Politics makes strange bedfellows, a cliche perhaps, but it certainly fits in the case of Jason Riley’s latest book "Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders" (Gotham), which makes the case for an expansive immigration policy. Jason Riley is a conservative African-American and a member of the very conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board. Pro-immigrant views are not exactly the stuff we have come to associate with the right-wing but Riley’s book is a breath of fresh air nonetheless. Here is an excerpt from the May 15, 2008 Op-Ed piece that Riley penned for the Wall Street Journal, which gives a peek into his book.
The public, we were told, was fed up with illegal immigrants, especially those coming from Latin America. These foreign nationals were stealing jobs, depressing wages, filling our jails and prisons, refusing to learn English, and not assimilating like past immigrant groups. The conventional wisdom was that any presidential candidate who stood a chance of being elected would have to take a hard-line stance on illegal aliens.
Yet somehow the issue seems to have faded, if not disappeared entirely. The presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, isn't a fire-breathing "seal the border" restrictionist. Rather, he's the candidate most closely associated with a comprehensive immigration reform proposal that would have given most undocumented immigrants a shot at becoming legal residents if they met certain requirements. As for the Democrats, when's the last time you saw the term "illegal immigrant" appear in a story about Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama?
So what happened?
Well, I have a theory, and it is that Americans are basically pro-immigrant but ambivalent about it. This ambivalence is reflected in polls, which of course provide different results based on how questions are asked. For example, last year a CBS News poll asked, "Should illegal immigrants be prosecuted and deported or shouldn't they?" And 69% of respondents favored deportation. When the same interviewers asked the same respondents what should happen to illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the U.S. for at least two years, and then offered a specific alternative to deportation, only 33% favored deportation; 62% said they should be given a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status.
When a separate Gallup poll asked a similar question but offered four alternatives, just 13% favored deportation, and 78% said illegal immigrants should be allowed to keep their jobs and apply for citizenship.
In other words, for all the loud talk we've heard in recent months, via cable news, talk radio and the blogosphere, the American public seems not to have lost confidence in the melting pot. And rightly so, because there's plenty of evidence that assimilation is proceeding apace. True, it doesn't always seem that way, but we all know that perceptions can sometimes be illusions.
The media offers up a steady diet of data about current immigration from Mexico, and much of it consists of "averages" regarding English-language skills, income, home-ownership rates, education and so forth. But while digesting these figures, it's important to keep in mind that Latino immigration is ongoing. These averages are snapshots of a moving stream and therefore of little use in measuring assimilation. To properly gauge assimilation, we need to find out how immigrants in the U.S. are faring over time. Only longitudinal studies that track individuals can provide that information.
Just looking at averages can give you a very distorted view of who's learning English or dropping out of school or climbing out of poverty. How so? Because overall statistics that average in large numbers of newcomers can obscure the progress made by pre-existing immigrants.
Dowell Myers, a demographer at the University of Southern California, calls it the "Peter Pan Fallacy." "Many of us assume, unwittingly, that immigrants are like Peter Pan," says Mr. Myers, "forever frozen in their status as newcomers, never aging, never advancing economically, and never assimilating." In this naïve view, he says, "the mounting numbers of foreign-born residents imply that our nation is becoming dominated by growing numbers of people who perpetually resemble newcomers."
The reality, however, is that the longitudinal studies show real socio-economic progress by Latinos. Progress is slower in some areas, such as the education level of adult immigrants, and faster in others, such as income and homeownership rates. But there is no doubt that both assimilation and upward mobility are occurring over time.
With respect to linguistic assimilation, which is one of the more important measures because it amounts to a job skill that can increase earnings, the historical pattern is as follows: The first generation learns enough English to get by but prefers the mother tongue. The children of immigrants born here grow up in homes where they understand the mother tongue to some extent and may speak it, but they prefer English. When those children become adults, they establish homes where English is the dominant language.
There's every indication that Latinos are following this pattern. According to 2005 Census data, just one-third of Latino immigrants in the country for less than a decade speak English well. But that proportion climbs to 75% for those here 30 years or more. There may be more bilingualism today among their children, but there's no evidence that Spanish is the dominant language in the second generation. The 2000 Census found that 91% of the children of immigrants, and 97% of the grandchildren, spoke English well.
What I find most incredible and disturbing about the responses from Peter Brimelow’s groupies is the utter lack of shock at the extreme nature of the statements that come out of Brimelow’s mouth.I say, “come out of Brimelow’s mouth,” since every single element of my parody is taken from actual statements made by Brimelow, right down to his statement about defending the white race and “get used to it.”Make no bones about it, Peter Brimelow is a dyed in the wool racist, xenophobe and all-around fascist.I could throw in a few more “isms” but the catch-all “fascist” (despite its loss in currency through over-use) most accurately defines Brimelow’s ideology better than any other number of categories of hate.
