity Visa Program before calling for overall increases in immigration levels? Why not at least find out how many visas would be freed up by ending these Democrat-importing immigration policies?
good thing! The government really needs to streamline the process for legal immigration which will help with illegal immigration. Seems that the bureaucratic process prevents that. Streamline and simplify...(and close the borders to illegal immigration - both for safety and fairness).
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
and to allow assimilation. We do need a common language (minimum) to provide for successful integration into society.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
I agree that we should end illegal immigration. We cannot call ourselves a nation if we can't control who comes into our country. However, the whole notion of "bad people" who have "contempt for the law" is not accurate. The folks who come here are by and large good people who work hard and don't commit crimes after they commit the crime of entering illegally. The come here not because they hate our laws and our country but because they are hungry and ambitious. When a Mexican risks cross the border via an inhospitable desert or a Cuban boards a rinky dink raft or a Pole or Russian come via airplane and overstay their visa, they only want a better life. We are a nation of immigrants. We need immigrants to keep our economy vibrant and strong. Unless we plan to enact plans like France and Russia that provide incentives for couples having more children, we need immigrants to pay taxes to support our aging population and brave immigrants to join our military. We just need a way to know who's coming, who's here and who needs to go if they truly are a "bad person".
Any illegal with a job in this country is breaking several laws. The better the job the more laws being broken.
Any solution to this issue demands that a real price be paid for all the law breaking. Not a glorified traffic ticket.
Zero illegals should get legal status until every (qualified) person who is waiting gets their legal status. (From the moment whatever bill passes goes active)
The OP's grandparents (I assume) came here legally like many if not most immigrants in the countries past -Ellis Island anyone. The same cannot be said of the 12-30 million in country now.
I've actually lost interest in the illegal immigration issue because of the rise of the racist elements in the debate, and the fact that they go largely unchallenged by the grassroots. I feel a little differently about people like Lindsay Graham pointing it out--I think it's the right thing to do so. The problem is that people who aren't guilty of bigotry take it as an attack on them, I guess because they misunderstand what's being said. I've never seen Graham or any of the Bush/McCain plan supporters say "all anti-illegals are bigots." Just "some," and they are there.
And see, this "Juan McAmnesty" and "Jorge Arbusto" crap didn't just get invented by nice people--that sort of thing starts in the dark underbelly of the anti-illegal movement. It doesn't help when some of the loudest voices (i.e. Michelle Malkin) use offensive, bigoted language, and worse, openly associate with suspect groups like VDARE and worse. And then there are the nasty white supremacists who have gotten in with the Minutemen, too. It makes EVERYONE on the anti-illegal side look bad when the big names are associated with scum.
I just can't, in good conscience, ally myself with the Malkin/VDARE/Minutemen side when filth is allowed to dwell within. I'm for cracking down on illegal immigration, but I don't even bother talking about it on my blog or follow the "action alerts" that people send to me. I just don't want any part of it until the bigots are expelled.
------------
~ Beth ~
Every group of people, every association has members who are knowingly or unknowingly racist or bigoted. You'll never remove all from the members list. Also, the other side of said issue is going to do all it can to create the image of racism to help shut up the side they oppose. It is best to teach and act as an example within and show a united view to the world using verbiage that's not racist. To cower in front of those who call us names is not to be successful. To do nothing about illegal immigration due to the fear of being called racist solves nothing.
FredHeads for Mitt!
But we do have to do something for the good of the immigrants legal and illegal. We shouldn't have to require people to hide from the police. We shouldn't both blame them for all of society's ills while denying them the fair wages and benefits that everyone deserves.
...who is going around demanding that networks not give a microphone to 'hate speech'...with hate of course being defined by far-left extremist groups like La Raza and the Southern Poverty Law Center. How convenient for them.
First of all, if you are so concerned about the bad apples in the bunch, then surely you'd agree that it cuts both ways. Instead of focusing on what you consider racism from the Right, look at some of the racially-charged rhetoric of some latino activists and leaders. The difference, of course, is that the mainstream media will not cover the latter group, and leaders on the Left will never have the guilt-by-association tactic used against them. What you don't seem to realize that if the anti-mass immigration forces managed to purge every single racist but one from their midst, then that one would be found and emphasized.
What you also fail to realize is that reckless, baseless charges of racism is a standard tactic of the Left, and they are not going to let little things like facts and the truth get in their way of using it. Any politician or group which tries to give political expression to the very mainstream opposition to mass immigration will be accused of racism and xenophobia. It is the Left's best defense against the possibility that public opposition to unending mass immigration might actually come to be reflected in policy.
Dismissing a website like VDARE is your own loss. Yeah, they print some articles that I don't agree with, and some that I don't like, but overall they are an invaluable source on immigration. They were one of the first to point out that Bush did not win 44% of the latino vote in 2004, and they are especially good at shredding the myth that immigrants are 'natural Republicans' just waiting to vote for us...if only we'd become liberals on immigration. They are one of the few outlets trying to bring attention to the potentially massive collision between racial preferences and immigration. Why not judge each article on its own merits?
And there was nothing admirable about what Lindsay Graham did with his despicable 'bigots' performance. He wasn't making a fine distinction. He was painting with a broad brush and pandering to La Raza. And again, it's worth repeating that one of the La Raza heads is going around declaring that 'hate speech' -- as defined by far-left advocacy groups -- will not be tolerated! Graham came across as someone desperate for approval from elites, and as someone who suffers from a bad case of white guilt.
A few years ago I stopped blogging in RedState because of the vitriol shown me for standing up for some kind of limited amnesty, not for recent arrivals but for those who have been here long ago, who for all practical purposes have made this country their home. I was appalled when I would bring up the plight of those who have live here from the time they were young children and were now in their 20s, even older, who have no other home, and would be told that they should just be shipped out as if they were felons who came here last week.
I am blessed to have read the sentiments in this post, and most (not all) the responses. It reminds me that conservatism has not bereaved itself of all its senses.
Belisarius of Jerusalem, and of Constantinople
not still fellons though? If here illlegaly and they have a job, social security number , and other fake documents they sound like fellons to me. Not mass murdering crazies but not law abiding citizens.
Please correct me if I am in error, but is not undocumented entry into the Us, as well as overstaying a visa, a CIVIL OFFENSE, that is to say not a CRIMINAL OFFENSE?
Also, do be found guilty of most crimes requires intent to commit a crime. Can a minor brought to this country by parents, with no ties to their nation of birth (as possibly no documents to even prove they were born there) be held to have demonstrated any intent in coming to the US?
With regard to our high levels of undocumented aliens, the USA has a problem of its own making. We have chosen to make immigration extrordinarily attractive by having an open society, a dynamic economy, and a generally welcoming attitude. We then combine this with an incredibly restrictive immigration policy unbacked by controls at the boarder to actually enforce our chosen policy. The result is we have gotten precisely what we as a society have asked for.
The question is now what do we do about the situation we created? I argue that we need to rectify the mistakes of our past and find a way to regularise the backdoor invitation we gave to the undocumented, and to in some way reward those actually followed the rules.
We are not kicking out millions of immigrants - it is not practical, and the draconian measures required would shock the American conscience to the core. Metaphorically lady liberty would hang her head in shame if we tried to eject them and renounced these words:
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
But the level of offence scales up each time there after, so if anyone has been previously deported and reenters they are committing criminal acts.
Nonetheless the rampant document fraud and working off the books (i.e. tax evasion) are all felonies.
Many, if not most, undocumented aliens pay taxes. True they are using fake SSN's for employment based taxes, but that means that they are paying taxes, but not getting credit. They pay the same sales tax, gas tax, property tax, etc. as every one else (yet another argument for eleminating employment based taxes).
If they are being paid under the table then it is to my knowledge the EMPLOYER who is committing a crime. While we are at it are you going to launch a crusade against every citizen waiter who fails to accurately report all their tips?
If we the citizens of the USA create a system that begs to be gamed, our outrage rings hollow when we discover that it is being gamed.
Hey now you are not considering the damage to the other person. The person whose SS# is being used. The name may or may not match the number but that doesn't matter, that number is responsible for the income accredited to it. Some poor schlepp
making 30k a yera is all of a sudden owing taxes for 65k. The Internal Revenue is slow but has this sort of unstoppable inertia and it can be nigh impossible to get them to do anything
about it. It took my business partner 4 yrs, and he had money
to address the situation.
FredHeads for Mitt!
Oh, I agree that using a SSN not yur own can cause problems. Then again having the Fed government involved with tracking income period causes problems. ;^(
so the outrage does not ring hollow.
Illegal immigration is a powerful embodiment of liberalism that even moderates understand. It is a potentially gangbusters issue, but with McCain as the nominee its largely negated.
And yes, the outrage does ring hollow since most of those yelling Stop! continue to accept the economic benefits of the cheap labor they provide.
Those who care about immigration should really stop eating and starve themselves to death if they really care about immigration... since there's a good chance whatever they buy at the grocery store might have had an illegal immigrant involved in the production of one of the raw materials at one point. And there's no way for them to know, for a fact, whether there was or not. That's a very reasonable way to look at it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
You don't have to starve yourself. You do have to think about where your food comes from. You could for instance join the local food movement and buy your produce and meat from local producers - most of them will let you visit the farms. You can buy imported foodstuffs to get fresh fruit and such out of season. There are lots of things people can do, but some of them are more inconvenient or more costly than the strength of their convictions.
Even if all you buy is imported food (impossible to do, but for the sake of argument say you did it), it still goes through a distributor once it gets to the United States. It still gets sold at a retailer. How do you know the distributor and retailer don't employ any illegal immigrants?
