June 24, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:A reader points me to this piece on immigration as a way of explaining why today is different. I've interspersed my comments between them.
Many claim that because the massive immigration that occured a century ago worked out OK, the current massive immigration will similarly work out OK.This argument is an instance of the logical fallacy "Appeal to Tradition". The context has changed from a century ago. While there are certainly parallels, there are many differences and it's quite a leap to claim that the current situation will work out the same.
In fact, here are just nine of the differences between then and now:
1. Many of our current illegal aliens are from a neighboring country, meaning they don't have to make a clean break, they can go back and forth. There are families with members on both sides of the border.
2. Related to that, past immigrants came here on ships; current immigrants can walk over.
I might find this compelling if there were as many people here as there were in the 1880s. But as a percentage of population, the percentage of foriegn born residents peaked at 15% in 1890, 50% higher than today's ratio. And yes, that includes illegal aliens, although they are virtually certainly undercounted by the census bureau. Moreover, walking across the Mexican border is hardly obviously easier than travelling steerage. Furthermore, immigration foes wrongly imply that all illegal aliens come from Mexico. Mexico accounts for roughly half of illegal immigrants, with countries like Ireland and China contributing a substantial portion of the remainder. Most of the non-Mexicans who work illegally in the US could not walk across a border because it is very hard to hold your breath long enough to cross the ocean. When you get to legal immigrants, the numbers drop still further; Mexicans are only 25% of the total stock of foreign born in the US. To be fair, however, the second biggest group could also walk across the border to flood us with their unwanted poor. But I, for one, welcome our new Canadian overlords.
3. Italy, Poland, Germany, and Ireland never held territory in the U.S. On the other hand, the Southwest U.S. briefly was Mexican territory. And, in a poll conducted in Mexico, 58% said that the U.S. Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.
It is not surprising that a poll conducted in Mexico finds that it should have its territory doubled by the addition of comparitively rich states. I am more interested in what a poll conducted in New Mexico finds. None of the Mexican Americans I know, though perhaps an unrepresentative sample, are eager to vote themselves into Mexico's political mess; if they wanted to live in Mexico, they would move back there, where their modest savings could provide a lavish lifestyle.
4. There wasn't a far-left, Gramscian "multiculturalism" movement a century ago. The related issue of political correctness makes it difficult for some to, for instance, use the correct names for things ("illegal aliens") rather than euphemisms ("undocumented workers").
Political polemicists who start with the notion that there is a "correct" word for thing, and that their word--which just happens to be the one that makes their opponents sound evil--is the correct one, set my teeth on edge. See, "Debates, Terminology, Abortion". It
foolsconvinces no one except the ones who already agree with you.But beyond inserting into our political discourse the entirely new, sneaky tactic (probably of Mexican origin!) of renaming things that sound bad to something that appears innocuous, I am hard pressed to see where the multiculturalists are winning all these monumental victories. Last time I looked, they were being pressed back at every turn. And I was rooting for their enemies. Bilingual education should be an accelerated English programme to get non-speakers up to speed; immigrants shouldn't be eligible for welfare, at least until they've paid some substantial taxes; and no one has a civil right to get anything out of the government in a language other than English, although personally, I don't care if the government decides to do so out of sheer niceness. In theory, it could be a problem, but in practice, the immigrants themselves are often the ones leading the charge for assimilation, by for example demanding that their children be taught in English.
5. There were ethnic newspapers, but nothing like today's ethnic media.
This is just ridiculous. Immigrants in 1900 could get all the entertainment that was then available in their own language; for example, by 1918, New York City boasted 20 Yiddish theaters. The idea that Latin American immigrants are somehow uniquely unable to assimilate because they can now watch soap operas and the Venezuelan version of Eurovision in their very own language seems to me self-evidently absurd; an immigrant at home watching television in Spanish is immersed in her own culture no more thoroughly than was the typical resident of an ethnic neighbourhood who shopped, worked, went to services, and partied entirely with their compatriots.