This Brimelow guy means to undermine our republic.For someone who rails on about aliens who fail to assimilate, I am profoundly disturbed that this British wanker apparently snookered INS into letting him pass his citizenship test despite his avowed fascist tendencies.
Brimelow has no respect for American Democracy.He needs to be deported!Accordingly, I am henceforth starting the “Deport Peter Brimelow Society” with the aim of stripping this fascist of his naturalized citizenship and sending his limey ass back across the Atlantic where he can bugger his fascist buddies at the British National Party.
(For your information, Brimelow, my people were here before the American Civil War was fought.In fact, on my mother’s side they were in the Western territories before the Revolution against King George.So kiss my ass, you slimy racist.)
So I was getting really ticked off at all the nativist crap published on the VDare website when I decided to take matters into my own hands. I reached for the phone. The site’s editor is Peter Brimelow, a British expat who is obsessed with Hispanic immigrants and the threat they pose to his son, Alexander and his daughter, Sue. I decided to have it out with Brimelow, once and for all, man to man --- mano a mano. I dialed up his number and the bloke picked up.
“Brimelow?” I said. “Peter Brimelow? Is that you?”
“The very same. ‘Ow can I ‘elp yer, mate?” he replied, in a distinct British accent.
“Peter, I have to tell you, as a Latino, I’m getting really pissed off at all of the anti-Latino hate speech you’ve been spewing out onto the Web. I mean, what gives with you, man? You didn’t even grow up in this country, much less in L.A. or El Paso, so you can’t be carrying a grudge ‘cause some of my peeps kicked your ass or something. So what is it with you?”
“And ‘oo mightchoo be then, mate?”
“Razzo, Razzo Castro. And don’t call me ‘mate’, all right? I have a blog called Eristic Ragemail. It’s all about elite racist peckerwoods such as yourself, who disseminate bogus statistics on immigration.”
“Right! Ragemail, eh? Can’t say I’ve ‘ad the pleasure of reading it, Razzo. An’ what’s that you said about ‘peckerwoods’? Was that meant to be derogat’ry?”
“You should check the Ragemail site out sometime, Brimelow. After all, you’re featured prominently on the site, right next to the section on Hitler.”
“Whazzat? Bloody ‘itler, eh? Where you get off wif dat, exackly? I only lays out the facts. What people does wiv ‘em is their own business. Follow me?”
“Facts!? You call the garbage you spew out, ‘facts?’ Man, you are deluded. Seriously. I mean come on Pete – I can call you Pete, can’t I? – you know damn well that, immigrants don’t make up 25% of the US federal prison population. As for public assistance, immigrants aren’t even eligible for that –not that anybody is any more. And do you seriously believe your claim that aliens are responsible for suburban sprawl? Last time I was in the suburbs I didn’t see too many low riders out there, joo-know-whad-I-meeng?
And what’s with the racist crap about immigrants bringing in leprosy. Come on man, you are a smart guy, why do you put out such… horseshit?”
“Look, Razzo. (Say, what kind of name is that anyway: ‘Razzo.’) I appreciate you takin’ the time to call me, but I’m not goin’ a sit ‘ere and debate wif you if you’s goin’ a be ‘ostile.”
“Ok. But, just so you know, all this stuff is really meant to scare white people . . . I mean, seriously . . . Leprosy? That’s so yesterday. Why not something with a little more traction, like Ebola or Marburg? I mean, if you’re going to invent exotic diseases carried by aliens why don’t you at least pick something a little trendier; something that wasn’t originally brought here by the slaves dragooned by your illustrious forefathers?”
“Ok, ok. Maybe the leprosy fing was a stretch, but it spun so well for my man, Lou Dobbs, I figured hell, why not just keep it spinnin’, like. Why go to the trouble of reinventin’ the wheel, so to speak? Ha ha ha. I do like the Ebola/Marburg angle, though. ‘ow you spell that: Marburg? Never mind; I’ll Google it. I needs some material fer me nex’ column.”
“See, there you go again, making stuff up to tarnish Latinos. You really have to take a hard look in the mirror, my man. And I don’t mean so you can coif that impeccable white mane of yours. I mean you need to look in the mirror so you can really see yourself for what you are and say: Is this really the legacy I want to leave? A legacy of hatred?”
“Razzo, I ain’t either fomentin’ ‘atred. In fact, I resents the implication, as it were.”
“Bullshit, Pete! You most certainly are fomenting hatred. I mean when your pal, Steve Sailer, writes that Black women and Asian men are doomed to evolutionary extinction because they are too ugly… what the hell do you call that?”
“Yeah, Steve did kind of go a little bit overboard wiv dat one. ‘e should’ve cited ‘is sources, ‘e should.”
“Or when you endorsed the Minutemen vigilantes? Didn’t you know the Minutemen are like Ku Klux Klan?