Even if you buy your all your food from local producers (seems like that would be kind of tough in NYC, San Diego, or Miami), those local producers are not going to tell you that they employ illegal aliens. Even if they don't, the food still has to be processed once it leaves the farm, anyway. A few thousand bushels of grain isn't going to do much for you. Neither is a live steer. They need to be processed before they are usable in the home.
Trying to lay a guilt trip on consumers is a stupid tactic of the left. Consumers have nothing to do with it. They have no way of knowing whether an employee is legal or not. If you want to blame someone, blame the employers and, more than anyone, their government enablers... you know, the organization who is actually charged with enforcing the law.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Many, if not most, undocumented aliens pay taxes. True they are using fake SSN's for employment based taxes, but that means that they are paying taxes, but not getting credit. They pay the same sales tax, gas tax, property tax, etc. as every one else (yet another argument for eleminating employment based taxes).
Yet it doesn't begin to cover the cost of the government services they use. Just one kid in elementary school wipes out many times what they pay in tax. And that doesn't include any other government services.
If they are being paid under the table then it is to my knowledge the EMPLOYER who is committing a crime.
And so are they. Not reporting all your income would be tax evasion. Failing to report your tips is tax evasion also. Tax evasion is just another victim less crime, now, I guess.
If we the citizens of the USA create a system that begs to be gamed, our outrage rings hollow when we discover that it is being gamed.
I didn't create the system. So this is a pretty dumb argument.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I have heard this argument before but never seen it credibly backed up.
You have to consider the total tax input and burden - that means all the gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes (direct or indirect through a rental) payroll taxes (especially when they get no credit), luxury / vice taxes. etc.
Even if it is true when including education, that same argument could be made for any native family with several kids in public school.
Considering how many thousands of dollars we spend per pupil on K12 education, and how little most illegal employees make, you do the math. NYC spends about $11,000 per student per year. How is a guy making $12,000 a year going to pay $11,000 in sales tax? That's just one cost. That's ignoring things like transportation, police, health care, and the judicial system, which illegal immigrants all have to use.
If you want to make the argument that illegal immigrants pay their own way, you are the one that needs to provide some evidence. The numbers simply don't support that contention.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
It is not a ration of 1 immigrant per 1 child though. You have to figure in all the taxes paid by all undocumented aliens and then balance it against all the costs incurred by them. I will even let you add in the costs of their citizen children. Please, start calculating.
I believe Paul Cella and I had a number of discussions on this topic a couple of years back. This is one post I can recall.
The issue of American culture is not all that simple, as it turns out.
Certainly, out and out racists and bigots need to be marginalized, especially since the liberals and the media will make sure that they are the spokespeople for the anti-illegal immigration movement.
But once you move past the idea of America as a political nation and into the idea of America as a cultural people, I guarantee it will get very complex, very fast.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
Not exactly surprised to see this topic has come before at Redstate. I note that my own point complements Charles' point. In fact, it is my point that my point complements Charles' point. I hope I didn't seem to oversimplify.
absentee
You aren't putting me in that multiculti bag? My point is that culture and heritage can be preserved by those who are not the genetic inherents of it. Assimilation as a valid vehicle of preservation, in other words. Along with recognition of historic fact that cultures do evolve over time. In fact, that is how they become.
absentee
Those who have no investment of blood in a society are going to be less likely to preserve its core traditions than those who do. Peaceful migrations change culture as much as violent invasions do. That is not necessarily a good thing. The owners of a culture should jealously defend that culture if they expect any part of it to survive. Blissfully assuming that hispanics will not turn the US into Mexico North will probably not be as affective as being as xenophobic as hell and demanding they adapt to us in all things.
Demanding adaptation and assimilation is not synonymous with being xenophobic. That is kind of my point.
when such demands are characterized as xenophobia. If there are those who will call it xenophobia (and there are) you simple have to be willing to say "Yeah, if so, so what?" We have to stop allowing ourselves to be silenced by the insults hurled at us, or because there might be some aspect of our beliefs which in some remote way appeals to racist extremists. No one seems concerned that the principles of the democrats appeals to leftist radicals. Why should we be concerned that some racist finds something to agree with of ours? That does not make us racists, or wrong.
What about practicality? The left doesn't have to fight the media; We do. And we need to convince the voting hispanic population that assimilation is good, that pursuit of it and border security are not xenophobic, and that we too eschew racism. Voting is a practical concern.
absentee
that is a battle we will never win. If any issue can in any way be related to any sort of racial quality, the conservative views will be characterized as racist. If you in any way oppose what the media, the hispanics, the left wishes, you will be called a racist. They win because we allow them to control the debate with that simple rationale of 'racism' as the original, and only, sin.
What we need to do is to retake the initiative. We need to demand that they define what legal requirement any American has to not be a racist. If we trully believe that we are not racists, than there will be no harm in refusing that entire rational. Racism may be a bad thing, but it is not the only bad thing or the worse thing, that can happen to a society. If opposing unrestricted illegal migration from Mexico is racist, than lets be racists. And proudly so.
.... good luck with that.
You might as well vote for amnesty yourself and save yourself some time if that's your strategy.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
The culture has already changed in ways that were unthinkable just ten years ago. Here in Houston, no one who looks or sounds both Hispanic and poor is ever
1)stopped and checked for a drivers licence
2)stopped for a vehicle registration
3)asked for proof of insurance
Only white and black, and Asian citizens are expected to obey all the laws, And you better damn well have all your ducks in a row because they are trolling for dollars to pay for all the extra cost associated with illegals.
And if you have skills that fit in with the construction industry, you better learn a new skill because if you ain't Hispanic you need not apply. And if you run a business you better be bilingual. and you have to allow your Spanish only speaking employees to answer the phone, or the counter, or drive through. Never mind that they cannot speak to the customers. You will have a lawsuit if you don't bend over backwards for them at all times.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
As an immigrant myself, I think I would be the last to think that culture and heritage could not be preserved by those who are not genetic descendants thereof. :)
I wrote a lengthy post a while back on Assimilation, and what that experience really is like for an immigrant. Can't find it now, unfortunately, but perhaps I'll dig it back up.
All I was saying is that everyone easily agrees with the idea of American Polity. Not everyone sees eye to eye on the idea of the American ethnos whatever that be.
But the distinctiveness of America is that you can consciously embrace the "culture" however it's defined, and be accepted by most Americans as one. In no other country is that the case.
You can go to Korea, speak Korean, eat kimchi with every meal, learn to play hwa-toh, and recite Confucian texts till the cows come home. You will never be considered a Korean -- not really. Same thing in Japan, or France, or Russia.
But here? Absolutely.
That fact creates some philosophical difficulties for those who want to establish an official, or unofficial, American culture except in the most inchoate, generalized terms. I believe Paul Cella is one of them. His frontpage post -- as excellent as it is -- admits to the difficulty of specificity in this cultural project. I think it's mostly because of this fluidity that American-ness possesses.
Because over time, as you point out, those external cultural factors become American. Chow mein is as American as Apple Pie. There is no such dish in China. Taco Bell is an American restaurant, not a Mexican restaurant. And so on and so forth.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
Interesting. It's a funny thing about America. I travel alot (thus the username). When I'm in Germany, the hotel staff are invariably German. When I'm in Italy, Italian. In India, they are Indian. You see the pattern?
California, Minneapolis or Charlotte, however, and the hotel staff is as likely to have someone from Ghana as Cleveland.
I suppose part of our culture, if not specifically our heritage, is that of absorption. Whether that is product of our liberty or a primary focus thereof is a reasonable question.
Maybe it is not American culture per se that is elusive. After all, I know it when I see it. Perhaps the fuzzy concept is culture itself. Subtract religion, race, genetic similarities, birth and blood, and you eliminate many cultures of the past. This does not mean, though, that those are the factors that determine a culture.
Of course, culture is not the sum total of our American identity and nation either. Culture is part, but so is history, heritage, and the tangible structures of life: churches, government buildings, monuments, landmarks, natural wonders. Also the intangibles: Ideals, institutions, experiences.
I'm just spitballing now. Defining what it is to be an American requires something we are psychologically averse to. It requires a demystification and materialization of something that is far more romantic in the abstract.
Still, it is also so that usurpation or substitution of an outside culture within the structures and geography of the United States would be a destructive act, even if what is destroyed remains ill-defined.
absentee
Culture the term is fuzzy, of course. It's just that other cultures have ties of blood which are the organic base of that culture.
At the same time, I have to wonder, do you really know American culture when you see it? Really really?
Is San Francisco's Chinatown American culture or no?
The Hasidim of Crown Heights?
What about the architecture of San Antonio?
The santeria priestesses of Lousiana?
Quakers of Pennsylvania?
Lei-wearing hula dancers of Hawaii?
The Southies of Boston?
Jamaicans of the South Bronx?
The Native American tribes of Arizona?
See, Americans want to say all of the above are part of the American cultural fabric. That may be vile multiculturalism to some, but then one must remember that some of these things predate icons and artifacts that are quintessentially American -- such as Mount Rushmore, television, and Hollywood.
To define American culture with any degree of useful specificity, one must say any one of these things is not American. That's right bloody difficult, yeah? Hence, the resistance to definition.
But ideas -- such as liberty, private property, etc. -- are much easier to define. And much easier to embrace. To say it is un-American to refuse to eat beef, as Hindus might, is something else altogether.
