Thread: Seeing Today’s Immigrants Straight

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_i ... eform.html

Heather Mac Donald

Advocates of “comprehensive immigration reform” let ideology blind them to the dispiriting facts on the ground.

The immigration debate has divided the conservative movement, with each side accusing the other of betraying core conservative principles. Amnesty proponents argue that America’s best traditions require legalizing the 11 to 12 million illegal aliens already here and opening the door wide to would-be migrants the world over. Illegal immigration, these conservative advocates say, is the inevitable and blameless consequence of misguided laws that foolishly—and vainly—seek to prevent willing workers and labor-hungry employers from finding each other. Hispanics—the vast majority of aliens and the real center of the immigration debate—bring much-needed family values and a work ethic to the American polity; refusing to grant them legal status would destroy Republican hopes for a large new voting bloc. Since popular opposition to large-scale Hispanic immigration stems from economic ignorance and nativist fear, policymakers should protect America from its own worst impulses and ignore the anti-immigration revolt.

Conservative opponents of amnesty and liberalized immigration respond that the rule of law is at stake. Rewarding large-scale lawbreaking with legal status and financial benefits will spark further violations. The mass amnesty protests of the spring were part of a growing international movement challenging national sovereignty. Conservative respect for facts should encourage skepticism toward claims of superior Hispanic values. And the conservative preference for local decision making cautions against dismissing the popular backlash against illegal immigration; it is just possible that people closest to the problem know something that Beltway insiders do not.

Vexing the debate further, the popular revolt is not just against illegal immigration but against high levels of unskilled Mexican immigration per se. As political scientist Peter Skerry observes, the public dislikes the effect on local communities of large numbers of poor Mexicans and their progeny, legal or not. Some of the effects, such as crime, worsen dramatically from the first to the second generation of Mexicans, who not only are legal but are American citizens.

Since criticizing illegal immigration often draws charges of racism, few relish going further and challenging the wisdom of our current immigration flows, legal or not. Yet unless we accurately diagnose the immigration problem, any legislative fix that merely converts the current illegal flow to a legal one will fail both as policy and as politics. Herewith—in an effort to sharpen the internal debate—are the conservative principles that militate against amnesty, for immigration-law enforcement, and for a radical change in immigration priorities...

I just wish that the politicians could really see what is happening in this country or at least make an effort to find out before voting for such insane bills.

"Ignorance is bliss", but not for those of us who are affected by the politicians blissful ignorance of what massive numbers of illegal aliens have done to our communities.

I personally am tired of the lack of English in my community. I am burnt out on "press one for English". When I order something from fast-food (rarely happens anymore, it's a principal issue) I want to know what the person is repeating back to me, and knowing they actually understood me.

I want our public schools to stop catering to illegals kids each time they cause trouble and blame it on "cultural differences".

I am tired of low wages and minimal, if any, benefits. I am tired of high housing prices and high insurance.

I am tired of the crummy attitude many have towards Americans ("kill the gringo").

If our politicians had to live where most of us do, they would be enforcing those laws in a heartbeat, plus!!

challenging the wisdom of our current immigration flows, legal or not

converts the current illegal flow to a legal one

I believe the "immigration flow" should be at the center of the debate, not whether immigrants are legal or not. That is, a consensus must be reached as to the number of immigrants that best serves society as a whole. A million per year? Half a million? One hundred thousand? None? Needless to say, they must all be legal. Do we need them or are we doing them a favor by letting them in? If we need them, for how long and in what areas?

I respectfully suggest to ALIPAC to include in its Mission Statement at least a ball-park estimate of what a reasonable amount of immigrants may be. "More done to control illegal immigration,", "illegal immigration curtailed", "illegal immigration reduction", are much too vague for me.

There's no reason that we need a million immigrants a year, especially when the overwhelming majority are of the low-skilled, uneducated variety.

As the essay points out these are the ones most likely to have children out of wedlock, commit felonious crimes, start or join gangs, drop out of school, and reproduce the same cultural maladies that plague future generations.

Chain migration is the result of our insane, dysfunctional family reunification policies. Immigration should be halved-at the very least-and restricted to those that are highly skilled, and have traits that potential employers-not slavers, which is what these agri-businesses really are-find desirable.

Our asylum policy should be based upon AMERICAN interests. In other words, no Yale Talib, no poor, downtrodden Muslim Brotherhood terrorists, and no Muslims who are "persecuted" by their governments, unless they belong to a genuinely peaceful minority group, e.g. Yazidis, Sufis persecuted by the despotic IRI regime, etc....

Yes to Christians fleeing The Sudean, i.e. the "lost boys."

No to Muslims who want to re-establish terror training cells in the Florida Keys or downtown Brooklyn.

Shapka, your points are 100% fantastic. I had always been under the impression that our immigration system was mainly for those needing political assylum, reasons of actual religious persecution, etc... However it seems we have opened our doors to anyone wanting to come here to have more. This is not a valid reason to immigrate.

I want access to health care, but will not ask Canada to take me in just for that reason. Plus, I have the feeling that they would decline for that reason only. So to move elsewhere to better my own personal situation, or that of my families is not in a sovereign nations best interest.

Lupita, welcome. It is difficult to make that kind of statement for ALIPAC, as we all hold our own opinions as to what might be a better number for America. I personally think that there should be a temporary moratorium till the problem of illegal immigration is worked out, then we need to have an actual study done on how much low skilled labor is actually needed, meaning, employ all Americans first (those who are willing and want to work, some do not), then see what is left over.

My opinion is also this, once the jobs are filled, then start drastically cutting down on ANY government assistance to those who had been offered jobs, but would not work, once they understand they must work to eat, then we offer any surplus jobs to non-residents.

What number this would be is hard to say, it would not be something anyone could immediately assess.

All immigration to the United States should be based on what is best for the U.S. We should only allow those who bring a valuable skill and values that mesh with our own. We do not "owe" the right for anyone from any place to immigrate into our country. For sure, any immigration should be controlled AND balanced. Mass immigration from a single country or region, upsets the balance in our society and is sure to cause friction.

Lupita wrote:

That is, a consensus must be reached as to the number of immigrants that best serves society as a whole. A million per year? Half a million? One hundred thousand? None?

Illegal immigrants = NONE
Low-skilled, uneducated, impoverished legal immigrants = VERY FEW
Educated, skilled, legal immigrants (regardless of race, sex or religion) = 150,000 TO 200,000 PER YEAR

Exactly.

The 1965 Immigration "Reform" Act has been an unmitigated disaster for this nation, and all of the media lies and think tank spin will never alter than very rudimentary, ineluctable fact.

It was intended to remedy alleged discrimination against potential emigrants from third world, non-Western nations, but what it actually did was impose a de facto tax upon highly skilled, well-educated citizens of Western countries who obey the law.

The reason that there are so many illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America and so few legal aliens from Scandinavia and Western Europe isn't because the people of one region have a greater desire to emigrate to the United States, but because one group is more willing to obey the law, and is punished for it by the Quislings in the United States government.

I can't tell you how many Australians and New Zealanders I've encountered who would love to earn-"earn" being the operative word-American citizenship.

In fact, one of them is planning on enlisting in the United States Armed Forces, and another-a dear friend who was actually married to an American at one point-is eagerly awaiting the chance to return.

These are people that live in first-rate, economically vibrant, sophisticated, incredibly advanced Western nations, and yet they still are dying to come and live in the United States.

But of course, they're having a lot more trouble than the border-jumpers who our U.S. Senate-theirs actually-seems to bend over backwards to accomodate.