6. Immigrants who came through Ellis Island were checked for disease and suitability. And, they were pre-screened by the cruiseship companies, who were charged if someone was rejected. Nowadays, anyone can overstay their visa or just walk across.
This would seem like an argument for legalising immigration so that immigrants could go through a normal screening, rather than cutting down on the number of legal migrants. Beyond that, this was in an era when public health epidemics were common; we do screen for things like TB and HIV.
7. There's been a rapid increase in dual citizenship, leading to U.S. citizens with divided loyalties. 14% of U.S. citizens are eligible to be dual citizens, and Mexico encourages dual citizenship as a way of obtaining political power inside the U.S.
Surprisingly, I agree with this. I'm enough of a nativist to think that people should have citizenship in one, and only one country. We should require residents to give up other passports, as we used to.
8. The welfare state hardly existed a century ago.
Again, that's an argument for denying immigrants access to the welfare state, not keeping them out.
9. Obvious to anyone who's been to, say, Dallas or Los Angeles, there were many fewer people here a century ago than there are now.
Yes, but there are more citizens than there used to be. The high water mark of a single ethnic group's arrival was, as I pointed out previously, the immigration of nearly one million Irish to America in the 1850's, at a time when the entire population of the United States was about 23 million, of whom over 3 million were slaves. That is why one in five Americans now claims Irish descent. Unsurprisingly, this massive influx triggered the same hostility we see now, despite the lack of thins like a common border and a welfare state.
Posted by Jane Galt at June 24, 2007 1:14 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links
3. Italy, Poland, Germany, and Ireland never held territory in the U.S. On the other hand, the Southwest U.S. briefly was Mexican territory. And, in a poll conducted in Mexico, 58% said that the U.S. Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico
I guess people making this argument must want to finish the job and get rid of the Native Americans. And note how they neglect to mention British, French, Dutch, and Russian immigrant populations.
Note: Up until the entry of the United States into The Great War, rehearsals of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra were generally conducted entirely in German, and many local newspapers in the midwest were in languages other than English (e.g., mostly German).
8. The welfare state hardly existed a century ago.
Again, that's an argument for denying immigrants access to the welfare state, not keeping them out.
Immigrants or illegal immigrants? Or are you deliberately conflating those people who wait for years to legally come to the US and those who pay a few thousand to a coyote to be smuggled in?
Let's assume that you mean "illegal aliens" but are too shy to use the term...
How do you expect to achieve that goal? Won't it require a rather large database of US citizens, accessable from every local welfare office in the country? What about public schools, which by USSC decision must accept all children of illegals, even if it means degrading the quality of education for everyone else?
I don't believe you have thought this thing through.
6. Immigrants who came through Ellis Island were checked for disease and suitability. And, they were pre-screened by the cruiseship companies, who were charged if someone was rejected. Nowadays, anyone can overstay their visa or just walk across.
This would seem like an argument for legalising immigration so that immigrants could go through a normal screening, rather than cutting down on the number of legal migrants. Beyond that, this was in an era when public health epidemics were common; we do screen for things like TB and HIV.
This is just a foolish reply. There is already in place an extensive system for legal immigration, as you admit elsewhere. We do screen for things like TB and HIV, but not in the desert outside of Douglas, Arizona or in the back of rental trucks hurtling across rural Texas.
You make no sense at all with this one. Either come out in favor of the open border, or accept that some people are in the country illegally (and thus are illegal aliens) and should be removed. You cannot have it both ways.
No, ellipsis, I don't distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants; it seems to me obvious that you shouldn't be able to come here and go on welfare.
Ellipsis, I'm pretty sure she does believe that there is such a thing as illegal immigration, and that we should cut down on it. The debate isn't whether illegal immigration is a good thing; the debate is what immigration should be legal. And the easiest and best way to do control illegal immigration is to allow dramatically higher levels of legal immigration. That's Jane's point: if we make it much easier to immigrate legally, we can then actually screen the immigrants for things like disease.