In a way, this lack of definition makes assimilation extremely difficult. I mean, if I were trying to assimilate to Japanese people, I know precisely what I'd have to learn and do. Appreciate bushido, understand the beauty of a tea ceremony, speak in culturally prescribed tones depending on one's station, etc. But as an immigrant to America, it's not really clear what practices I have to adopt in order to assimilate.
Do I learn to speak in the clipped tones of a Boston brahmin? The nasal twang of Alabama? The laid back chattiness of surfer dudes from San Diego?
Should I learn to like ice fishing? Or bullriding? NASCAR? Or hockey? Baseball is the American pastime, but our major league teams certainly look like the global village with pitchers from Japan throwing to hitters from the Dominican Republic.
It is said that the protestant ethic underlies American culture -- does that mean Catholics are somehow un-American? Or Buddhists? Or Gaia-worshipping wiccans? (And yet, America seems to be home to a particularly large group of Gaia-worshipping wiccans....)
Like I said, the enterprise gets difficult very quickly. Doesn't mean it can't be done -- but it will be a nontrivial task.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
Of course everyone should learn to ♥ hockey. ;) Especially the St. Louis Blues. So what if they haven't won a Cup...they will.
In reading your questions at the beginning I can unequivocally answer yes.
Yes, I can readily identify those as American. Because they are not in China, Israel, Mexico, France, 1730 and so on. They are here, in America.
That seems to support what Paul said in his article on the front page, as well as my comment in reply.
That is, that our heritage and our identity is inextricably tied to our physical world. We are bound to America the land as much as America the idea.
This is what is nebulous about being American, and what is great about it. You can export Chinese culture. It will be abbreviated, it will be without its landmarks and geography, but it can be done. From America, you can export ideas, you can export freedom, you can export liberty, you can export goods. But you cannot export being American. We're a unique brand. Outside of San Francisco, Chinatown is just China, you know? Here, it's America.
absentee
But somehow I seriously doubt that mere location of a person would render that person's culture "American" in Paul's mind.
Otherwise, why would he have any problems whatsoever of millions of illegal immigrants flooding across our border? Once they're in America, they become American-in-culture?
I strongly agree with both of you that our heritage (which I self-consciously, and actively embraced as an immigrant) and our identity are tied to the physical world.
But location alone is not and cannot logically be the sufficient cause of culture definition; it may be a required cause, but certainly not sufficient.
I agree that the nebulousness of being an American is part of what's great about being American. At the same time, I don't know that we can't export being American.
In fact, I would argue that the Islamists are pissed off at us precisely because we export 'being American'. Their youth and women are being seduced by not only our ideas, but by things like Britney Spears, Sex and the City, and Die Hard XXXVII. I can't pinpoint what makes them "American" incidentally -- but I too have no doubt that there is something uniquely American about those cultural artifacts.
So what are we debating?
American identity, American culture is nebulous by its very nature. It can be tied to the physical place, the In-der-Welt-sein of America, but that alone is insufficient. It's reliant on our ideas, of course, such as personal liberty, property ownership, etc. But that too is insufficient -- and I do think Paul is arguing not so much for a definition, but against one.
My criticism of his position -- if it is a criticism at all -- is that you cannot have a philosophy built purely on negation. That at some point, a philosophy of American identity has to make actual positive claims about what that means. And those positive claims will have inherently negating elements in them (i.e., saying Judeo-Christian values form American identity is to deny that Buddhism is part of American-ness).
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
"But location alone is not and cannot logically be the sufficient cause of culture definition; it may be a required cause, but certainly not sufficient."
Of course. I was suggesting that the location was integral, not definitive. Not applicable to everything naturally. If the Declaration of Independence is on display in the Louvre some day, it will be no less American for it.
absentee
I, for one, would find that the Declaration of Independence would be the most beautiful artwork in the Louvre if it ever found its way there some day.
I would say one of the most beautiful. Standing five feet from the Mona Lisa is tantamount to standing next to the embodiment of the human idea of art itself. The story, fame, and sheer engaging character of the piece writes a memory in you that is on the scale of history.
But let's never let it happen anyway. I hope our precious document remains right where it is until the end of time.
absentee
loaning it out on a tour to show the rest of the world up close what the founders created when they wrote the Declaration. For as many people who are able to come to the United States, many more only see the Declaration in pictures and on TV or in movies. It could really be a good way to inspire the world to move towards freedom. Do it up grand. Lots of pictures...quotes by the founders...it could really be a good thing for the world. Not to mention...no one could accuse us of "nation building" by influencing people's minds.
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
that we cannot exist as a nation and as a culture if we entertain for long the notion that a nation on our very border should have unfettered, uncontrolled, unregulated access across that border. We are going to become more hispanic in nature than anglo, and that is a bad thing. We are a great nation precisely because of the culture from which we were created and because of the people who create it. Mexico is a basket case both as a nation and as a culture for precisely the same reason.
Every shred of available evidence indicates that more pressure is being placed on Americans to assimilate to hispanics than they are to us.
"... we cannot exist as a nation and as a culture if we entertain for long the notion that a nation on our very border unfettered, uncontrolled, unregulated access across that border"
Of course! Who suggested such a thing?
absenteefont>
here and elsewhere. Post after post make the point that the issue is sullied by the spectre of 'racism'. Well, there is an inherent racial/cultural content to this issue, if race and culture are not to be brought into it, it cannot be discussed at all.
The real irony is that anyone who claims that the migration of one people into another nation somehow 'improves' that nation are just as racist as those who claim that it harms that nation.
Immigration raises an interesting paradox. As a man who married a bride from S. Korea, total zenophobia obviously does not impress me in the slightest. As someone who lives less than 10 miles from where one of the planes hit on 9-11 (The Pentagon), I understand that even the worst Natavist has a point about the current state of the US border. When even Lou Dobbs can figure it out, we're not talking quantum physics.
To solve the immigration paradox, three things need to happen.
1) A wall needs to go up on the Mexican border. If that comes off as racist, so be it. We don't get 2 million illegal entries a year through Windsor, Canada or across The Great Lakes. We have a huge leak there, and it needs to be plugged. Otherwise, we can expect at least one more 9-11 every decade from here on out.
2) The US needs to still welcome people from all over the world. When Rome was the shinning city atop the hill that Ronald Reagan wanted the US to remain, all roads lead to Rome. Every great society that has ever been a superpower or an empire greatly enriched itself by learning from the rest of the world.
If the US goes Lou Dobbs, and cuts off all immigration and trade, we will start ourselves on the road to glaobal irrelavance. Lou Dobbs could succeed where Osauma Bin Ladin failed. He, and the politicians that parrot his crap, can take the US off the world stage for a very long time.
3) The US has to greatly improve our ability and willpower to assimilate others. We don't just learn froma nd absorb from their cultures; they join and adopt ours. English proficiency should be a requirement for drivers' licenses, citizenship, voting and legal employment.
A nation can be held together by three things; a common culture, a common religion or a common language. It behooves the US to strive for getting two out of the three.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
that an upwardly mobile society requires a constant influx of warm bodies to fill the social vacume that otherwise forms at the bottom. However, if we claim that diversity is what we want, than let us fight for it. If some 90% of those warm bodies are of one race and culture, that is not diversity, and there will be less reason for them to assimilate to us. Why should a Mexican feel the need to assimilate to much of anything? His culture is just across the border, there is no limit to how many of his country men may willfully cross it, and at least half of our contry's population is ready to fall all over themselves to assure him he has no need to change and are more afraid of being labeled 'racist' by demanding anything at all from him than they are of any changes that might occur within their own society.
for anything that gives you ID or recognition. Right now, about 40% of Mexico's population is illiterate in Spanish by the standards most US states teach by in foreign language classes. The people we don't want in here, and who won't ever make a major useful contribution, won't hack that English only standard at all.
Two things have to take place to make this happen.
1) Enforcement against US Employers. People who live in places like Yuma or Laredo know who is here legally and otherwise. It's not exactly a tough call, if you do the necessary I9 paperwork.
2) Recognition of immigrants who do things like learning English well. People like my wife, who came here from S. Korea at age 12 and now speaks English with almost no accent, are accomplishing something I'm not too sure most native born Americans could if we were to immigrate to Russia for some reason and had to totally start over from scratch.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
Arthur Demming may have been born in the US, but until Japan put his ideas into practice, US industries were unable to even see why his mathematical theories mattered. Ford and GM pretty much thought you used "Demming's Funnel" to change the oil every 3,000 miles.
If the US weren't trading ideas, as well as products and population, with Japan and the rest of the world, our cars would suck far worse, our weather forecasts would be far less accurate, and our airplanes would be far less safe than they are today.
Cultural interaction has allowed the US to be about 40 years ahead of where we would have been had we elected Goerge Wallace or Pat Buchanan President and resigned ourselves from the rest of the planet.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
You make good points about the value of immigration with respect to the exchange of ideas and culture. And I think you could push this idea considerably farther as a competitve trade advantage. Having first generation immigrants from any particular country greatly adhances our ability to conduct trade with that country. Our openness to immigrants from around the world gives us a competitive advantage across the world because these immigrants maintain social networks to their homelands. These ties slowly disintegrate in the second and third generations so new immigrants are needed to renew them.
But it still leaves us with questions of quantity and quality.
How many immigrants does it take to gain these advantages? Are we significantly better served by having 10 million first generation immigrants from Mexico as 250,000? Would 20 million be even better? I suspect that there are rapidly dimminishing returns as the numbers go up.
If 10 million from Mexico is the number that serves our interests, would 10 million from Zimbabwe or Palastine also be good? Do some nations offer more than others and should our immigration policy favor those nations? I suspect that there are some nations from which our interests would be better served if we accepted no immigrants.
