In a recent CNN article, Ruben Navarrette Jr. of the San Diego Union-Tribune argues that the immigration debate resurrects old nativist arguments and fears: In Navarrette's own words:
Secondly, continued immigration does not mean Americans will be "working a lot harder to keep up." In actuality, it means a surge in workers who will be put to the front of the line because of Affirmation Action and can be hired for cheap because of what they are used to, to the chagrin of their employers who often do no actual work at all. For everyone else, "keeping up" is evidently slang for "accept less for the same work" or "accept being treated more like a slave by the ruling class". In other words, mass immigration is a trick to screw over the working class, just like camouflaging the results as "working a lot harder to keep up" is a trick to pardon it.
But there is an even bigger burden to consider. Immigrants who are poor and underpaid require accommodations paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. If they do not speak English, they will also require services and accommodations paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. The influx of unskilled and uneducated also does not even necessarily translate into a larger workforce. It can also consist of those who - shocker, I know - are moving from wherever they were previously unemployed to a new country with stronger currency, where they need only marry to collect free benefits. Further down the line, an influx in immigration means less opportunities for our children, because the children of these migrants will also be competing for a piece of the pie and, thanks to Affirmative Action, be prioritized when it comes time to apply to colleges and be interviewed for jobs because there are quotas put in place to increase the acceptance and hire of next-generation migrants in society.
"[Anti-immigration] rhetoric is all about fear -- that those who thrive in the dominant culture are losing their primacy, that the mainstream is being polluted by foreigners, and that our children are going to live in a world where they're going to have to work a lot harder to keep up."Notice how Navarrette cheats the anti-immigration position by downplaying the changes at stake; first, he writes that the "dominant culture" fears "losing its primacy"...but what the people from the dominant culture should be fearing, due to mass immigration from Latin America and the declining birthrate of U.S. born peoples, is not "losing its primacy", but becoming strangers in their own country. Not just because of the differences between the host and migrant population, but also because a minority culture can have a say in national affairs only if the majority culture allows this; although the European-descended population bends over backwards to appease the Hispanic minority, it is unclear what will happen in 2040 when, as the U.S. Census Buro predicts, the majority population becomes America's new minority.
Secondly, continued immigration does not mean Americans will be "working a lot harder to keep up." In actuality, it means a surge in workers who will be put to the front of the line because of Affirmation Action and can be hired for cheap because of what they are used to, to the chagrin of their employers who often do no actual work at all. For everyone else, "keeping up" is evidently slang for "accept less for the same work" or "accept being treated more like a slave by the ruling class". In other words, mass immigration is a trick to screw over the working class, just like camouflaging the results as "working a lot harder to keep up" is a trick to pardon it.But there is an even bigger burden to consider. Immigrants who are poor and underpaid require accommodations paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. If they do not speak English, they will also require services and accommodations paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. The influx of unskilled and uneducated also does not even necessarily translate into a larger workforce. It can also consist of those who - shocker, I know - are moving from wherever they were previously unemployed to a new country with stronger currency, where they need only marry to collect free benefits. Further down the line, an influx in immigration means less opportunities for our children, because the children of these migrants will also be competing for a piece of the pie and, thanks to Affirmative Action, be prioritized when it comes time to apply to colleges and be interviewed for jobs because there are quotas put in place to increase the acceptance and hire of next-generation migrants in society.