Like? Hell, they are the KKK!”
“On the other ‘and, you ‘as to admit that they do enjoy a certain amount of – ‘ow you call it? – popular support. An’ you ‘as to pick your dogs wherever you finds ‘em.”
“But . . . why do you have to lie so much? I mean you just constantly make stuff up, like saying that whites are at zero population growth and that US population is going to double due to ‘dark immigrants.’ Where do you get that shit?”
“Look, you misunderstood what I said, mate. What I meant to say was that when you considers the whatsit? . . . um . . . the net aggregate . . . yeah . . . that’s it: the net aggregate . . . – which is not just the new immigrants, but all the immigrants what’s come in since 1970 – yeah, when you considers the net aggregate, then my statement is in fact, accurate, as it were.”
“So you mean, like me and my kids and their kids’ kids?”
“Exactly!”
“Well, by that standard ALL population growth is going to come from people born after 1970, no matter their race or ethnicity. After all, the child-bearing years belong to the young . . .like your child bride.”
“’Ey now! No need to get personal! What you got against child brides, any’ow?”
“Hey, I’m not faulting you for marrying someone half your age. I mean if you really are concerned about the decline of the Aryan race, you need to keep breeding, even if you have to keep on doing it into your senescence. In fact, according to your logic you, as scion of the noble white race, should acquire several child brides. In fact, I know just the group for you . . .”
“My wife ‘as got nuffin’ to do wiv dis. Besides, I already ‘as kids by me first wife.”
“We all know that you have kids, Pete. How could we not? You bring up your little girl Sue and your ‘blonde, blue-eyed’ boy, Alexander James Frank Brimelow, at every speaking opportunity. Hell, we even know their birthdates, since you relate these dates to the ‘brown apocalypse’ that your children will supposedly experience in their lifetimes.”
“Well, I do fink that if we continues to favor the darker races with quotas and affirmative action, poor little Alexander James will one day be punished just for being white. ‘E’ll be a victim of reverse racism, in fact. You can’t deny that.”
“Jesssuuuuuuuuuuuus, I just had an epiphany! That’s really what’s bugging you, isn’t it? You left the comfort of Jolly Old England, Jolly White Old England, hoping to find more of your own kind in the land across the sea. But instead, to your horror and dismay, what you found was a country practically overrunning with darkies. And now you’re afraid that one of your kids might even marry one of them? Is that it? Oh the horror! The horror! Pete, you must wake up drenched in sweat at the nightmare of being forced to one day dandle some chocolate-brown grandchild on your knee, in your own home. Oh my god; think of it! Your own grandchild!”
“Stop it! Stop it Razzo, you wanker. Clearly you are part of the problem, you mudwave surfer. Fuckin’ piece of third world trash!”
“Whoa, Peter! Get a grip on yourself, man. It’s just a fact that you’ll have to accept: the possibility that your own personal DNA might one day become contaminated with alien stock. How does Sue Madison Sanchez sound? Has a nice muddy-brown ring to it, doesn’t it? Think of it: Your little snow-white Suzie married to a swarthy Mexican cholo. It just wigs you out, doesn’t it?”
“Look Razzo, if that is your name . . . I admits that I doesn’t much like the thought of my daughter marrying an illegal anything. But my concerns is purely for the integrity of our great white ‘ardworkin’ Protestant culture is all. That is what is at issue ‘ere, and that is what is threatened by illegal immigration.”
“You mean, the purity of the white race, right?”
“Razzo, I fink this conversation ‘as gone far enough. Goodbye.” [CLICK]
“But Pete! Wait! I wanted you to explain why immigrants are to blame for the Northern Virginia suburbs.”
[Dialtone]
After this was posted Cronulla posted a defense of Peter Brimelow. Mr. Brimelow subsequently felt the need to clear the record. Herein his response.
Peter Brimelow responds:
Cronulla, you old plonker, thanks for writing in on my behalf mate. I really think you laid to rest the load of clobbers peddled by that third-world wanker Razzo. The only racist, in my conversation with Razzo, was the duffer on the other end of the phone. You can’t know how cheesed off I got when I saw that third world toff transcribed our phone conversation. Hell, I was honking gallons into the loo after reading his insults. So, I’ll finish correcting the record that you so ably started. Thanks again mate.
It is a fact that America is getting darker and we need to act to stop that. As you know the opening to the Constitution, the preamble, actually says the purpose of the constitution is to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, not posterity in general, our posterity. The posterity of the people who were living in the U.S. at the time. And that was a nation which was entirely white and it was also very heavily, overwhelmingly Protestant: 98 percent Protestant. So our founders envisioned an entirely white nation that was close to 100% Protestant. I don’t know why people get all scatty when I state this. This is a fact. The constitution did not envision securing the blessings of liberty to Blacks, Catholics or Hispanics, let alone immigrants.