Does it matter if the immigrants are educated or do we gain as much from illiterate peasants? Four fifths of the world's population is illiterate peasants. I suspect that most illiterate peasants that are allowed to immigrate will provide profitable cheap labor for those who hire them and provide large costs for everybody else.
How much cultural, technological, economic good to we learn from a third world nation? I love exotic cuisine and I would be pleased if my small town had restaurants representing: Thailand, Vietnam, Morrocco, Ethiopia, India and the Middle East. But beyond contributions to cuisine, art and music, how much are we going to learn from nations that are far less advanced than our own? Isn't a lot of what they have to offer bad and the very root of the reason that their nations are poor?
Won't we get most of the benefit from the first small batch of immigrants? What new ideas will subsequent waves from the same backwards place contribute?
It is perfectly possible to be in favor of immigration and to favor an immigration policy that favors diversity and still also be in favor of much lower overall bumbers of immigrants. Put me in that camp. Our country will only hold so many people and provide them with a decent American style standard of living and we are rapidly headed towards the one billion mark. If some level of immigration is good now then that will probably be true in the future. Perhaps we should have a sustainable policy so that future generations inherit an America that is not so crowded that immigration is unthinkable.
I'm less worried about who and from where, than I am about how capable and how willing? That's why I suggested a three-prong strategy to get control of who came in and improve the quality.
I'm not too hung up on the numbers, our nation was helped, not hurt by the mass immigrations from Eastern and Southern Europe during the 1920's.
However two things greatly bother me about modern immigrants.
1) They are not here to contribute to our country and get hacked off when you suggest that they perhaps should, given that they are being allowed to stay here.
2) They see no reason to bother with assimilation.
a) Some of that I blame on the American Left and it's pernicious ideology of "blame America First!"
b) Some of that I blame on the countries who equip these immigrants with how-to manuals on thwarting detection and disobelying US immigration laws.
c) Finally, I blame a large number of US employers and localities. They know it's happening, they are legally required to keep records that would give them an idea of exactly who was here illegally.
Until this changes, I can't imagine a scenario where the US Federal Government even could get control of illegal immigration to the US.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
Historically it takes three generations for assimilation. The first generation, the immigrant, hardly assimilates at all - they stick to their own kind and to their own language. Thier children live in two worlds and are not fully assimilated but clearly on the road. They are usually very bi-lingual. The third generation tend to have English as their first language and might or might not speak their grandparents and parents language well.
This is a generalization, but that is what happened for the most part with the the waves of Northern, Southern and Eastern European immigrants of the 19th and early 20th centuries. It was what happened with the German immigrants of the 18th and early 19th. I am not sure about the pattern for the Scotch - Irish since they already spoke the language (though the English might argue
Though I agree with some of your assertions there is a problem
in that there are more and more immigrants who are NOT here to become americans. I come from a family of immigrants such as yourself, both german and french, who came here with the express
idea of becoming americans and all that entails. The imigrants of today are coming here not for ideology of freedom but for dollars and mexican nativism. Those are HUGE differences and were visible in the pro-amnesty rallies where they flew the flags from their home countries and had to be told that that was a bad idea.
FredHeads for Mitt!
I just put up a front-pager on a similar topic.
_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
I am a self-described immigration restrictionist. I agree with most of what you wrote. My biggest criticism is that while you made reference to a responsible immigration policy you failed to make much effort to define it. I'll say a little about what I think is responsible below and maybe we can discuss that. As a minor criticism that I don't intend to further address, I would say you got a little sloppy about the difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration near the end of your blog particularly in the second to last paragraph. There are many other issues in the immigration debate besides what to do with illegals.
But first, I'll address "Nativism". I've been in the thick of this debate for years. I've seen that word thrown around as an insult many times but until now I've never seen a formal definition and I admit laziness in my failure to look it up.
Now that I do see a definition I have to agree that I fall to one extent or another in the category of Nativist. I certainly believe that our immigration policy should favor the interests of established inhabitants over those of immigrants. I'll clarify to say that once an immigrant becomes a citizen, I want them to be treated identically to all other citizens. But until they achieve citizenship, I believe that the purpose of our government, almost by definition, as stated roughly in the preamble to our Constitution, is to promote the interests and prosperity of our people. If what is good for a particular immigrant or group of immigrants or potential immigrants is not what is good for our citizenry, I want the interests of our citizenry to take precedence. It should be a no-brain-er. I am a nativist to that extent.
I would suggest that you, with your calls for "responsible" immigration policy, along with everyone else who favors a policy that falls short of absolutely open immigration, also falls within that same definition of nativism. There are 300 million people in the USA and about 6 billion people on earth. Of the 6 billion, about 5 billion are poorer and less educated than the average Mexican and a substantial portion of these poor people would like to come here. I'll bet that most Americans recognize that if our population were to be doubled (or more) over the next 10 years by these poverty stricken, ignorant hordes it would be a disaster for America and by America I mean our existing citizenry. It would be grossly irresponsible to have such an immigration policy. With the exception of some open borders Libertarians some far left wing-nuts and the La Raza crowd, we are almost all filthy "Nativists". LOL. It is just a matter of degree. Which brings us to an examination of what is "responsible" immigration policy.
For me, responsible is mostly a matter of quantity and quality. Or numbers and composition. There is a third issue which is assimilation policy but if we get the first two things right the third will largely take care of itself. For example, we went 200 years without the need for an official language debate because we were getting the first two things right or we corrected them when they started to go wrong. It is only recently, where we have allowed immigration of one ethnicity to come in overwhelming numbers that we are now concerned that we might evolve into a bilingual country.
With respect to numbers, I think our current levels are much too high. Between legal and illegal immigration we are admitting about 2 million people annually or the equivalent of a city the size of Denver. How does this make life better for our citizenry? It makes our economy (the pie) bigger but it also increases the number eating the pie so there is not necessarily any growth in the size of the piece of pie (standard of living) that each citizen gets. It is growth without purpose. Growth for the sake of growth. I'm sure we can find a place to put all these new people but I wonder why would we want to? Will our commute to work be easier? Will family vacations be more wondrous? Will our schools get better? What is the benefit of all this immigration driven growth?
Demographics are destiny. At current levels of legal (excluding illegal immigration) we are on track for an America with 50% more people in 40 years and 100% more people in 100 years. The question we should be asking ourselves is that will this new America be a better place for our children and grandchildren. Being one who hates even being near a city, I conclude that it will be much worse.
As a practical matter for Republicans and conservatives, they should be looking around the country at existing urban areas where most of these new people are going to end up and asking themselves how many urban areas pull the Red lever for Republicans and conservatism? Mass immigration is suicide for conservatism. The Republicans may survive but they will less and less reflect conservative ideas.
(Thought experiment to verify this assertion: consider the 2008 Republican Presidential Primary or consider the New Hampshire primary where Pat Buchanan won just a few years ago.)
I believe a responsible immigration number would be much closer to replacement level that put us on a path to much slower population growth. If we need more people (I question that) how about having tax policies that encourage rather than discourage our citizens from having families?
With respect to quality or composition of the immigrants we allow to come, there are some things which are highly controversial and others that are less so.
Our current family reunification slant towards immigration policy is less than perfect. It allows parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and siblings to import each other in an endless chain. We get lots of old people who will require public support and will never contribute. And the young people we get might not be the ones who will contribute much either. I think family reunification should be much easier and quicker (almost automatic) but it should be strictly limited to spouse and children. If an immigrant wants to see their extended family they are free to visit home. If they want to support them they can send money home. We don't need elderly immigrants for the taxpayers to support.
I would favor a points system where people compete for a limited number of slots on the basis of characteristics like education, English language, age, wealth, ability to create jobs, etc.
I see almost no value in unskilled immigration. In our first world economy these immigrants almost always require assistance from taxpayers and they compete directly with our own citizens who are most in need of being lifted up. And because educational attainment of the parent is the best predictor or the performance of the child, the children of these immigrants are not doing that great at integrating into the higher rungs of our economy either. We are importing poor people and they are creating children who remain poor. I see no wisdom in expanding the ranks of the poor. If we need unskilled labor lets have a TEMPORARY guest worker program. But we should be careful that these guests don't just become wealth transfer mechanisms from the poor to the rich. If we want conservatism to win elections it needs to promote policies that are helpful across the economic spectrum.
Moving towards the more controversial, I don't think it is healthy for immigration to be overly concentrated around a single country or ethnicity. The clear responsible need for assimilation is best served when the immigrant mix is very diverse and no group comes in sufficient numbers to form balkinized non-assimilating communities.
And moving towards the most controversial, I question the wisdom of allowing any immigration from terrorist sponsoring countries. Here I am talking about Muslims and particularly Middle Eastern Muslims. I am much less concerned about those from Indonesia, India, Thailand where radical Islam exists but is much less of a prevailing ideology. I have nothing against Islam and I'm sure that most of these people are fleeing the extremism as a primary motivation for emigrating from their homelands. But some small percentage are radicals, and it is impossible to distinguish these from the good ones. To my knowledge, never has a country at war allowed the people of the enemy to settle in their midst. That is on its face, unwise and irresponsible.
It is one thing to talk generically about responsible immigration policy and it is another to clearly state what we believe to be responsible.
You may have found a workable technical definition of nativist with your exception to immigrants that become citizens. Typically, however, the connotation of the term refers to immigrants et al, pre- and post-attainment of citizenship.
