Re: LETS SAY I BREAK INTO YOUR HOUSE

Good arguements by all. I like Mark's solution the best, if only everyone told us the truth as to why they want to come to America. I think some Muslims may come here wanting what we have, others trying to destroy what we have. How do we tell the difference?

Re: LETS SAY I BREAK INTO YOUR HOUSE

Another way to frame the immigration issue: it's not about numbers, it's about values. In other words, assimilating large numbers of people with similar values is relatively easy, and does not radically change the society. On the other hand, relatively small numbers of people with vastly different values can radicalize or disrupt even the most stable of societies.

 Examples: millions of Mexicans have immigrated and none of them have been "terrorists". Yes, some of them have been criminals, and that is an important issue. But most of them have integrated into society for reasons Nick listed.

Relatively few (10's of thousands) Muslims have immigrated into London, but some of their children blew up a train. A large number of muslims in france last year set large numbers of cars on fire.

It is a capital offense in most Islamic countries to proselytize any faith other than Islam and it is a capital offense to convert from Islam.
The 1st Amendment doesn't exist in half the world and is not a core belief of many cultures.

An important difference is the level of assimilation into a society and ultimately the motivation for immigration. If it is to join the culture and adopt its values, that's relatively easy. If it is to import a different culture and maintain it as a "country within a country" then that it is more difficult because, the "target" country may lose its identity: its common values and beliefs. In this country, those are represented mostly by the Bill of rights. But that Bill is NOT universally agreed. The huge immigration of last century worked because the vast majority of immigrants came here because of our values; they came here to adapt them, not destroy them.

So... I think we should have much more open legal channels of immigration with societies with very similar core values, but we should restrict  immigration from countries that do not share our core beliefs and close off illegal immigration. This is the way to grow our country without losing the freedom, liberty and system of justice that our ancestors and predecessors have built over many difficult centuries while providing an incentive for other nations to adapt our values.

Its interesting to note that what the protesters in brazil were asking for was ... more immigration into this country. Perhaps if we had Treaties that say that the way to increase immigration to here is to adapt the Bill of Rights there first, we'll make both places better - and reduce the need for immigration, as well.

Mark

RE: LETS SAY I BREAK INTO YOUR HOUSE

Well, I am not privy to the usual email blog that this came from (or if I am, I haven’t figured out how to find it), but I applaud Nick’s observations and reasoning. The Jesuits and Rice did you well, Nick, and I like the fact you are using your brains, and gift of education, to figure out a way to help us all succeed.

Marianne Z. Wamboldt, M.D.

Re: LETS SAY I BREAK INTO YOUR HOUSE

I could not disagree more.  First of all, the house analogy implies that European-Americans are the owners of the US just as you own your own house.  If we are the owners then we stole it from someone else (and didn't speak their language, etc).  How many waves of immigrants are allowed to be here?  Natives?  Western Europeans?  Africans? Eastern Europeans? Ukranians?  Each wave has entered the US society at the bottom rung (except some of the Western Europeans) and faced social opposition, so this opposition to spanish-speaking immigrants is predictable.  And just like during past immigration waves, the newest immigrants are scapegoated for economic (social services underfunding) and social (bi-lingualism is hurting schools/society) issues.  This is nothing new, but I would hope that a student of history would not fall for the same rhetotic that supported Indian massacres, slavery, urban ghettos for Jews (and Russians) and Nazism in Germany.

 

But my strongest area of disagreement is around the economics.  Name a closed society in the history of civilization that has thrived.  Japan's economy thrived for only one generation before dying because now their population is shrinking (among other reasons).  The way I see it, the economy grows from four factors: inflation (not a lever to be used to grow faster!), population growth, productivity & technology improvements, and gains from trade.  Moving to an isolationist stance hurts all four of these factors.  Our population shrinks without immigration.  Our universities aren't the envy of the world and if they don't attract top students and professors, those students won't stay in the US and start businesses, and technology innovation suffers (or at least migrates to a more accomodating nation and we become consumers of high technology, not producers of it).  Border control is usually paired with free trade restrictions; and since the US is the most trade-reliant country on Earth, isolation would be damaging.  In the absence of these three factors, the US would need to rely on deficits to fund social programs and an isolated country is unlikely to have as many foreign investors as we do now to fund our deficits (so we get inflation.  Wonderful).  Sure, it feels good to blame foreigners whether they are Mexican-born US residents or Chinese trading partners/investors in US Treasuries, but isn't the blame on the politicians that trade large social programs for votes and the voters that are willing to make this trade?  Isn't the answer to keep our borders open for immigration--both skilled and unskilled--and focus our energy on education.  In a globalized world, the US doesn't have an advantage in labor costs or natural resources, but it is the runaway leader of brainpower.  Especially creative, inventive brainpower.  If we lose sight of that because we want to protect our most disadvantaged economic trait (labor cost) and the manual laborers that would face more competition from immigrants, then the whole country will follow the path of Michigan and its protected-labor strategy.

 

Three other quick points: One: illegal immigrants are actually helping the social security problem because some of them pay payroll taxes yet very few collect any benefits (they are, after all, illegals) or are likely to live much older than 65 because of their economic position.  You can see this in the Federal budget: there is a line item for income tax revenue in excess of reported tax returns. Two: why is illegal immigration an issue in the midwest?  Shouldn't Texas, Florida, California (and AZ & NM) be allowed to dominate this debate?  Here in Texas people (gringos too!) are quite welcoming of immigrants and we have more than anywhere else.  Three: Why is the GOP getting on the "wrong" side of this issue?  Illegal immigrants are very religious, entreprenurial, Southern, non-urban residents.  That sounds like a future Republican to me.  Hispanics are also the fastest growing demographic and they are dominant in the largest electoral college states.  And growth (population, economic, innovation) is more of a GOP ideal than protectionism.  So what gives here?

Ok, since my soapbox isn't nearly as tall as I imagine it to be, I'll stop now.  Here are some appropriate quotes about caring for the lowest rung (not blaming them for our profligacy):

"The moral test of a government is how it treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick and the needy, and the handicapped." - Hubert Humphrey

"And the King answering shall say to them, Verily, I say to you, Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it to me." - Matthew 25:40

"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons" - Dostoyevsky (like a classic Russian, he's a bit apocryphal)

 

Adios,

NickZ