Razzo wants to tarnish VDare because we publish white nationalists like Steve Sailer and Pat Buchanan. We publish on VDARE.com a few writers, for example Jared Taylor, whom I would regard as “white nationalist,” in the sense that they aim to defend the interests of American whites. They are not white supremacists as the PC police would have you believe. But they unashamedly work for their people…Get used to it! As immigration policy drives whites into a minority, this type of interest-group "white nationalism" will inexorably increase, and we will be there defending our people. So get used to it! We of the white race, will not go down without a fight.
Steve Sailer, another white nationalist, is also one of our contributors, and as you, Cronilla say, his comments on Asian men and Black women losing out in the evolutionary race, have been misinterpreted by the same duffers who accuse us of being white supremacists. What Steve actually wrote in his essay, "Is Love Colorblind," was as follows:
The general pattern to be explained is: blacks are more in demand as husbands than as wives, and vice-versa for Asians. The question is, what accounts for it?
The force driving these skewed husband - wife proportions appears to be differences in perceived sexual attractiveness. On average, black men tend to appear slightly more and Asian men slightly less masculine than white men, while Asian women are typically seen as slightly more and black women as slightly less feminine than white women.
So, what makes blacks more masculine-seeming and Asians more feminine-seeming? 1) Asian men tend to be shorter than white and black men. Does this matter in the mating game? One of America's leading hands-on researchers into this question, 7'1", 280-pound basketball legend Wilt Chamberlain, reports that in his ample experience being tall and strong never hurt. Biological anthropologists confirm this, finding that taller tends to be better in the eyes of most women in just about all cultures. Furthermore, it can be rather cold comfort to a 5'7" Asian who is competing for dates with white and black guys averaging 5'11" to hear, ``Your sons will grow up on average a couple of inches taller than you, assuming, of course, that you ever meet a girl and have any kids.'' In contrast, consider a 5'1" Asian coed. Although she'd be happy with a 5'7" boyfriend if she were in an all-Asian school, at UCLA she finds lots of boys temptingly much taller than that, but few are Asian.
2) Since women do not go bald and can generally grow longer hair than men, most cultures associate longer hair with femininity. Although blacks' hair doesn't grow as long as whites' or Asians' hair, that's not a problem for black women in all-black societies. After integration, though, hair often becomes an intense concern for black women competing with longer-haired women of other races.
3) Muscularity may most sharply differentiate the races in terms of sexual attractiveness. Women like men who are stronger than they; men like women who are rounder and softer. The frustrations of Asian men are a warning sign. When, in the names of freedom and feminism, young women listen less to the hard-earned wisdom of older women about how to pick Mr. Right, they listen even more to their hormones. This allows cruder measures of a man's worth -- like the size of his muscles -- to return to prominence.
As you can see, Steve was just pointing out the scientific basis for the sexual preference that discriminates against black women and Asian men. It’s a fact that women like their men big and men like their women soft. I don’t know why that Razzo wanker has to twist this into some kind of racist argument. It’s the same way that the PC police twisted my arguments in the essay “America’s Immigration Policy—Hitler’s Revenge?”
And as you, Cronulla, rightly point out, who is the racist when it comes to my children. As some of you who have read my book, Alien Nation, will remember, the most denounced passage was my reference to my little boy, Alexander, who had then just been born. There is reference in this book to his blue eyes and blond hair. Alexander James Frank Brimelow is an American, although I was still a British subject and his mother a Canadian when he shot into the New York delivery room, yelling indignantly, one summer dawn in 1991. I was merely pointing out the unintended consequences of the 14th Amendment. This is because of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, states in part:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
We need to repeal the 14th Amendment which was passed after the Civil War in an attempt to stop Southern states denying their newly freed slaves the full rights of citizens. What with all these illegals having anchor babies, it’s just literally changing the colour of our nation. And just because I mentioned that my son is blond and blue-eyed, all these people accuse me of racism. They want to see racism, go talk to the multi-culturalists.
The drive toward multiculturalism now exists in every English-speaking country. It exists because there are people who don’t like the majority white culture in these countries and want to undermine it. And in the U.S. it particularly exists because of the African-American population which, in many ways, is almost like a fetal nation. I mean blacks are developing in quite different ways culturally to the rest of the population and it’s a very deep-seated problem for the Americans. There is a sense in which current immigration policy is Adolf Hitler’s posthumous revenge on America. You see, African-Americans are the model for the Hispanics that are invading our country and fomenting multi-culturalism. We need to control the development of the African-American population just as we need to exclude the Hispanic growth.
Finally, that wanker Razzo brings up the whole Leprosy thing. I mean, yeah you had Brits bringing Africans over in conditions that bred disease. But of more immediate significance to readers is who was blamed for the spread of leprosy in the news reports.
