The West at a crossroads
I'm sure everyone has been following the two news stories of America's problems with illegal aliens (and last week's massive demonstrations) and Europe's clashes with radical Islamists over the Danish cartoons, so I won't bother to repeat the details.
What I will do is share with you my concern about what position this is putting "the Western world" in over the following decades if we continue down our current path.
The miracle of America - in my mind, still the greatest experiment in history - is that anyone can come here and, in short order, become an American. Historically, this has happened in two broad ways: the legal pathway to citizenship and the embrace of a shared narrative that emphasizes liberty, representative government, and equality.
Now I am not so naive or ignorant to think we've always done this well. As a matter of fact, we've been downright horrible at certain times at our history. I know that and you know that. But we've had a shared narrative, so when our great leaders and advocates - MLK comes to mind - have called us to account, they've called us to account as Americans: "We're Americans, we should be better than this."
I can not overexaggerate my concern, then, upon seeing illegal aliens in Los Angeles advocating for their rights to enter this country as Mexicans. Some even went so far as to hold up signs implying they were reclaiming Mexican lands taken in 1848. Worse still, all of this was couched in the language of a threat. What effort are they going to make to become Americans, based on these protests? This is especially problematic in the Southwest of the country, where there is a contiguous border with the 'homeland.'
We've seen the results of this in Europe, haven't we? Large and growing ghettos of minorities, excluded from the native society, but in thrall to them for their economic subsistence via transfer payments. In short, an ample ground for extremism to develop, and indeed it has - the leaders of the 9-11 attacks resided in Europe.
To keep these disenfranchised groups 'under control,' the continental powers have been forced to make compromises or reconsider the values free speech and religious expression, as well as nearly bankrupt their countries with entitlements.
This is why I disagree with those who say we should shut down our country to all immigration and re-establish a parochial vision our country. We need to have a routine and legal form of immigration, and the emphasis must be on assimilation. Let this be our immigration reform.
What I will do is share with you my concern about what position this is putting "the Western world" in over the following decades if we continue down our current path.
The miracle of America - in my mind, still the greatest experiment in history - is that anyone can come here and, in short order, become an American. Historically, this has happened in two broad ways: the legal pathway to citizenship and the embrace of a shared narrative that emphasizes liberty, representative government, and equality.
Now I am not so naive or ignorant to think we've always done this well. As a matter of fact, we've been downright horrible at certain times at our history. I know that and you know that. But we've had a shared narrative, so when our great leaders and advocates - MLK comes to mind - have called us to account, they've called us to account as Americans: "We're Americans, we should be better than this."
I can not overexaggerate my concern, then, upon seeing illegal aliens in Los Angeles advocating for their rights to enter this country as Mexicans. Some even went so far as to hold up signs implying they were reclaiming Mexican lands taken in 1848. Worse still, all of this was couched in the language of a threat. What effort are they going to make to become Americans, based on these protests? This is especially problematic in the Southwest of the country, where there is a contiguous border with the 'homeland.'
We've seen the results of this in Europe, haven't we? Large and growing ghettos of minorities, excluded from the native society, but in thrall to them for their economic subsistence via transfer payments. In short, an ample ground for extremism to develop, and indeed it has - the leaders of the 9-11 attacks resided in Europe.
To keep these disenfranchised groups 'under control,' the continental powers have been forced to make compromises or reconsider the values free speech and religious expression, as well as nearly bankrupt their countries with entitlements.
This is why I disagree with those who say we should shut down our country to all immigration and re-establish a parochial vision our country. We need to have a routine and legal form of immigration, and the emphasis must be on assimilation. Let this be our immigration reform.
posted by Joshua @ 11:05 AM
5 Comments:
Courier readers take note: this will form the basis of next week's editorial.
You bring up a good point when you ask how this experience is different from the historical immigrant experience.
My response comes in two points:
1) What's among the first things you think of when you think of the waves of European immigrants coming to America? I would say you'd think of Ellis Island, a hallmark of legal, orderly and 'Americanizing' immigration. Contrast this with sneaking across the border, having no regular status at all, and no 'Americanizing' experience.
2) I'm intrigued that you mention the French-Canadians, if only because I am so close to Berlin, NH, Burlington, VT, and Lewiston-Auburn, ME, all mill towns populated by Quebecois immigrants. This example alone proves the glaring difference between today's Mexican illegals and previous waves. Can you imagine the French-Canadians - who formed pluralities and near-majorities in these towns, and indeed remained mere hours away from their 'homeland' - making noises about returning the trans-Applachian part of those states to Canada or separating them from American law? That's the equivalent.
And to clarify my statement you quoted in your own comment. I have no problem with ethnic neighborhoods, where ancient traditions are preserved and a communal 'safe space' exists in a new and possibly hostile society. What I do have a problem with is the so-called next step that some illegals - and Muslims in Europe - are envisioning: communities governed solely by native law, excluded from the governmental reach of the host country, but economically dependent. This is not a distinction without a difference.
I hope this clears up my stance.
I caught your drift, but maybe that's what you experience between friends of nearly a decade-and-a-half... and I wholeheartedly agree.
The problem is not that immigrants should not be allowed to come into the country, or stay true to their heritage (in some form or another), but they must play nice and abide by the rules and laws of the country, if they wish to reside here. This is something that each of us, here in Opti-Land, would hold ourselves to, were we to emigrate to another country. If I were to move to, say... Pakistan, I'd still hold America near to my heart, but I would not be outwardly "American," so as to rile the local population and cause trouble for myself. I would assimilate to the local culture and its laws.
This is perhaps an extreme case, but it's a case that would be true, nontheless, in a more "stable" or "friendly" country.
Not to mention that illegal immigrants aren't helping themselves any by being in America and remaining "loyal" to their "homeland," which are nicer ways (in my opinion, at least) of saying "illegal." They aren't entitled to healthcare assistance, for example, or social security (which could be a moot point in the future... who knows?), or any of the other social assistance programs that they could qualify for, if they obtained American citizenship, or at least legal status in the United States.
As they say, "When in Rome..."
That is all.
Re: "I'd say that truth is not as orderly. I myself had a cousin who was sent back to Ireland 80 years ago after they figured out he was an illegal immigrant and he had been picked up for burglary in Boston... the Irish had their own communities that were not open to outsiders, with their own ways of running "laws", many of them were there illegally, and at first could not get jobs or join societies in the wider culture. How about the parellel legal organization found in the Cosa Nostra in the US?"
And I'd have been against that stuff, too.
By far the biggest difference between Mexican immigrants and other groups is the fact that once upon a time, the Southwest was part of Mexico. In effect, the immigrants are working to "reclaim" their land in a way that immigrants from across oceans never did. It's an entirely different psychological element. Yes, the English, Dutch, Spanish, and French (and maybe more that I'm forgetting) had colonies here, but colonies generally do not come with the same cultural heritage as the mother country.
I was born in Corpus Christi, Texas in Nueces County in a Catholic hospital where I was the only "anglo" baby there. I have a phenomenal suntan in my baby pictures because the cameras had filters on them to flatter the olive skin tones of the Hispanic babies. There was/is a huge imprint of that Mexican culture in the Southwest, and for that reason alone, it appears that the immigrants feel that America is simply an extension of Mexico, and there is no need to integrate themselves. I see it as being somewhat analogous to the (sometimes) joking refrains of "The South will rise again!" that pepper conversations at home. It's almost something along the lines of "If you resist enough, they will eventually cave into your demands," which is precisely what we are seeing from the government as both sides begin bartering for the Latino voting bloc.
Post a Comment
<< Home