It is a fair criticism that I offered no solutions. I'll have to read your comment and consider before I reply at length. I appreciate it very much, though.
absentee
Then there are very, very few people who are nativists. About the same as ordinary run of the mill racists. I follow the immigration debate closely and nobody responsible is calling for the abuse of citizens whether they be immigrants or native born.
I read practically everything that FAIR, NumbersUSA, and the Center for Immigration Studies publish. They are the leading restrictionist groups and they don't say anything remotely along the lines of discrinating against immigrant citizens.
These groups do favor lower numbers of immigrants. Their concern is about what constitutes a responsible number and a responsible mix? If that makes them nativists than anybody who favors anything less than open immigration is a nativist because all of them have their own ideas about what is a responsible number.
The Minutement require background checks on their members as a condition of membership to keep out the haters. They probably are not 100% successful. But then again David Duke claimed to be a Republican. Does that make us all racists? Organizations cannot be judged by their individual members unless they embrace their ideologies.
Frequently, I see restrictionists smeared as nativists. For example, I have repeatedly seen Lou Dobbs who is married to a Mexican immigrant, and for whom even the Southern Poverty Law Center has to make the most ridiculous stretch to smear as a racist, described as a nativist. Lou Dobbs is on record wanting higher levels of legal immigration.
Nativist apparently is one of those words like fascist which has a loose definition and which has greatest value as a smear on somebody who has beliefs with which somebody else disagrees and who is winning the argument rationally.
The best thing for people of good will to do is use these words extremely sparingly and only where they really fit.
All the more reason for excision. My personal, recent experiences inform me that there are such hiding among the responsible. As I note in my opening paragraph above, I think it is important because they are not representative of, for want of a better example, Lou Dobbs.
There is, to my mind, only upside in differentiating, regularly if necessary, between the bad faith opposition and the good faith opposition. As I said in Paul's article on the front page, we can only resolve the debate when both sides are represented by largely conservative, and wholly responsible parties.
This blog is partially a debate response to the notion the only viable guarantor for the posterity of the United States is birth. It is my position that immigration has been part of the American identity in kind to blood, if not in equal measure.
Also, please note that I didn't say anyone was calling for abuse. I simply reject the supposition that a person who cannot trace their birthright to the founding generation is less than American. I also reject the notion that immigration is a default ill, which is tolerated for limited benefit and to limited ends. I reject the supposition that it is destructive by nature and that individuals mark the exception. If that position is not fundamental to nativism then perhaps I should have chosen a different word.
That such thinking is not overly common to the immigration debate is my point. There are those who wish to close the door, not control it. The epithets of bigot or nativist are best countered by excision of such from the ranks, I think.
absentee
I agree with just about everything you say. It never ceases to amaze me that there are so many conservatives who think that unending mass immigration can be anything other than a demographic disaster for conservatism.
non issue if you took your heart out of the equation. Logic tells us it's wrong yet the heart feels compassion. Logic tells us that our education is getting worse, wages are being depressed, hospitals are going broke, and entitlements are growing, yet the heart wants to feel bad. This problem is like the drug addict we keep giving money to buy food yet he doesn't. This problem requires tough love, not compassion.
We can not sustain the current levels of immigration we are at and need to take a time out to get a handle on what we really need to do. We cannot adopt every third world citizen because they want a better life, it just doesn't work. The notion of replacing highly educated baby boomers with uneducated workers to offset the SS crisis is absurd, and that's what were being sold. We need a national enema.
Start by securing the border and cracking down on employers. Have a system to track anyone coming into the country from this point on. Give illegals 2 years to get out of the country and get back in line to come back legally.
As for being nativist, is that such a bad thing? I bet most citizens are overly proud of their country. Racism exists in some form from all races, so please I don't want to hear how basically white people hold a monopoly on this. Mexicans are executing blacks in California which is highly under reported but that's okay. Most people are sensible about this whole thing and have no problem with legal immigration, after all we have been allowing more people in per year than all countries combined. I am sick of everyone mentioning racism or some other democratic buzzword to scare people away from the reality of this issue. The reason we have this problem is that very reason, people couldn't complain because they would be called a racist. Time to stand up to the PC namecalling and face the facts, this problems is having a net negative effect to the country and it needs to be resolved by someone other than Ted Kennedy.
re the "deification of the ruling class".
You are my hero! Good post here. I will confess that for the moment I will not reject the help of these nativists in our efforts to stop this rampant open-borders threat.
But when we've got a fence, employers getting blasted for hiring illegal immigrants, and a sizable number of deportations and self-deportations - then I'll feel we've got a handle on that huge problem, and any nativist, racist types I will summarily execute.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
I am a first generation American who is very much concerned about the illegal immigration problem. I have noticed that the people most likely to tar and feather people as "nativists" are the same people who are UNwilling to support any policy or rule intended to make sure that immigrants are assimilated.
The most ant-illegal immigrant people I meet are the legal immigrants who had to wait patiently to play by the rules.
Border security and assimilation should come first, but I convinced they will never come at all.
I agree assimilation is the best answer, when it goes hand-in-hand with border security and enforcement of our laws.
That there are those making bad faith arguments which are clearly isolationist or nativist is clear to me. I've seen the very thing. As I mentioned somewhere else in here, the good faith of our debate must be established and re-established.
I think both sides of the debate among Republicans and Conservatives center on border security, preventing further illegal immigration, and having some sort of enforcement regarding the current illegal population. As I said in my blog entry, these are reasonable people with reasonable positions.
But that the other sort exist is apparent, and that they are damaging our ability to find resolution, not to mention our electoral viability, is a problem. I am, in a way, offering a debate point to that group.
My mistake in this entry was starting with my position as it pertains to the debate about the current illegal population. It is not precisely material to the intended subject matter of my blog entry.
absentee
but the majority of people arguing in "bad faith" on the issue are the people using the term nativist, not the people being called nativists.
Every rational step to preserving the rule of law is challenged and denigrated as racist.
Check picture IDs before people can vote? Racist.
Make English the official language? Racist.
Have people who are here buy into the American way of life? Racist.
I know few nativists in the true sense, but I see a lot of people who seem eager for the country degrade into a Balkanization that is unlike anything in prior U.S. history.
People used to come here and stive to fit in. People changed their names, tried hard to eliminate accents, and were otherwise proud to become Americans.
Now we have illegal immigrants parading with foreign flags speaking foreign tongues and demanding their rights under the U.S. Constitution while all the while insinuating that those who oppose lawlessness are nativists.
I am as pro-immigrant as they come. I am first generation, and I agree with many who say that immigrants make better citizens in many respects than the natives. I do not blame people for wanting to come here. However, American Exceptionalism cannot survive with lawlessness and open borders are simply inconsistent with modern welfare state.
Every rational step to preserving the rule of law is challenged and denigrated as racist.
Check picture IDs before people can vote? Racist.
Make English the official language? Racist.
Have people who are here buy into the American way of life? Racist.
Absolutely. Exactly.
The question is where are we now?
Do we tuck tail and sulk about how it isn't fair? Do we take EPU's position, any port in a storm?
I don't think that helps at all. We should vehemently eschew the language of the racists. It is easy to say pressing for IDs is racism, when we allow allies to say that the founders had a particular genetic makeup in mind when they spoke of posterity.
There is a war of rhetoric at hand. We can passively allow ours to be interchangeable with the racists, or we can speak passionately about our real history, our history of slaves and native americans and french and german and italian immigrants. Our history of Puritans and explorers and pilgrims. When one of our own says this group, these are the true Americans, then we can speak louder.
A secure border and legal, responsible, measured immigration policies are not racist. They do not have to be!
Both conservative sides of this debate are losing the rhetorical high ground. Maybe not nationwide, but certainly among the voting hispanic and independent demographics. We should not be. But if we stomp our feet and say "that's not fair" then the ground is lost forever.
That is one reason it is so critical to seperate this comprehensive debate into its component parts. Good conservatives on all sides of the debate about our current illegal population can agree in a single voice about border security, but we squabble on into uselessness.
I want to claim the high ground, and from there we can tackle the issues. I am American, and I am immigrant, and I am Native American. This is a fact. And I am a Marine. My heritage is an American heritage. The moment someone casts doubt or aspersion on this, then that is when I say they have entered the wilderness. This is the fundamental argument I have with Mr. Finch.
We are two sides of a particular debate. Don't lets allow other elements to make our debate something else. (Not you and I specifically, I mean the two conservative sides of the current immigration debate)
You are pro-immigrant and so am I. You are against lawlessness, and so am I. You oppose open borders and so do I. It is time for our two sides to claim this common ground, to take it back from the dems on the left, and nativists on the far right.
absentee
I agree that the primary abusers are those who are engaging in the practice of calling people natavists.
I think this whole thread is an exercise in tilting at imaginary windmills and primarily just gives those abusers further excuse to continue with their tactic of essentially smearing everybody who disagrees with amnesty and mass immigration with the label of natavist which is a label most of us recognize as code for racist.
I'm glad we have at least gotten the thread to the point where we seem to agree that the number of these "natavists" is very small.
Who are these natavists? I'd like to see some specific examples of these disingenuous nativists who are hiding among us and and advancing arguments that some how taint us. I'd like to see specific examples of the arguments they are making so I can judge for myself if they are making reasonable and responsible arguments or if they really do merit a purge.
I don't doubt that there are some racists/nativists/haters in our midst. When people talk about machine gunning woman and children at the border that goes beyond the pail. But I get the impression that you are talking about people that hold views which are considerably more subtle.
To just throw the label out there and say it is a problem that needs to be purged without identifying anyone specifically gives the other side permission to keep smearing all of us in this manner.