(“European colonialism and the slave trade probably played a key role in the spread of leprosy, research suggests.”)
“…the disease may have begun in East Africa…then spread to the other continents in part through European colonialism and later the slave trade.”
In other words, although this ancient disease was rampant throughout Europe and Asia by early medieval times, the study is being used as another occasion to denigrate the whites of Western Europe, solidly fixed in the media mind as the only practitioners of colonialism and slave trading. The source of this ahistorical slander, sadly, is the press release put out by head of the Pasteur Institute unit responsible for the study, Dr Stewart Cole:
“Europeans and North Africans then spread leprosy to West Africa… Europeans also introduced leprosy to North America.
“‘Colonialism was extremely bad for parts of the world in terms of human health,’ said Cole.”
In other words, the brief period of European rule in the Third World, which triggered a population explosion there because of the introduction of public health disciplines, law, order, technology and capital, creating an improving living standard the post- colonial regimes have been pitifully unable to maintain, was “extremely bad.” However leprosy spread in the past, the answer to stopping extension in the future is obvious: curtail 3rd World immigration.The brutal truth is that immigrants bring disease..
The problem really boils down to letting these brown hordes have a voice in our democracy. Well that's really the problem and also we didn't have the institutionalization of of factionalization, in the sense of voting right acts and voting rights which is moving towards a proportional representation system where everybody gets everybody gets represented. That is a big part of the problem: too much democracy. I say deport them all!! And toss out their kids, who were born in this country, with them. I hope this clears out any confusion.
John Tanton is a retired opthamologist from Michigan and is founder of various advocacy groups, the most prominent being the Federation for American Immigration Reform (“FAIR”). Founded in 1978, the Federation for American Immigration Reform blames immigrants for a host of social problems including crime, poverty, disease, urban sprawl, traffic jams, school overcrowding, racial tensions and potential terrorism. Between 1985 and 1994, FAIR accepted some $1.2 million from the racist Pioneer Fund, until bad publicity apparently convinced its leaders to desist.In 1986, a series of memos were leaked out which indicated how Tanton intended to infiltrate and influence the Federal government on immigration and just as urgently revealed the deep seated hatred that John Tanton has for Latinos, Catholics and other non-white “undesirables.”Here is one of the memos which is posted on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch website.
TO: WITAN IV Attendees
FROM: John Tanton
DATE: October 10, 1986
Here is a set of questions and statements that I hope will help guide our discussion of the non-economic consequences of immigration to California, and by extension, to the rest of the United States. These are not highly polished; I ask your indulgence.
These notes are based on reading Bouvier’s and related papers, on the WITAN III Meeting, and my own thinking over several years on the topic of assimilation and the character of American society. The assignment of subtopics to the main categories is a bit arbitrary; many of them could be moved around.
I. Political Consequences.
1. The political power between the states will change, owing to differential migration six immigrant-receiving states. The heartland will lose more political power (see appended Table I).
2. Will the newcomers vote democratic or republican, liberal or conservative, and what difference does it make? A lot, if you’re one or the other.
3. Gobernar es poplar translates "to govern is to populate," (Parsons’ [Thomas Malthus] paper, p. 10, packet sent May 8). In this society where the majority rules, does this hold? Will the present majority peaceably hand over its political power to a group that is simply more fertile?
4. Does the fact that there will be no ethnic majority, in California early in the next century mean that we will have minority coalition-type governments, with third parties? Is this good or bad, in view of the European and other experiences?
5. Shall illegal aliens be counted in the census and used to apportion congressional and state house seats, thereby granting them political power?
6. Is apartheid in Southern California’s future? The democraphic picture in South Africa now is startlingly similar to what we’ll see in California in 2030. In Southern Africa, a White minority owns the property, has the best jobs and education, has the political power, and speaks one language. A non-White majority has poor education, jobs and income, owns little property, is on its way to political power and speaks a different language. (The official language policy in South Africa is bilingualism -- the Blacks are taught in Zulu and related tongues.)
In California of 2030, the non-Hispanic Whites and Asians will own the property, have the good jobs and education, speak one language and be mostly Protestant and "other." The Blacks and Hispanics will have the poor jobs, will lack education, own little property, speak another language and will be mainly catholic. Will there be strength in this diversity? Or will this prove a social and political San Andreas Fault?
7. Illegal aliens will pay taxes to the Federal Government; their costs will mostly be local.
8. The politicians are way behind the people on these issues. This brings to mind the story told of Gandhi: he was sitting by the side of the road when a crowd went by. He said, "There go my people. I must get up and follow them, for I am their leader!"
9. Griffin Smith’s point from the Federalist Papers: It was argued that the colonies would make a good nation, as they shared a common culture and language. Nineteen eighty seven is the celebration of the adoption of the Constitution, 1988 its ratification, and 1989 the setting up of the first Federal Government. Can we tie into these discussions?