On some days, I think the best immigration policy is: "Let in anyone who passes a criminal background check and a public health screening. Anyone who tries to sneak in under this regime can be assumed to be a public menace, and can be dealt with harshly."
I find this a bizarre list, because it omits *the* major difference: the difference in genetic background of the immigrants. All of the immigrants from Europe have a pretty similar, common genetic background.
Now, you might say that the genetic background doesn't matter. But you should have to make this case, not ignore it. My take is that there are clear differences in temperament and IQ in the current US population and in Mexican Hispanics, and that these are likely to have a strong genetic component, and that they will make a mojor difference for assimilation of Mexican vs European immigrants.
Also, re the percentage of immigrants, in California, where I live, over 45% of the K-12 school enrollment is Mexican Hispanic. So it is a bit disingenuous to suggest that because immigrants are a small percentage of overall US population that they will not change the current US culture.
Why do you continue to assume that your readership accepts your premise that Irish immigration wasn't on the net bad for America? Because it had happened and we're still getting by ok?
Because, PSB, by informal survey, approximately 99% of the people who believe Mexicans are a problem have failed to consistently boycott St. Patricks Day as a protest against the nasty invasion of a foreign culture.
[note: I'm the author of the linked page]
Furthermore, immigration foes wrongly imply that all illegal aliens come from Mexico.
I'm not an "immigration foe". The great majority of illegal aliens do come from Mexico, and the majority of all immigrants are coming from Latin America. And, of course, there are OTMs, a topic I'm sure our host is familiar with.
3. Just because Mexico is a mess doesn't mean that forces with which our host is probably not familiar are more than willing to appeal to Chicanismo or even pan-Hispanic sentiment (youtube.com/watch?v=MiszkrzoOs0). There's a difference between race-based separatism and wanting to rejoin Mexico. No doubt our host has heard the fiery speeches that some leaders have made (youtube.com/watch?v=RM9uH4XgOmI).
And, no doubt our host is familiar with the activities of the MexicanGovernment in this regard, such as their claim that the MexicanNation extends beyond its borders to include all Mexicans and MexicanAmericans in the U.S. and the "free" textbooks that useful idiots allow them to distribute to U.S. public school children containing the Mexican version of the MexAm war.
4. "Illegal alien" is the correct phrase, per the U.S. Code.
5. Univision is currently running a citizenship drive, in collaboration with a group linked to the MexicanGovernment; radio hosts were able to get hundreds of thousands to take to the streets. I don't believe that would have been possible in 1900. And, I don't believe that Arnie's recent comments would have required a "this might be controversial" preface back then either.
6. Our host ignores the fact that there's a huge supply of likely legal immigrants, and that raising the numbers of those admitted wouldn't do anything about illegal immigration unless that were also addressed.
8. Tell me another one. Prop187 tried to do that in CA, and it was allowed to wither by those who were under pressure to keep giving benefits in order to maintain their political power. Why, L.A.'s current mayor even congratulated the president of Mexico for his efforts to block that prop that was passed by 59% of voters. There are very powerful forces that want to keep those benefits flowing in order to either maintain their power or in order to avoid having to pay them themselves.
9. How ironic, that a discussion of a page designed to reveal a logical fallacy ends with an example of that same fallacy.
1) TLB, "Latin America" is not a single culture, and moreover, you would find it infinitely harder, and more time consuming, to walk to Mexico from, say, Ecuador, than to get on a steerage ship in Ireland.
3) I don't deny that there are nutjobs out there. I do deny that they are a meaningful force. Judging outgroups by their crazies is the stock of xenophobes everywhere.
4) Last time I looked, the US government was not in the business of establishing The One Right Word. Legal codes define words in order to ensure that their meaning is precisely understood by those who execute the laws, not to prevent the use of synonyms. I presume that I am still allowed to refer to my car even if the State of Maryland's transportation laws assert that it is a "motor vehicle".
