Posted on 03/04/2003 11:40:31 PM PST by JohnHuang2
There has been some fuss about the qualifications of Eduardo Aguirre, President Bush's newly appointed head of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Much of the fuss, however, misses the mark. Mr. Bush hasn't appointed an unqualified man as much as he has, characteristically, used this appointment to make political hay.
Other than being part of the administration's ongoing public relations battle for the Latino vote, Bush's choice of a Latino immigration success story as his immigration pointman is intended to shamelessly signal that speaking authoritatively about immigration is the prerogative of an immigrant of ethnic descent. To make immigration-related decisions for the nation, you should, at the very least, be a minority.
A minority is certainly what my family and I were at the American Immigration and Naturalization Service headquarters in Montreal, as we waited to complete the final leg of the immigration odyssey. It was hard not to notice – and the PC Patrol will hit the roof because I did notice – but we were, as far as I could see, the only family of European descent in that room. We were immigrating to the United States of America, but the room was a linguistic Tower Of Babble minus the English language.
The lopsided ethnic mix at the INS processing point was no coincidence – it is a consequence of American immigration policy starting in 1965.
Had we been legal immigrants during the 1950s, we would have formed part of an influx of new arrivals of which over two-thirds would have hailed from Europe or Canada. Similarly, during the Great Wave of immigration from 1890 to 1920, immigration policy guaranteed that newcomers reinforced the ethnic composition of native Americans – they were from the traditional northern and western European sources.
This policy persisted until 1965, when the amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act took effect, triggering an unparalleled, unselective and relentless human tsunami.
It was then that immigration policy also became predicated on family reunification rather than on skills relevant to the American economy. Unless American companies are recruiting wizened elderly people and small children who speak in foreign tongues, most of the immigrants assembled with us were the extended family of citizens. My spouse's "outstanding researcher" designation was very clearly not the rule in our intake.
Coupled with the allure of a generous welfare system, this change accounts for the generally poor quality of immigrants since 1965, and their unsustainable never-ending numbers – one qualified individual is a ticket for an entire tribe.
The 1965 Act radically transformed the U.S.' original ethnic mix. Since its implementation, immigration to the U.S. has indeed been predominantly from the Third World. As Patrick J. Buchanan notes in "Death of the West," this is the largest population transfer in history, with mass immigration from Africa, Asia and Latin America destined to displace the American historical majority. Bill Clinton's glee gives an indication of what's ahead. Thanks to immigration policy, he told a cheering high-school audience, "In little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States."
Implied in Clinton's jubilation, and in that of "the permanent government of bureaucrats, mediacrats, educrats, assorted policy wonks and intellectuals," is the following: 1) The American European historical majority was a bad thing; it needed to be cut back through state intervention and centralized oversight. 2) Immigration to the U.S is a universal right.
The historical majority never got to debate these empty assumptions.
Shoring up the immigration tyranny is yet another myth crushed with courage and candor by Peter Brimelow in "Alien Nation." As the myth goes, America is a multicultural nation of immigrants, and nobody whose ancestors arrived as immigrants can possibly oppose mass immigration without falling into self-contradiction. Against this, consider the foolishness of supporting for purely nostalgic reasons a policy that was turned toxic.
Furthermore, the nation was never founded as a multicultural nation, at least not in the manner in which the term is enforced nowadays. The U.S. was biracial: Roughly 19.3 percent were black, but the people who established the political order, described by Thomas Jefferson as "a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, … derived from natural right and natural reason," were white, overwhelmingly British Christians.
While illegal immigration is logistically vexing, it should pose no problem of principle. Every sane individual agrees that the roughly 12 million illegals have no right to be here, and that repelling invaders who endanger the lives and property of nationals is an uncontested function of government.
It's as obvious as the pope is Catholic to all except loony liberals, willfully misinformed utilitarians at the Wall Street Journal, and utopian libertarians, who get hopelessly lost somewhere between what "is" and what "ought to be."
By focusing exclusively on the illegal immigration no-brainer, however, most media scribes and immigration watchdogs – with the exception of the hard-core Brimelow, Paul Craig Roberts and Steve Sailer – are providing a useful diversion from the crux of the immigration problem. And playing into the hands of an administration that wants us to forget that the real catastrophe is legal immigration.
Forgot (3) The illegals are voting, and they ain't voting (R); (4) They create an automatic and rapidly growing clientelle for the various organs of the bureaucratic nanny state...thus an excuse for bigger budgets, staff, facilities, and (yum) lots and lots of taxing and spending.
That's the part that bothers me ---but we don't know Aguirre's views on the issue ---I don't assume that he's pro-illegal immigration or pro-massive immigration just becaues he's an immigrant. I know immigrants who think immigration should be controlled.
Oh, horsehockey. We've heard these bleats from the nativists of various stripes since this country was founded. The English thought the Germans would ruin the country. The Protestants thought the Catholics would ruin the country. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
I agree we need to figure out a level of immigration this country can assimilate. And that we should not favor one group or region over another, but allow people into this country on merit. But who do you want coming here - some socialist welfare addled European, or an Asian or South American entreprenuer? Last I checked, Europe was a socialist mess - isn't it better to get people who think more like the Founders did than those who just look like the Founders did?
Since the boosters, in industry & in politics, of unrestricted immigration feel they have the moral high ground, they should have no problem subjecting the current policy to a nationwide debate culminating in a vote.
Put the damn issue on the ballot with the results being binding.
What do you suppose is the likelyhood of them agreeing to this?
Uh, this is a republic, not a democracy. You don't like the policy, work to get representatives who will vote your viewpoint.
Right. But you get my drift.
There hasn't been a nation wide, open debate, has there?
It's a free country. Get on a stump and start one.
Thanks for the suggestion, but the demogogues have made certain open debate on this topic is all but impossible.
Well you can bet that his policy reflects Bush's pretty closly.... and I hate to say, that would be OPEN borders, no real regulation!
Yah thats whats going on, all the europeans that would come here are all socialists. Meanwhile all those asian and south american countries are all wonderful free places to live.
Those wonderful entreprenuers you imagine tend to vote democrat by the way and also they tend to not actually be entreprenuers.
Entreprenuers but even that should depend on the kinds of jobs and how many they'll likely offer. It doesn't do much good when entreprenuers only hire their own family members like certain ones do ---you can see why the blacks sometimes had problems with Korean stores which wouldn't hire any blacks but only Koreans but were located in black neighborhoods.
Those charges get thrown around a lot, and usually by folks who deliberately confuse legal with illegal immigration.
BTW, I didn't mean to sound so hard on our dear GW either. I think he knows he needs to protect the borders but wants even more to be re-elected and mistakenly (perhaps) believes that buying the Latino's votes will help insure that re-election..... I guess the awful power struggle up there at the top does that to one whether he is Dem or Repub.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.