II. Cultural.
1. Will Latin American migrants bring with them thetradition of the mordida (bribe), the lack of involvement in public affairs, etc.? What in fact are the characteristics of Latin American culture, versus that of the United States? See Harrison’s Washington Post article in the September 3 packet.
2. When does diversity grade over into division?
3. Will Blacks be able to improve (or even maintain) their position in the face of the Latin onslaught? (See Graph 3)
4. How will we make the transition from a dominant non-Hispanic society with a Spanish influence to a dominant Spanish society with non-Hispanic influence?
5. Do ethnic enclaves (Bouvier, p. 18) constitute resegregation? As Whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion? Why don’t non-Hispanic Whites have a group identity, as do Blacks, Jews, Hispanics?
6. Note that Graph 2 shows virtually all the population growth will come from immigrants and their descendants.
7. Is there a difference in the rates of assimilation between Asians and Latins?
8. Should something be said about the competing metaphors of the salad bowl and the melting pot?
9. What exactly is it that holds a diverse society together? Gerda’s paper said that in our case, it was a common language.
10. Is assimilation a function of the educational and economic level of immigrants? If so, what are the consequences of having so many ill-educated people coming in to low paying jobs?
11. We’re building in a deadly disunity. All great empires disintegrate, we want stability. (Lamm)
12. Enclaves lead to rigidity. (Hardin)
13. The theory of a moratorium: the pause in immigration between 1930-1950, combined with the assimilating experience of fighting side-by-side in the trenches in World War II, gave us a needed pause so that we could assimilate the mass of people who came in the early years of the century. Do we again need such a pause?
14. Concerning the moratorium, here are some phrases that could be used: "The pause that refreshes." "A seventh inning stretch." "Take a break, catch-up, eliminate a backlog, take a breather."
15. Perhaps mention should be made of Pacific Bell’s move to install completely separate Spanish and Chinese language phone systems in California (see May 27 packet).
16. Novak’s term "unmeltable ethnics" is probably better than some of the others that have been suggested. Similarly, ethnicity is a more acceptable term than race. It should also be noted that 50% of all Hispanic surname people on the census forms designate themselves as White. So perhaps we should speak of Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Whites, to further diffuse the issue. Is Anglo a better term that White? LANGUAGE IS VERY important here.
III. Conservation and Demography
1. What will be the effect on the conservation movement, which has drawn its support in the past from other than the minorities, and which has relied on the political power of the majority to pass legislative measures? As the people that groups like the Sierra Club represent go into opposition (minority political status), will many of the things they’ve worked for be lost because the new majority holds other values?
2. Can homo contraceptivus compete with homo progenitiva if borders aren’t controlled? Or is advice to limit ones family simply advice to move over and let someone else with greater reproductive powers occupy the space?
3. What are the consequences to California of the raw population growth that is coming, the ethnic change aside (see Graph 1)?
4. What is the conservation ethnic [sic] of the Asian and Latin American newcomers? Will they adopt ours or keep theirs?
5. The Sierra Club may not want to touch the immigration issue, but the immigration issue is going to touch the Sierra Club! (To mention just one group.)
6. On the demographic point: perhaps this is the first instance in which those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down!
7. Do you agree with Teitelbaum’s statement, "International migration has now become an important point of intersection between the different demographic profiles of developing and developed countries"? (Fear of Population Decline, p. 134--see also pp. 111-115.)
IV. Jurisprudence
1. What are the consequences for affirmative action of the ethnic change coming along? Will the non-Hispanic Whites (NHW) have a limited number of spots in professional schools, etc. proportionate to their numbers? Or will affirmative action go beyond this (as it does now in Malaysia) to cut spots to below their proportionate share, to enable other groups to "catch-up?"
2. Anything to be said about drugs and the border?
3. Will we get more of the Napoleonic Code influence, and does it make a difference?
4. What do we demand of immigrants--or more correctly, what should we demand of them:
a. Learn our language.
b. Adopt our political ideals.
c. Assimilate and add their flavoring to our stew.
V. Education
1. What are the differences in educability between Hispanics (with their 50% dropout rate) and Asiatics (with their excellent school records and long tradition of scholarship)?
2. Where does bussing fit into the picture? Keep in mind that by 1990, over 50% of all the people under 15 years of age will be of minority status. They will also be heavily concentrated in certain geographic areas.
3. The whole bilingual education question needs to be mentioned.
VI. Race/Class Relations.
1. What will be the fate of Blacks as their numbers decline in relationship to Hispanics? As they lose political power, will they get along with the Hispanics? Relations are already heavily strained in many places.