That accusation is getting a bit tiresome. You are essentially proposing that it is impossible to even discuss the topic without you somehow being ricochet smeared. That's really just doesn't seem realistic.
I've answered your endless charge multiple times. I was prompted to write this by a specific incident, and it is largely a philosophical exercise. What is so objectionable about what I wrote? It is surely not a document for posterity, it isn't a valuable treatise, a source for research, or basis for any kind of resolution. It's a blog. What were you expecting?
I have answered numerous inquiries such as yours in this comments section, including yours. If you are just going to continue registering the same complaint, how is not you who are smearing?
You haven't got my point at all, that's the fact. You have viewed this entire blog through the lens of a victim. If being called a nativist and racist is bad for conservatives and the immigration debate, do you contend being fearful of discussing it aloud will somehow correct that? That's not only nonsense, it's a path to electoral failure.
My blog was about the positives of immigration, what it means to our heritage. I also point out the negative effects that can come from bad immigration policy. I could not have been more clear that being anti-illegal immigration is not racist or nativist. That is precisely the point! If that and the volume of my comments in the comments section are not enough for you to not be smeared then I don't know what to tell you, except that I think it's reactionary on your part.
Instead of passively being grouped with isolationists, nativists, and racists, I've made my position clear. If that is a smear in your book then I think your visiting the wrong library.
I think it is you who are tilting at windmills, against your imagined persecutors.
absentee
years--the burden of proof is on the people calling this first generation American a nativist. Despite all sorts of talk to the contrary, we have unsercure borders, voter fraud, and a litany of other unaddressed problems.
They are the people who need to prove themselves.
Numbers. Numbers are a vital component of this discussion.
However, when you begin to entertain the notion that immigration is destructive by nature, I believe you have crossed into the wilderness.
That's true so long as we are just talking about immigration in manageable numbers. At some point beyond the level that is manageable it becomes a destructive force. Where the numbers go from manageable to unmanageable is a debatable point.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Exactly. It is mostly about the numbers. And it is also about quality.
Both water and salt are essential to human life. But either excessive water or excessive salt is lethal. The lesson is moderation.
Likewise while there is certainly some level of immigration that is good, there is also a level at which it is excessive and harmful. It is a perfectly valid point of view that in no way compromises the moral high ground that given that we are no longer trying to settle an empty frontier and that we are organized as a social welfare state, that the optimum number is quite low.
Also, not all immigrants are equal. Some speak English and are highly educated and hit the ground running and contribute to our economy and our treasury. Others are unskilled and might contribute to our economy but definately place a burden on our treasury. Some carry communicable diseases and others are terrorists. It is perfectly rational and a moral responsibility to our existing citizenry to be highly selective about who we admit. Quality matters.
Our nation is a nation of immigrants but we will no longer be able to protect ourselves or maintain an American identity if we do not
1. Close and protect our borders.
2. Demand assimilation including learning English. America was once a melting pot, now it is a stew. The reason you speak English better than German is the same reason folks in Minnesota do not struggle in pockets to understand whats happening in court because they need a Swedish interpreter. English as the national language is not a nativist or racist position in any way.
I love legal immigrants, but for America to maintain its status as a global leader we must let in the best and brightest, not the criminals of other countries who will contribute nothing to ours.
You didn't really address the issue of identity politics and how they have contorted public policy, but that can wait for another time. Good work, and you even managed to acknowledge there is an American culture which is something I normally don't expect to read in these types of blogs.
I think my opening about supporting Bush was misleading about the intent of the blog entry. I meant it more as a disclaimer. I not only acknowledge our culture, I celebrate and cherish it. See some of my clarifications in this comments section for further, albeit verbose, explanation.
absentee
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
absentee, you write faster than I can read. Are you on vacation? I'll comment on just two items.
"So what is nativism? I think that is the critical opening question. Answers.com says "A sociopolitical policy, especially in the United States in the 19th century, favoring the interests of established inhabitants over those of immigrants." Dictionary.com says, "the policy of protecting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants.""
So that's what it's supposed to mean. Why would we not want to favor our interests over those of illegal immigrants? As to legal immigrants, their immediate and complete acceptance into mainstream society is perhaps a theoretical goal, but not a realistic one. The arrival of new members into any societal group seems always to be accompanied by assimilation rituals before acceptance. I'll mention plebes at West Point, rookies into the NFL, and you can come up with a dozen more of your own.
You can legislate against fraternity hazing, but you can't legislate against personal unease. Once the new arrival has been vetted and learned to fit in, in his own way, he's no longer a newbie; he has in fact become one of the natives. Serious problems arise only when the new arrival makes demands upon the earlier arrivals, the natives, that are deemed to be unreasonable. Demands to provide services that make life harder for the natives although easier for the newbies. A demand that school classes be taught in a language other than the primary language of the country, or that official documents be printed in multiple languages, for instance. Sometimes the demands can be justified; sometimes they make the natives conclude that the newbies don't want to assimilate, but that they want to take over.
And I can envision no scenario where we would want to subjugate our interests to those of foreigners.
Unfortunately, I think "nativist" has become code for "bigot" and "racist." That's how the term came up recently. It was resurrected to avoid the use of the other words, which themselves have a tendency to backfire on their users. I think you'd have to search far and long to find anybody who would call themselves a "nativist," even if you define it for them first.
And zuiko makes an excellent point: "Numbers are a vital component of this discussion." I would also add "timing." We have effectively been invaded by 20 million people from various countries, but mostly from one. Had this happened all at once, we'd have called it an invasion and repulsed it. But because it happened over a period of a few years, we have some people trying to tell us it's "good for us." I know that is NOT what you're saying.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
I agree first of all about numbers. That is why I say in my blog that mass immigration is bad. Without choosing a particular number, it suffices to say overwhelming is bad. I think nativist is perhaps a euphemism for anti-immigrant. It certainly has a negative connotation. I do mean it negatively.
Assimilation is key, of course. In every way I agree with Paul Cella's blog about being an American, and I agree with every word TheSophist and repair man jack have said in this thread. The three of them have far better stated things than I.
At the base of it, my point is that immigrants are undeniably part of our culture, in fact the fact of that is part of our identity. In reality as well as in our romantic notions of ourselves. The immigrant nation; that romantic if inaccurate idea is part of our identity.
My blog and my point are too simple perhaps, too narrow in scope. People don't have to have birthright lineage to the founding generation to be "real" Americans. My blog is meant to convey why.
On a related matter, I would appreciate your input on something. Can you use my contact form to email me?
Thanks!
absentee
I may not have made it clear that I thought it was a good essay. Nothing for me to disagree with, that I noticed.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
I find it frustrating that this thread is totally about generalities. You say mass immigration is bad but you don't define it.
Last year we had record legal immigration. We had more legal immigrants come than at any time during the late 19th or early 20th century. And those earlier waves were one-off sort of occurrences. There were a few peak years surrounding by decades of much lower immigration. In contrast, we have now had about 20 continuous years of immigration that was extremely high by historical standards and there is no respite in sight. We are rapidly reaching the point where each and every year that passes will set a fresh new record for the percentage of our total population that is foreign born and a corresponding record for the declining percentage that is native born. We are entering unchartered territory.
It is no wonder that the melting pot is starting to resemble stew rather than tomato soup. Nobody will even have a clue what American culture might be and few will remember what it was. At some point, the dwindling percentage of native born Americans will no lack the critical mass to assimilate newcomers. Maybe we already have reached that point. I can't think of another point in our history where native born Americans were forced to learn a second language to gain employment as unskilled laborers. That is common now in some regions of the country.
Do you think the status quo qualifies as mass immigration?
I apologize that this is a general blog. I certainly didn't mean for it to be a referendum or resolution about immigration, legal or illegal. Largely this was a philosophical discussion about the nature of the debate itself, who we are as participants in that debate, and whether the American culture is even definable as something separate from her history of immigration.
As I said here and in Paul's superior blog, there is a debate to be had about immigration, but instead there is squabbling and accusation. If we clean our house, clear our heads, and define our terms ... well then the conservatives can debate immigration policy and find a resolution that we can propose. It's more than the Dems are going to do, and it is superior to doing nothing.
absentee
…in the last couple years. As others have said, I too stopped blogging here on immigration when the tone of the debate got too hostile.
Paul’s rebuttal to Absentee is at least civil, even if he inserts a link to his rebuttal right at the beginning of Absentee’s post. That doesn’t seem so polite. If Paul wants to comment, why not do so like the rest of us.
Bellinghamster
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Also, I like to think my blog is complementary to Mr. Cella's, if not quite as intellectually rich as his. I don't see them as contrary blogs.
absentee
I saw them as arguing the same point from two different angles.
I believe there are at least two disparate components to the "immigration" issue.
The first component attracts the great majority of attention: illegal immigration of unskilled economic migrants. Policy alternatives considered for dealing with unskilled illegals -- border enforcement, employer sanctions, deportation, guest workers, amnesty, and so on -- are only marginally relevant to the second immigration component, highly skilled immigrants.
Especially in scientific, medical and technical disciplines, a substantial number (in some fields a majority) of graduate degrees are granted by US universities to non-citizens. From a career in big pharma, I'll testify that our major laboratories couldn't function without East- and South-Asian, Central- and Eastern-European, Israeli, Russian and other immigrants.
Like it or not (and in the past many on RedState have not liked it) we can't run our technological society without immigrant scientists, engineers, doctors and technicians. I'm not happy to say it, but insufficient numbers of native-born Americans are willing to undertake scientific/technical careers to meet our needs. If we want a technological society, we have no choice but to depend heavily on immigrants.