5) You're simply mistaken about the history of immigrants in the United States. I suggest you delve a little more deeply into the long and storied history of the foreign language press in America, which could and most certainly did mobilise immigrants into mass political action; start with the Sacco and Vanzetti trials and work backwards. For that matter, check out the role of the (Irish) Catholic Church in 19th century New York City elections before they got all snippy about tax deductions for churches that allow political speechmaking.
6) So what? I'm not an open borders nut; my assertion is that the current level of immigration is sustainable, and could be increased while still maintaining Our American Way of Life, not that we should allow in every single person who wants to be here.
8) And this is different from previous ethnic politicking how? See "Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, Ross visas, sponsor of"
9) I seem to have misunderstood your assertion. I believed you were saying that there were fewer immigrants back then, which is simply factually incorrect. But now I mote you are saying that the problem is not that we can't assimilate immigrants; it's that we don't need any more people. Is that correct?
In which case, are you also supporting a ban on current citizens having babies? Or are we only too full for future Mexican-Americans?
Re: 5, it's worth noting that in the 19th century, the New Yorker Staats-Zeitung had a higher circulation than the New York Times.
I was also fascinated to find out recently that many parochial schools in St. Louis were German-medium, with only one hour of "Englisch."
Ah, the to-be-expected reliance on smears. Latin Americans share a common culture to a certain extent and most share a language. And, they're all covered under the banner of Hispanics which is used by various government agencies and others to confer benefits or ask for things of various kinds. (For just one of the many examples, ChristopherHitchens described how a wealthy sugarcane plantation owner was able to get various breaks under minority set asides).
"Nutjobs" include those extremists (to varying degrees) with significant power:
- U.S. Rep. RaulGrijalva
- L.A. mayor TonyVillar
- CA AssemblySpeaker FabianNunez
- former CA Lt. Gov
- CA State Sen GilCedillo
Moreover, the media consistently covers for them; the LAT has a tradition of covering for TonyVillar, and the NYT gave three paragraphs to an extremist professor without mentioning that he's the author of a book called Aztlan (tinyurl.com/h76dk).
Clearly, the "nutjobs" have a great deal of influence, and they're aided and abetted by the media.
4) You can still call it a car. Just don't call it a "mode of transport" in order to hide the fact that it's a car, as is done with the various euphemisms for the correct, legal terms.
5) I'm pretty sure there's a huge difference, since newspapers are a bit different from television, radio, and the like. However, if past newspapers did engage in ethnic-based agitations, one would think we might want to avoid that from happening again.
6) The point is that solving illegal immigration by increasing legal immigration is a fool's errand: there will always be more people trying to come here.
8) There are a large number of direct and indirect links between the MexicanGovernment and various politicians and NGOs. Just because things like that may have happened in the past doesn't mean they should be allowed to occur now. There's even an IL state senator who serves on an advisory committee to the MexicanGovernment. Americans should work to prevent such links, rather than excuse them as having occured before.
9) JG says "In which case, are you also supporting a ban on current citizens having babies?"
Hmmm... what does that sound like? Why, the crusty old smear job from JG friend and WSJ hack Jason Riley (tinyurl.com/2wy4jg).
JG says "Or are we only too full for future Mexican-Americans?"
Your smear attempt has been noted, but those who are intellectually honest might want to consider the dangers of allowing very large numbers of people from one neighboring country which used to own part of our land, especially given the extremist nature of every single MexicanAmerican political leader, differing only be degree.
Two well-known historians have both discussed the dangers in such a mass migration, with Kennedy from Stanford saying it could result in a "Chicano Quebec".
Obviously, such concerns mean little to some, just as long as the money keeps rolling in.