2. What happens when we develop a new underclass, or a two-tiered economic system? Especially if the two groups can’t speak the same language! (See Bouvier and Martin Chapter 5)
3. Is resegregation taking place, in the Southern part of the state in particular?
4. Phil Martin’s point: In agriculture, the Whites and Asiatics will own and manage, but will not be able to speak to the Hispanic field workers. They will need bilingual foremen. Does this sound like social peace? Or like South Africa? Keep in mind the poor educational level of the field hands.
VII. The Economy.
I don’t think we should dwell much on the economy: I think we should try to make our contribution by talking about the non-economic consequences of immigration. Nonetheless:
1. Do high levels of immigration cut back on innovation (Bouvier, p. 27)?
2. Does it reduce the tendency and need of employers to hire current minority teens (Bouvier, p. 27)?
3. Is there a downward pressure on labor standards in general (Bouvier, p. 28)?
4. Phil Martin’s point on the colonization of the labor market. (Chapter 5).
VIII. Retirement
1. Since the majority of the retirees will be NHW, but the workers will be minorities, will the latter be willing to pay for the care of the former? They will also have to provide the direct care: How will they get along, especially through a language barrier (Bouvier, p. 40)?
2. On the other hand, will the older and NHW groups be willing to pay the school taxes necessary to educate the burgeoning minorities?
3. The Federal Government may have to pay for the care of the elderly in schools--will it?
XI. Religious Consequences.
This is the most difficult of all to tackle, and perhaps should be left out. Nonetheless:
1. What are the implications of the changes shown on Graphs 2 and 3 for the separation of church and state? The Catholic Church has never been reticent on this point. If they get a majority of the voters, will they pitch out this concept?
2. Same question for parochial schools versus public schools.
3. Same question for the topic of abortion/choice, birth control, population control.
4. Same question for the role of women.
5. Will Catholicism bought in from Mexico be in the American or the European model? The latter is much more casual.
6. Keep in mind that many of the Vietnamese coming in are also Catholic.
7. Is there anything to be said about the Eastern religions that will come along with the Asiatics?
X. Mexico and Latin America(Chapter 7, Bouvier & Martin).
Perhaps the main thing to be addressed here is whether or not shutting off the escape valve will lead to revolution, or whether keeping it open can avert it.
XI. Additional Demographic Items.
Teitelbaum’s phrase, "A region of low-native fertility combined with high immigration of high-fertility people does not make for compatible trend lines!"
Finally, this is all obviously dangerous territory, but the problem is not going to go away. Who can open it up? The question is analogous to Nixon’s opening of China: he could do it, Hubert Humphrey could not have. Similarly, the issues we’re touching on here must be broached by liberals. The conservatives simply cannot do it without tainting the whole subject.
I think the answers to many of these questions depend on how well people assimilate. This, in turn, depends heavily on whether the parent society has made up its mind that assimilation is a good thing (we’re confused on this point now), whether it works at assimilating newcomers (as Canada and Australia do by following them longitudinally), whether the people coming want to assimilate (not all of them do), and, even if all the factors are favorable, whether the numbers are small enough so as not to overwhelm the assimilative process.
Good luck to us all!
Intelligence Report
Summer 2002
If you liked this post, don't forget to subscribe to my RSS feeds. Or you can
get my posts delivered to your inbox directly, by subscribing to my feeds by email.
Should we treat undocumented aliens humanely? Asking this question today is akin to asking whether special privileges should be given to prisoners: 'no damnit, they should live on bread and water and break rocks, etc…' I particularly detest the use of the term "aliens" a political buzzword perfected by the Republican hate machine. Be that as it may, the so-called Department of Homeland Security is carrying out aggressive actions to round up undocumented workers. These actions take no regard for the fact that the person rounded up and deported may be the sole-breadwinner or caretaker to a family of children. Nativists have no problem with leaving a group of "illegal" children destitute and without parents. Most human beings feel otherwise. One need not be "pro-immigrant" to question whether families should be split up with the children remaining parent-less or father-less. I think most rational human beings believe that families should be accorded some level of respect or protection.
A recent article in the New York Times illustrates the fear and intimidation that is taking place throughout the country.
WAUKEGAN, Ill. — She is a homeowner, a taxpayer, a friendly neighbor and an American citizen. Yet because she is married to an illegal immigrant, these days she feels like a fugitive. …
From Illinois to Georgia to Arizona, these families are hiding in plain sight, to avoid being detected by immigration agents and deported. They do their shopping in towns distant from home, avoid parties and do not take vacations. They stay away from ethnic stores, forgo doctor’s visits and meetings at their children’s schools, and postpone girls’ normally lavish quinceañeras, or 15th birthday parties.
They avoid the police, even hesitating to report crimes.
“When we leave in the morning we know we are going to work,” said Elena G., a 47-year-old illegal Mexican immigrant and Waukegan resident of eight years who works in a factory near here. “ But we don’t know if we will be coming home.”