But our policies on highly-skilled immigrants are a muddle. Current national quotas aren't skilled-based, or at least not sufficiently so, and the quota numbers are in any event too low. Our stop-gap policies, like H-1B visas, are similarly anemic.
I live now in Washington State, only a half-hour drive from Vancouver BC's southern suburbs. An interesting project was just announced by Microsoft (headquarters in Remond WA, of course) that highlights the friction points in our current policies for highly-skilled immigrants. Frustrated with the slow pace of US reforms, Microsoft will build a major R&D center just across the border in BC and staff it with the high-skill immigrants that Canada wisely seeks and Microsoft needs.
When these brainiacs need to consult with headquarters, they'll only need to drive 90 minutes south on I-5 to Redmond...unless of course they just sit down in a high-tech videoconference room instead. But we can console ourselves that we're protected from the pernicious influence of those high-salaried PhDs.
Bellinghamster
Bham
Mitt supports the expansion of H1Bs, but he chooses to ignore some of the down side of the program.
Suppression of wages for US trained engineers, programmers and other technical types.
Why hire a 40+ programmer when you can hire a 20 something talent from a third world country who will work long hours for short money?
Non portability of Visas
The current system makes imported labor tied to the company that sponsored the Visa, in short a semi indentured relationship.
No verification program to insure that American jobs are offered to American workers at a fair wage first.
Those controls are pretty darn loose from my point of view.
The issue of H1B's is a hot topic in the technology industry, and if you run a company you like Mitt, if you work for a living, the prospect of your job going to cheap imported labor...not so much love.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Bringing in smart people is good, but H1B is not the best program for that. It distorts the market.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
meaning the demand for skills on the margin of productivity. If this hurts someone, too bad, ask the low skilled people what they think of illegal immigration. The reality is unusual intelligence and skills will always be in high demand and supply will never keep up. Either the USA will have the corner on this market or it will be left behind. I for one think we should have more H1B visas, more people with high skills, and that should be the focus of our immigration plans. I doubt many will debate me here, if you want to try, fine.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
The program needs to be changed. I absolutely agree we need more room for high skilled visas, but the current H1B process is awful for both the employee and employer - we used to sponosr a good number of people but have practically stopped because of the pain the progam has become. And for the employee, being anchored to an employer throughout the process allows even highly, uniquely skilled visa holders to be treated like marginal workers and worse.
it IS a government program of course :)
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Was a like a modified Fantasy League Draft system. Employers could bid on individual sponsorships (the cost of buying at auction ultimately replaces the cost of the process today for the employer), the employer then can hire whomever they want but once hired the sponsorship moves with the employee (like free agency). That way, employers will have the same inducement they do with any other employee to pay them approriately (both in compensation and in those intagibles aspects that make us work where we do).
The auction style should ensure that only skills truly hard to find are pursued and the free agencies allows the labor market to allocate that skill to the best place within the economy.
emerging markets are distorted by government interference. It is amazing that an American faces more obstacles getting a job in London than a Haitian. Many governments are so protective, that they ignore their country's need for skilled workers.
I do like your free agency idea, and if someone is particularly skilled, they should not be slaves to the company on their work permit. We need to keep an open market and this country needs to be at the EASIEST for skilled workers to come to.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
The main problem I have with the program is that it is far too restrictive, not far too liberal as SteveLA is saying. I don't buy into his protectionism argument. If we don't have enough skilled people here in the United States to do the work, they'll simply go offshore. That's really easy to do nowadays... and that's how you can actually save a bundle on labor costs.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
H1B employers have a government-provided monosony on H1B holder labor. Because H1B holders can't just quit and get a new job like the rest of us can, employers can pay them less and give them inferior treatment than the market would otherwise allow.
That in turn serves to lower the market value of similar labor provided by non-H1B holders.
Again, I'm all in favor of handing out visas to smart people. We just need to refine the H1B program to give the holders the same labor mobility within our economy that others have.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I know you were making a rhetorical point, but there was a small tendency to lessen the impact of the Founders. They were not simply a "starting point" they were a standard, a foundation. Historically, immigrants have come here because they believed in the country of the Founders, that is why they came here.
Also, I do not believe the argument is about immigration. The argument is about unfair immigration. When people sneak accross our borders, when they have no desire to become citizens, they are the same as a burglar breaking into a home.
Also, one particulary country has no inherent right to immigrate en masse and change our culture whether we like it or not. The reason immigration has worked in the past it because we were more balanced, we let people in from every country and ONLY those who wanted to become Americans, speak English, and celebrate OUR traditions.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
I allowed the extent to which I felt my blog was in reply to a debate I was having in another thread inform my phrasing in some parts. I am a Founding Fathers biography junkie myself. I've just finished Jefferson and am starting on Hamiton. George Washinton is my favorite, and for his none better than Brookhisers.
It is only true that the debate is about illegal or unjust immigration if we can indeed reclaim it as such.
I was perhaps indulging a need to philosophically define the terms for myself. In this regard I believe I am operating in the same space as Paul Cella's excellent and superior front page article. Which is to say, I hope in some way to define who and what we are talking about before we talk about it, I guess.
Thanks for the response!
absentee
I tend to focus on what I disagree with because I think your good points need no clarification from me. As far as Washington goes, my favorite biographer is Flexner, I have not read brookhiser. My particular pan is Joseph Ellis, a book that get's undeserved praise by those who must not have read any other Washington bio.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Almost all of our immigrant ancestors came to America because they wanted to be part of our society, a nation of opportunities and laws. Most illegals, through their overt lack of respect for our laws, our heritage, and our traditions, choose to live off America's generosity without accepting the obligations of citizenship.
Stop the Invasion!
May God continue to bless America.
for wanting our immigration, employment & border security laws enforced. I grow quite tired of those who hurl epithets like "racist" & "nativist" & other garbage at me & the rest of us who want our laws enforced.
I grow tired of those who disingenuosly lump illegal aliens in with legal immigrants. I grow tired of the "La Raza" & "Reconquista" types who spit on us.
Enforcing our laws, especially employment laws, would go a long way toward fixing this problem. When the magnets that draw illegals are demagnetized, the illegals go elsewhere.
I am compassionate. I know that these people for the most part want to provide for their families by working. It's not too much to demand that it's done legally. I am for a guest worker program & reforms to immigration to allow more people who are law-abiding & want to come here to contribute access - after, & only after, the illegal alien issues are solved tangibly.
As one poster described, the US is not a melting pot for the illegals & even other immigrant groups that want to have their own cultural mores supplant ours. I think most of the muslim enclaves that want to live under sharia law. It is high time that those who want to become US citizens embrace the culture of the melting pot, where their previous culture can be remembered & celebrated but not supplant the culture of the US - free people living & worshipping as they please - with their intolerance of others.
It's fascinating to me that so many of us here have first-hand experience with the benefits of legal immigration.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
If you make guns illegal, you're really only inconveniencing law-abiding people. You make more and more and more restrictions and find that fewer and fewer and fewer law-abiding people want to go through the hassle required to lawfully own a gun.
You either get people who wilfully become criminals or people who just do without... and, eventually, those people become people who see guns in general as something that only bad people would have or want.
I think that legal immigration is so good that there should be more of it. Making more rules, more laws, more forms, more hurdles... well, that keeps people from all over the world from wanting to bother to try...
Which makes it so that a huge number of immigrants are illegal.
And a huge majority of those illegal immigrants are those who find it most convenient to immigrate... which makes the majority of immigrants from one geographic location.
Which results in people yelling for tightening of immigration laws.
Which results in more potential immigrants from all over the world seeing America as too much of a hassle.
Which results in more illegal immigration for those who find it convenient.
Which results in more illegal immigrants from one geographic location.
Which results in people yelling for tightening of immigration laws...
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Is not that the process is too time consuming or difficult or involves too many forms. It's that they don't qualify for legal entry into this country, for whatever reason... usually because they are unskilled laborers without family connections or an asylum claim. The priorities are out of wack right now and need to be reworked, but there will *always* be more demand than we can satisfy... so there will *always* be an illegal immigration. That's why enforcement needs to be beefed up. With better border and interior enforcement, we could substantially reduce the influx of illegal immigrants.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
(as stated above, way above) I went through the whole immigration process with my wife and I, as a fairly intelligent person, felt so overwhelmed by the process that I went to my congressman for help and worked with his INS Liason to help me get my wife-to-be to come here.
Two college-educated, English-fluent, young 20-somethings found the process completely byzantine and we were both tempted to take our chances with the whole "jumping the border and hoping for the best" thing... thankfully, Joel Hefley's office was very good at this and so we did it the right way...
But, please, don't think that the process isn't too time consuming or difficult or involves too many forms. As someone who had to wade through the process to marry the love of my life, it seriously is and does... and this was *BEFORE* 9/11.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I wouldn't expect anything less from a government agency, especially one as riddled with incompetence as ICE. I don't think the new initials have done anything to fix the agency.
But a farmer in Southern Mexico doesn't can't get started on that process unless he has connections. He also can't get a tourist visa, which is why most unskilled illegal immigrants sneak across the border instead of traveling by bus or plane and overstaying their visas.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
If you've got a bunch of Swedes, Poles, Nords, Scots, Irish, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Greek, and Madagascarian immigrants coming in, how do you think they will react to a bunch of illegal immigrants coming over (primarily from countries where it is most convenient to illegally immigrate from) and saying "we don't have to assimilate like you guys had to!"?
Now let's tighten up immigration law in response to illegal immigration.