So the government should continue to allow huge numbers of uneducated people to enter the country, though apparently it is "obvious that you shouldn't be able to come here and go on welfare." And if it should not be so obvious to the huge numbers of poor immigrants, so what? "this is different from previous ethnic politicking how?" Ethnic politicking is an unalloyed good, I guess. Fortunately, we know even if ethnic politicking - which we encourage! - should lead to welfare for the newly arrived - which we pretend to oppose - it won't cost citizens anything; welfare and other social services will be provided by the government "out of sheer niceness", which precludes tax increases.
And don't let hundreds of thousands of outliers marching through the streets of LA waving Mexican flags make you think today's immigrants are anything but proud Undocumented-Americans. It's absurd to think people from countries as vastly diverse as Mexico, El Salvador, and Guatemala could come to the United States and decide they all share one culture. Unless they all decide to share the culture of the United States, which they obviously all will, and anyone who says otherwise is a bigot for reasons I don't think I need to explain. And even if millions of Hispanics did decide secede, isn't war just ethnic politicking by other means? Clausewitz said that, though I notice none of the reactionary nativist Klan sympathizers (oops, was that an ad hominem?) say anything about Germans.
its absurd that there is even a debate on immigration in a country like ours but be that as it may 6. above is a new low - tlb your honesty in 6 is admirable even tho the bigotry still stinks. you conveniently choose to ignore jane's evidence on their being no 'wave' to begin with given our history is replete with such significant immigrations at various points except that this time its brown in color. nor do you address the rank hypocrisy in why it was ok for your forefathers to be here pissing off the then citizens who couldnt even blog & rail against it. ofcourse the only lessons we want to learn from history are not about repeating past overt & covert racial quotas or preventing another voyage of the damned but how we 'assimilated' immigrants only because they got off a boat and weren't one group like 'hispanics' but whites from various 'diverse' european ethnicities.
Poster Person:
6. Immigrants who came through Ellis Island were checked for disease and suitability. And, they were pre-screened by the cruiseship companies, who were charged if someone was rejected. Nowadays, anyone can overstay their visa or just walk across."
Jane: "This would seem like an argument for legalising immigration so that immigrants could go through a normal screening, rather than cutting down on the number of legal migrants. Beyond that, this was in an era when public health epidemics were common; we do screen for things like TB and HIV."
Actually this is a huge reason to screen everyone coming in. Yes, that means they need to be legal. To jump from that idea to, "therefore legalize all of the illegals," holds no water. What it DOES means is to shut down the borders so that it is just a trickle that might make it through. Then, those who ARE legal can be screened for pretty much all of those rampant diseases that occur in 3rd world countries.
#8 can't possibly be workable, especially with the liberal judges currently in our country. It doesn't matter what the law says, they'll interpret it in a way that will require everyone be covered under welfare, especially if you're an illegal OR legal immigrant.
I'm so tired of writing *he whines*
TLB, you're flailing. You're not responding to anything I say at this point. The core point I have been making all along is that Mexicans and other hispanics look pretty much like earlier waves of immigrants. Your list was supposed to refute that. But now that you've been factually challenged on several of the items, suddenly you are asserting that their very untruth proves that . . . Mexican immigration is bad! Your belief seems to be unfalsifiable.
Obviously, there are frictions with immigration; my point is not to deny them, but to point out that they are transitory, and resulted in the past in a great good, to wit: we're all here.
Bgates, have you been to a St. Patrick's Day parade? Flags all over the place. Picture your Mexicans carrying Irish flags, and you've got a pretty good idea of what they looked like to Anglo-Saxon New Yorkers in 1855; picture them with Italian flags, in 1880's Boston; or with Polish flags in 1910 Chicago. This just isn't new or special.
Jane/MM, I DO assert that the current flood of illegals into the country is very much different than it was of other races. My Irish (and yours) roots shows there was quite a bit of bigotry exhibited against those who were newly arrived in the mid 19th century. The Italians and SE Europeans, the same.