Last year, federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested more than 35,000 illegal immigrants, including unauthorized workers and immigration fugitives, more than double the number in 2006. They sent 276,912 immigrants back to their home countries, a record number.
Since about three-quarters of an estimated 11.3 million illegal immigrants nationwide are from Latin America, and many have spouses, children or other relatives who are legal immigrants and citizens, the sense of alarm has spread broadly among Hispanics.
A survey by the PewHispanicCenter, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, found in December that 53 percent of Hispanics in the United States worry that they or a loved one could be deported. ….
“The raids have really spooked them in a big way,” said Douglas S. Massey, a Princeton demographer who has studied Mexican immigrants for three decades.
Based on his own surveys and recent reports from other scholars doing field research in the Southwest and in North Carolina and other states, Professor Massey said the “palpable sense of fear and of traumatization” in immigrant communities was more intense than at any other time since the mass deportations of Mexican farm workers in 1954. …
…
Nonetheless, for many residents fear has become a daily companion. One woman, a 37-year-old naturalized citizen who was born in Central America but grew up in Waukegan, has decided to stay away from the city even though her mother still lives here. The woman, a lawyer practicing in the Chicago area, fell in love with an illegal immigrant from Guatemala.
After they were married in 2004, she realized that under immigration law it would be difficult for him to become legal, even though she is a citizen. Because he had crossed the border illegally, seeking legal status would require him to return to Guatemala for years of separation, with no guarantee of success. She abandoned plans to move back to Waukegan. She and her husband feel safer in Chicago, with its large Hispanic population.
“I know everything about Waukegan; it’s my town,” said the woman, who asked to remain anonymous because of her husband’s status. “I know the high school, the first Mexican restaurant. I should feel free to go in and out whenever I want to. But it’s not the same freedom anymore.” …
Miriam M. and her husband, married in 2004, own a tidy house on a peaceful street and are raising four children from previous marriages, all United States citizens. He runs his own landscaping company, paying business and property taxes.
Even though Miriam M. is a citizen, it is difficult for her husband to obtain legal papers, since he entered illegally from Mexico 12 years ago. She did not focus on her husband’s illegal status when she first met him.
“Boyfriend and girlfriend, you don’t think much about it,” she said. “All right, maybe I didn’t want to think much about it.”
Now he stays close to home and avoids downtown Waukegan, driving around the city limits when he can.
Mr. Hyde and other city officials said they expected to wait several years before Congress adopted new laws to control illegal immigration. Meanwhile, the mayor said, he will do what he can by enforcing local law.
“Do I believe in closing the borders?” Mr. Hyde said. “Do I believe in putting troops down there? You bet your life. Illegal is illegal, and that’s the end of the conversation, really.”
Legislation has been introduced by Rep. Hilda Solis [D, CA-32] to mitigate the impact of the ICE raids on families.The bill entitled, Families First Immigration Enforcement Act, H. R. 3980, (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.3980:) whose stated purpose is:
To provide for safe and humane policies and procedures pertaining to the arrest, detention, and processing of aliens in immigration enforcement operations.
Although the bill almost certainly has no chance of passing it is incumbent upon anyone who believes that all people should be treated humanely – most especially working families – to contact their representatives and immigrant advocates.
If you liked this post, don't forget to subscribe to my RSS feeds. Or you can get my posts delivered to your inbox directly, by subscribing to my feeds by email.
As we have noted in prior postings, the anti-immigrant/nativist movement is animated as much, if not wholly, by hatred against Latinos (whether legal or undocumented) as any regard for the integrity of our borders.This is plainly evident in the racist rants of nativists such as Michelle Malkin, Lou Dobbs, Tom Tancredo and more respectable spokesmen such as Harvard’s Samuel Huntington.Now, the Southern Poverty Law Center which has a long and honorable tradition of exposing hate groups has documented the increase of hate crimes against Latinos masquerading as anti-immigrant cant.In a recently published article by Brentin Mock, entitled, “Immigration Backlash: Violence Engulfs Latinos,” SPLC documents this wave of hatred and violence:
The results are no less tragic for being predictable: Although hate crime statistics are highly unreliable, numbers that are available strongly suggest a marked upswing in racially motivated violence against all Latinos, regardless of immigration status. According to hate crime statistics published annually by the FBI, anti-Latino hate crimes rose by almost 35% between 2003 and 2006, the latest year for which statistics are available. In California, the state with the largest population of Latinos in the country, anti-Latino hate crimes almost doubled in the same period.
What follows is a representative sampling of some of the more egregious examples of physical and psychological violence waged against Latinos over the past two-and-a-half years. The perpetrators range from racist skinheads to rogue Border Patrol agents to otherwise everyday citizens who took it upon themselves to repel an "invader," terrorize a "criminal alien," or exterminate a "cockroach."