Navarrette goes on to explain that the German, Irish and Italian immigrants of yesteryear were just as feared as today's batch of immigrants. Surely, he finds it ironic that today's "nativist" Americans are the descendants of those who were once disliked or thought to be unassimilable. He writes:
"[Anti-immigration sentiment] conjures up the alarm bells that Benjamin Franklin set off about German immigrants in the late 18th century, who he insisted could never adopt the culture of the English, but would "swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours." ... it helped welcome the 20th century when Massachusetts Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge warned that immigrants (read: the Irish) were diluting "the quality of (U.S.) citizenship" and others complained that Italian immigrants were uneducated, low skilled, apt to send all their money to their home country and prone to criminal activity."However, Navarrette is wrong; likening immigration of the past to immigration in the present is comparing apples to oranges. Worse, it is falsifying the story of our families and ancestry which is both manipulative and dishonest (assuming, of course, Navarrette knows what he is doing). Here is what Navarrette has wrong about the past:
- who was welcome and why: yes, Irish, German and Italian immigrants were among the settlers who arrived in the early U.S. seeking citizenship. But what Navarrete is forgetting is that the overwhelming majority were from Great Britain, even more were non-Catholic Christians and nearly all were either from northern Europe or Christian in general. This balance was the result of deliberate policy to preserve the culture and spiritual identity of the majority population. Those who fell outside of the norm were limited so that their influence would be as well - and pressure to assimilate was strong, which went hand-in-hand with the vision of creating one nation of a united people and, in time, having that nation stretch from "Cal-i-forn-ia to the New York Island". Today, the goals of those with power are quite different and that is reflected in the policy. Globalization, multiculturalism, recent NAFTA proceedings and talks of a Canadian-American-Mexican highway suggest an agenda to "blend" North, Central and South America together. Destroying national borders begins with destroying national communities; not surprisingly, it is the suspicion of this destruction (and its outcome) that leaves many Americans fearful of further Hispanic/Latino immigration, especially because they believe the elite do not have their interests in mind.
- mental attitude: in the 18th and 19th centuries, many people came to the U.S. and wanted to leave their home country and overseas identity behind. They came not just for the chance to start over economically, but to start over in totality - not as relocated Europeans or European-Americans, but as Americans. They were mentally prepared to leave their identities behind...is this true of today's immigrants from Latin America?
- proximity: back then, immigrants came from an ocean away. There was thus little preventing them from preparing mentally to become Americans.
- communication and technology: immigrants to the U.S. in the 18th and
19th centuries did not have the luxury to remain in contact with friends
and family an ocean away, aside from writing letters. Accordingly, immigrants
were less likely to remain attached to their old lives and ways.
- pressures due to popular opinion: starting at school, immigrants in the 18th and 19th centuries were under great pressure to assimilate, and no American applying that pressure was made to feel guilty for it. As a result, making sure one's children learned English and not their parent's tongue was an imperative. Within two to three generations, the other language was lost. By contrast, you have the lib-left element in America encouraging immigrants to use their native language and retain their identity.
- the law: the use of foreign languages was discouraged in the early United States and, in some cases, prohibited. That is certainly not the case today. Moreover, one legacy of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is that the government is no longer looking out for us in the sense of preserving the demographics of the country. We cannot simply assume that no terrible changes will take place simply because the government would not allow them to happen.
- proximity (part II): that the territorial integrity of the U.S. would be compromised due to an influx of immigrants from Europe was unlikely. A border between the U.S. and a country an ocean away will always be discernible; on the other hand, what can be said about the land border between Mexico and the U.S., especially when there is a movement to conquer the American Southwest for the Mexican people? In the future, as the number of Hispanics in the U.S. increase, it is likely that the territorial integrity of the United States will be challenged - either because of the Nation of Aztlan movement, the NAFTA movement or otherwise.
- irredentism/revanchism; this is probably the most ugly difference between immigration today and during the days of yore. Today, some educators and people of power in the U.S. are using their positions to draw support for the Aztlan Movement in the Southwestern United States. Why the United States would go to war with the Confederacy over the issue of succession and continental unity in 1861 only to now turn a blind eye to modern-day anti-national agitation is baffling.
- overcrowding/limited opportunities: in the 18th and 19th centuries, both of these problems were not an issue. When people felt they needed more elbow room, they moved west. Furthermore, the population was extremely small back then compared to the population today, and overpopulation, resource scarcity and vicious job competition were non-issues.
- immigrant-only opportunities: thanks to Affirmative Action, immigrants and children of immigrants are given preference over children from the current majority culture when it comes time to pursue higher education or employment. If this policy had been in effect during the 18th and 19th century, the citizens of the U.S. probably would have rioted against the government and burned down Washington.