Big differences though: 1. When I attended some of the marches by Hispanics in Las Vegas last year, to Demand the Rights of illegals to stay in the USA, and to be made Legal, is not something mirrored in earlier US history. There were marches then, but they weren't demanding that they, as illeglas, should stay; they were trying to put the bright light of bigoted actions against themselves, so that it would shame those involved and cause it to go away.
2. At these same marches, there were signs claiming all of North America to those who were Indian or had Indian blood in them. They wanted all other ethnic groups to leave NA to them. Of course, most of their $%^$%$# words were targeting the Anglos who were watching them march by from the sidelines. In earlier times, there would have been some very severe bloodshed by the marchers, had there been similar demands by the Irish/Italians/etc.
And the point has already been made (and you fairly much disregarded them), that the flood is now approaching 7-14% of the American population, and they have the attitude, the teaching in the public schools, as well as the ACLU and other LIberal groups, on their side to push the previous legal limits into the next universe.
These are very serious differences, and only one who is a fool or blind could possibly take the position, "there is nothing different with the earlier waves of immigrants."
you are no fool...I think...
Would it be inappropriate to mention here the cost of enforcement? Victimless crimes cannot be stamped out without intolerable invasions of privacy. People have already gone to jail for failing to demand credentials when they extend casual charity to strangers in distress. I for one would rather give up speaking English than accept the culture of suspicion at the end of that road.
"5. There were ethnic newspapers, but nothing like today's ethnic media."
Jane Answers:
"This is just ridiculous. Immigrants in 1900 could get all the entertainment that was then available in their own language; for example, by 1918, New York City boasted 20 Yiddish theaters."
Having lived in Cali for many years (and stints in other areas of the USA and world), I've seen things change quite a bit here, JG/MM.
An example that illuminates: In 1997 I drove across the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley, through Bakersfield, ground zero for the agricultural workers from Mexico. I pushed 'scan' on the radio and counted 11 English-speaking and 4 Spanish-speaking FM radio stations within my reception range. Although I no longer live in that area, last December I was driving the same route and did the same 'test.' This time there were 15 Spanish-speaking stations, and 8 English-speaking stations. Even one of my favorite ex-English speaking stations had changed formats to an all-Spanish one.
This is not conclusive, but very indicative of what we're in store for, Guv Shwarts's comments notwithstanding (turn off the Spanish speaking media to learn English and assimilate). DC, NYC, Chicago...maybe not so much, but the SW is almost there, and Florida is right there with us.
As for Anton and willing to be subsumed by the Spanish cultural-creep, rather than being willing to be suspicious (motives, actions?) of those form our South...don't need that kind of wimpy outlook, for it doesn't help the...'refuge' any more than it helps the host for the parasites.
As for #9 and JG/MM's comment: There is a factor that is often overlooked, and that is the vitality and activity-quotient of the competing cultures. The USA was extremely vital up until about 40 years ago, when the certainty of moral goodness was sapped from the American public by the continuing attacks by the anti-American types within the society itself. So many times a smaller number of people with a more active culture overwhelms the other, more stable culture, that the examples are there. Sometimes it is initiated by military action, sometimes just immigration (Celtic culture and Europe about 4,000 years ago is a great example).
Also, the Irish in the 1850's through the 1950's were prodigous breeders, whereas the average Irish descendent in America today is rarely even thinking of marriage in their 30's, as opposed to having five babies by the time they are 35. This is one of these obvious things that happens, when a richer society with a culture that is mature and stable changes the paradigm of family and children.
TLB, you're flailing. You're not responding to anything I say at this point. The core point I have been making all along is that Mexicans and other hispanics look pretty much like earlier waves of immigrants. Your list was supposed to refute that. But now that you've been factually challenged on several of the items, suddenly you are asserting that their very untruth proves that . . . Mexican immigration is bad! Your belief seems to be unfalsifiable.
