Immigration Part 3

The House of Representatives takes the cake for gall. It has passed an aggressive anti-immigration law that takes a hard line against illegal immigration. Basically the House wants to round up and deport the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now living here. The point is that it chooses now, after passing the law, to have a “road trip” to allow the average citizen to voice an opinion. Shouldn’t they have asked folks first, before passing the law? Apparently not in this strange alternative universe we now live in. Now my question is: even if you are opposed to illegal immigration [a perfectly reasonable position] doesn’t the idea of rooting out 12 million people sound drastic, if not impossible. Think of the turmoil. Think of the cost. Think of the damage to local economies. And think of the long lasting polarisation within American politics and society. Is that all worth the purity of “making people stick to the law”? I don’t think so.

On a brighter note: David Kennedy had an excellent article entitled “Can We Afford To Be A Nation of Immigrants?” in the Atlantic Monthly magazine, it was originally published in 1996, but has been included in their website as being relevant to this week’s Aspen Institute “Ideas Festival”. [I would post the link here but its hidden behind their sibscription wall!] He gives us a ton of food for thought and helps frame the discussion. For instance he bursts the myth that immigrants were “pulled” to the US by its shining light of opportunity. The facts don’t support that assertion: the greatest flood of immigrants were from Europe in the late 1800’s and from Latin America [particularly Mexico] in the past twenty years. Both those floods appear to have been a result of rapid population growth at home coupled with industrialization. For instance the European population more than doubled in the 1800’s. While the local economies grew quickly they could not generate enough jobs for the huge new populations. So folks left in droves. Some 70 million Europeans emigrated to new countries during that time and only half came here. The other half went to places like Australia, Canada, and Argentina. If America was a shining beacon, as it so claims, then those other places must have been even more so: both Canada and Australia had larger shares of their populations having been born abroad than America did by 1910. A similar pattern now exists in Mexico whose economy simply cannot generate enough jobs for its rapidly growing population.

The big difference between the two huge waves of immigration is assimilation. None of the European groups were large enough to impose themselves on their new home. They tried to avoid assimilation: the rapid growth in the number of Catholic schools is testimony to the incoming Catholic immigrants desire not to assimilate into what was then a strongly Protestant country. But because the immigrant population was fragmented amongst so many ethnic and religious groups none had the critical mass necessary to avoid eventual assimilation. That is not the case with the Mexicans. The proximity of Mexico, the ease of travel back and forth, and the intense concentration of Hispanic immigration has created the very real prospect of an immigrant population that, for the first time, does not need too assimilate. It has the critical mass, especially in places like Texas and California to maintain its own traditions and language.

It is this phenomenon that requires careful thought and plenty of discussion. There is the possibility of a real challenge to the nature of America. Indeed there may be a challenge to what it means to be American. If the potential issues raised by this wave of immigration are not handled with care, rather than the political posturing we are now experiencing, the groundwork will be laid for years of tension and a possible conflict in the areas most affected. It is not for nothing that some Mexicans refer to the “Reconquest” of the territory the US invaded and seized only a century or so ago. While that kind of talk is nowadays in jest, continued jingoistic talk about walls and barriers along with pictures of families being rounded up and interned could easily harden that language into sonmething far more ominous for the Union.

So all in all now is the time for sober talk not shallow drum beating electioneering. The subject of immigration lies too close to the heart of America to be played around with for a few extra votes this November.