Has this resulted in more or fewer Swedes, Poles, Nords, Scots, Irish, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Greek, and Madagascarian immigrants coming in?
Are there still the name numbers of illegal immigrants coming in?
Do you think that the proper response is still to tighten up immigration?
Has the gun issue taught us nothing?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
"Making more rules, more laws, more forms, more hurdles... well, that keeps people from all over the world from wanting to bother to try..."
There is about a six year line of people who are bothering to try to come legally. That part of your argument does not make sense. Plenty are bothering to try.
The fact that it is difficult (nearly impossible for the unskilled and rightly so) to come here legally combined with the fact that there are big economic rewards and almost no consequences for coming here illegally is why we have illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is primarily an economically motivated crime and almost all economically motivated crimes happen because of this perception. Bank robbery would be much more common if bank robbers were assured of no punishment.
The way we deter economically motivated crimes is with enforcement and consequences. With enforcement we could turn that situation around where there were few rewards and heavy consequences. There would be less illegal immigration and probably a reversed flow of migrants like is happening in Arizona and Oklahoma with just the impending threat of enforcement. No enforcement under these new laws has actually yet occurred and already the flow is reversing.
You think immigration is great which is a valid opinion but not all immigration is equal. There is no doubt that there is an economic case for high skilled immigration. They benefit our economy and they are net contributors to the treasury.
The same cannot be said for illegal immigrants who are generally unskilled. Their cheap labor certainly creates profits for those who hire them. But their contribution to the Treasury is negative. They may pay a little tax but they impose a lot of costs. They also compete directly with our poorest citizens. It is really arguable whether we need this additional unskilled labor because that sector of our workforce suffers an unemployment rate nearly double the national average. The result is depressed wages for the poorest Americans and that is not a strategy that is going to win us many Republican votes. There are winners and losers and my opinion is that the net/net of unskilled immigration is a loss for everybody except the employers and the immigrants themselves.
Personally, I have been taxed all my life "to fight the war on poverty" and I fail to see the wisdom of importing new unskilled immigrants who will inevitably require social services and expand the ranks of the poor.
A thoughtful comment (yours). Regardless of whether others can refute some of its implications, it's a good example of negative feedback, that is, feedback within a system that makes the system progressively worse.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
It's my impression that is what is happening.
I would guess mostly because;
1. Proximity
2. Sense of entititlement
3. Past allowance by authorities
4. Encouragement by Mexican government
5. Previous experience
Aren't the majority of illegals repeat offenders?
Standard disclaimer: I am against all illegal immigration and I want the illegal Irish and the illegals of every nationality to be encouraged to leave with tough workplace enforcement. I have nothing in particular against Mexican illegal immigrants except that they are illegal.
I don't think anybody has decent numbers. But the numbers that I hear frequently repeated are that about 35% of illegal aliens are visa overstays. Probably not too many of these are Mexican because it is tough for a Mexican to get a visa. Of the remaining 65% who are the illegal border crossers, I frequently hear that about 80% are Mexican.
I agree with your reasons one through 5. And would add one more which is 6. Past amnesties. It is perhaps the most important reason. Illegal immigration and legal immigration are closely related. Illegal immigrants are far more likely to go where there is a support network of existing immigrants that share their nationality/ethnicity and particularly kinship. It is not an accident for example that most Brazillian illegals end up in Massachussetts. A very large percentage of the current crop of illegals was drawn here by their family relationships to the last batch of illegals who benefitted from either the Reagan Amnesty or one of the 7 245i amnesties that followed the Reagan amnesty. And given our generous history of giving amnesty which we alway say will be the last one, illegal aliens have every reason to believe that they too will eventually receive amnesty.
Immigration begets more immigration and amnesty beget more illegal immigration.
Gives you something to think about as you consider the McCain Amnesty.
It is NOT a social problem, nor is it a political one, nor a cultural one. It is an economic problem. It will not be resolved until someone figures out how to get the economics right. I see nobody approaching it from that standpoint, and until they do, it won't matter how many walls they build, laws they pass, names they call people, or protest marches they conduct.
If you want the labor force here (and we do - there is room, and in fact need for the force we have here or they wouldn't be coming here with only 5% or so unemployment), want it's participants accounted-for, want them excluded from political process unless and until they are here to integrate and become part of our culture and obtain citizenship....and not just live here while they make money, set it up that way.
Make it so they can work here legally in adequate numbers and in accordance with law and specific criteria regarding the terms of that employment. Hold them accountable for all the things American citizens are accountable while they are here, and provide them with reasonable rights, conditions of employment, and protections. Make it so they benefit economically if they comply with the law, and are punished economically if they don't. Comply you win... don't comply you lose.
It could be as simple as putting the controls in place, and then making them pay for their own deportation in addition to fines if they don't comply with the rules.
Then we could account for them, license them to drive (without opening the door to acquisition of unearned rights and services), insure them, fold them fully into our social security and tax systems, and still give those who want to become Americans the opportunities that anybody should have... and with the same restrictions. They get in line like everyone else.
You won't have to worry about sending 12-20 million back. They'll go back themselves and sign up to come in legally once that is an option and failure to comply is economically unfeasible.
it is a national security issue...
getting on an airplane should not be harder than entering the country...
but, it appears as though it will not be the defining issue of the general election...
and mccain may actually get quite a bit of hispanic support with his role on this issue.
I very much wanted to identify myself with that reconciliation you aimed for in Paul’s Abstraction blog. I’m still a bit dubious that you two – and we all -- are as close as you insist, even though I’m pleased that we seem closer than ever. Frankly, I don’t see how to reconcile with this entry of his.
In the common rhetoric, one who is indignant about inferences of protectionism, nativism, or xenophobia or racism is nevertheless quick to confer globalist, or multi-culturalist, open-borders anti-sovereign, irredentist, liberal, or even over-confident fool; and vice-versa. Polarization often seems the very objective, so the indignance at the turn-about is hard to respect.
In the reactionary’s catechism there are principles asserted that imply nativism to me. Therein is also opposition to your dynamic view of culture, which I share, and confidence in the “invisible hand” assimilative prowess of American identity.
I doubt we shall be able to purge nativism or globalism from the categories of our debates. I would rather call for more humility and honesty. If someone pegs me, I’ll take another hard look at myself and wear it the shoe fits. If we are going to have a productive rational inquiry, that’s an essential step for gaining the high ground where all the varied values and interests are assembled into salubrious balance.
I was thinking about Paul's blog and my blog this morning. I was also thinking about Finch's blog.
Reduced to simple things, it seems that both sides are equally correct.
If you say to me that taking every single human being out of this country, and replacing them with an exact number of human beings from China, and in the replacements endowing all the same manners and traditions, and conferring all the same rights, that nevertheless America is a different place than it was ... well of course you are right.
So those who argue that fundamentally altering the makeup of the population is necessarily replacing what was with what is are right.
From the other side, if you say to me that an immigrant coming to America in 1812, and establishing a home, and living his life, that his descendants in 2007 living here and raising their families are as entitled to the label American as one who can trace their lineage to the founding, then I say you are right too.
So those who argue that fundamental blood ties to the revolution are not necessary to be a real, honest and true American are also right.
We are all right. We are arguing non-conflicting philosophies because we are using philosophical basis for our positions.
But immigration isn't really a philosophical question. It is a mathematical question and a practical one. It is a moral question yes. It's a rational question.
I think that culture, heritage, and identity are the vast and complex ideas I've said before. I believe ours is safe. What some in the southwest experience is wrong. When resident citizens are being made aliens in their own land, that is a usurpation of the rights of citizenship, and the comforts they are entitled to by heritage.
But we cannot allow that such an injustice prompt another injustice. Closing the borders and barring all entry is counter to our culture, it is contrary to our character, and it is not our tradition. It is, in short, not American.
I think in large part, we can cure the impulse to withdraw from the world. It is primarily a posture of defense. If the attack is broken defenses can ease.
Also, a call for humility is essential. Like you, if the shoe fits I will wear it. If I find my rational thoughts being informed by urges to globalism or nativism, and I am called on it, I will say it.
Our two sides are indeed close. The resolution to the immigration issue is in our grasp. We should determine the areas where we agree and settle those issues first. All sides wish to have the border secure, let us do so without delay.
Once that fundamental assault on our security is corrected, it is time to debate numbers, mathematics and impact.
absentee
I am convinced that you have expressed the frustration that I feel about the immigration issue. I am convinced, and will remain convinced, that the Republican Party missed a huge chance to cure the immigration problem a year and a half ago, when the Republican House refused to go into conference with the Republican Senate to properly amend the harmful elements of the comprehensive immigration plan, combine the security portions of the House's earlier bill with the Senate's, eliminate the open doors for easy amnesty and yet ensure a generous but well-regulated policy for legal immigration. All of these could have been done, with a great victory for the President, the Congress, and the Republican Party. But men, whose opinions were not so far apart, let emotion overrule good sense, and it resulted in a broken process and a disaster for the GOP.
I happen to think we will get another shot next year. We'll know more in the months ahead, but I do not believe that the end of this year will result in a Democrat victory. I hope that we will remember the lessons of our mistakes, and not repeat them.
---the Old Alcalde---
Belisarius of Jerusalem, and of Constantinople
My wife is a proud green card carrier. I believe her presence here is a net positive for America. Responsible immigration is essential to our culture's vitality and growth. Responsible immigration leads to assimilation. Illegal immigration, it seems, does not. Unless of course we forgive and forget.
My wife worked hard and waited for her green card, and she doesn't feel anyone deserves to be here without one.
FredHead for Mitt Romney!