Considering the remarkably dishonest and evasive maneuvers you've been pulling on #8, your irritation with TLB's alleged disinclination to address your dogmatic assertions "factual challenges" is unlikely to elicit much sympathy. Glomming on to TLB's last rejoinder re #5 and crowing that this somehow renders every other view "unfalsifiable" is just...flailing.
Bgates, have you been to a St. Patrick's Day parade? Flags all over the place. Picture your Mexicans carrying Irish flags, and you've got a pretty good idea of what they looked like to Anglo-Saxon New Yorkers in 1855; picture them with Italian flags, in 1880's Boston; or with Polish flags in 1910 Chicago. This just isn't new or special.
Jane, please. This is just lame. Perhaps the current immigration situation will all work out to our great benefit. (Though I doubt it, for all the reasons you don't care to address.) But implying that the intentions behind the flag-waving on St. Patrick's or Columbus Day are *exactly the same* as the intentions behind the sea of Mexican flags we've been seeing in recent years is just precious. That some onlooking Anglo-Saxons in 1900 New York or Anglos in 2000 Los Angeles or Chicago may have had the same reaction of distaste to the display is not the main point, let alone the only point. The kindest interpretation one can put on all this is that you are not particularly well-informed.
OT: Hey, how come the "strike" tag works in preview but doesn't show up in the post? There should be a strike through "dogmatic assertions" above.
no one has a civil right to get anything out of the government in a language other than English
Here, you're just wrong, factually. I refer you to my friends the civil rights provisions of the US Code, specifically 42 U.S.C. 1973aa-1a(b)(1):
Before August 6, 2007, no covered State or political subdivision shall provide voting materials only in the English language.
Where "covered state or subdivision" means one with 5% of voters whose English is limited. Note also that the expiration date has been extended, by a Republican majority in the last Congress, no less.
To me, voting strikes at the very heart of citizenship. The government has declared it a civil right not to bother learning English before exercising this most fundamental of the duties of citizenship. Jane, that is where the anger and frustration is coming from. I'm fine with immigration as long as assimilation goes well. Today, there seems to be considerably less will for assimilation, and substantial anti-assimilation sentiment among our elites in government, media, and academia. If you're a citizen you should be able to read a frickin' English ballot. If you can't read it, then you shouldn't have been allowed to pass your citizenship test.
I know you disagree with these sorts of worries, and that's fine, but it isn't racist of me to think your assessment a tad blinkered and over-optimistic. And it isn't racist to point out that this provision of law dates from 1975, not the 1890's.
Eliminate the perception that Mexicans are getting a government bending over backwards to appease them rather than insisting that they integrate, and watch a bunch of the opposition among us 13th-generation Anglo immigrants die out. (BTW, I'm 4th-gen Mexican-English on my mother's side)
Also, build the fence.
Oh, and re: flags on St. Patrick's day.
Nobody is complaining about Mexican flags at a Cinco de Mayo parade. People are complaining about Mexican flags at a rally specifically intended to demand US citizenship for the people carrying the Mexican flags.
Really, turn the situation around for a moment. I've dealt with the German visa authorities; it's no fun at all. But do you think for one second that I would consider protesting their annoying rules by marching through Berlin carrying the Stars and Stripes? And what would you think of me if I managed to gain German citizenship and then promptly demanded an English ballot, because German is hard?
Rob, the political situation has changed a lot since 1975. I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that this is what is happening now, not with California etc.
Again, one more time, previous groups of immigrants, rightly or wrongly, did band together to demand stuff out of their new country. They didn't offer meek gratitude to their hosts for the privilege of being in country. The point is not that it's great, but that they get over it pretty quick, and the more welcoming hte majority is, the quicker they get over it.
As for the ballots, I'm with you. It shouldn't be law. When I said "don't have a right", I didn't mean a legal right; I meant a natural one.
except for knowing/learning english part what exactly does assimilation mean?
Hi Sri,
Assimilation also means not acting like an ass whose allegiance lies with another country.
Comments are Closed.