Borders, Language, Culture, Hysteria

New at Reason: When Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin and Victor Davis Hanson Allen Rippey all have books riding high, it must be the anti-immigration silly season. Matt Welch looks at the shifting terms of the Great Debate.

Comments

[Anonymous]

just legalize everything (immigration, drugs, prostitution et al.) and privatize everything (roads, libraries, use-of-force, education, healthcare etc.) and whamo! everything in its right place 😀 i should be governor. thanks.

[ondeeinside]

"... privatize everything (libraries, education, healthcare.)"

You may soon get your wish, anon ... (at least with these three.)

Stay tuned.

[joe]

Victor David Hanson, Noam Chomsky, and John Paul II need to realize that their unquestioned brilliance in their chosen fields does not translate into an elevated understanding of contemporary political issues.

[Brad S]

Joe - this may be the first time I've ever seen anyone from the left do anything but praise Chomsky.

[Todd Fletcher]

I'll have to re-read the Hansen article, as I remember it being fairly reasonable. Certainly not the shrill baiting you expect from Savage or Malkin.

Also, I don't know if this is Matt's intention or my own mis-reading, but his article seems to equate "anti-illegal-immigrant" with "anti-immigrant". They aren't the same.

This is an area of national politics that's as resistant to reason as drug policy. Expect things to be screwed up forever.

[Jack]

What is Hanson brilliant in? Certainly not history (which he continually misrepresents through omissions and highly selective examples).

[The Lonewacko Blog]

I frequently cover (mostly illegal) immigration at my blog, and you might want to check it out.

Unfortunately, Matt seems to be conflating not just legal and illegal immigration, but also various anti-[whatever]-immigration sites, Pitchfork Pat, Michael Savage, journalist visas, the DHS's middle-east-roundup [1], and others into one convenient whole.

Some things that aren't mentioned are anything having to do with the Mexican government, except for one mention of a Mexican Consulate.

As with other reason articles, there is no mention of irredentism, separatism, Aztlan, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the Mexican-American War(s), etc. For background information, see the links at the end of this post, which also discussed a reason article.

For instance, see this article from a Stanford history professor: "The possibility looms that in the next generation or so we will see a kind of Chicano Quebec take shape in the American Southwest..."

And, there are no mentions of the various activities of our "allies," the Mexican government. Such as consuls working with local officials to pass illegal-alien-friendly laws. The quote "at least 39 states have considered more than 100 bills that affect immigrants' access to driver's licenses" is directly related to actions taken by the MX government. (For an example, see this)

Regarding "Our southern borders remain open channels not only for illegal aliens and smugglers, but for terrorists," it's certainly true that the networks established to facilitate workers coming here can be used to facilitate others coming here, no?

A little digging might turn up this: "Some of the terrorists who helped with the September 11th attacks are now reported to have entered the country through Hidalgo County. State Representative Kino Flores, who sits on the state homeland security board, in an exclusive with Newschannel Five tells us these terrorists are said to have helped with the operation"

Flores didn't respond to my email asking for more information, maybe someone else would have better luck.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Footnote [1] from the previous post: I wonder if the botched round-up wasn't planned by some pro-[whatever]-immigration manager somewhere as a way to discredit the round-up.

[Schmedrick]

Shelly "I got mine, now pooh-pooh on you" Malkin is a twit. She doesn't hold up at all under any serious grilling (as recent TV interviews have shown). Are the neo-knownothings really so desperate for spokespeople that they can't come with anything better than this?

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Actually, Michelle Malkin doesn't "have hers:"

It is a complete and utter affront to all of those people around the world, some of them my own relatives who are in the Philippines and who have been waiting in line for years to come to the United States, to see the U.S. government send the message out that waiting in line is for chumps-and that instead you should hop on a boat, go to Mexico, and just cross the border.

That interview also goes into who benefits from illegal immigration.

Also, before it's too late, let me incorporate by reference "How to Argue Like A Lefty in a Weblog Comments Board"

[Matt Welch]

Todd -- I used "anti-illegal-immigrants" instead of "anti-immigrants" because ... well, that's what I was talking about. Members of the latter group certainly belong to the former, and provide some of the generals and footsoldiers in that particular army; and at the same time, I'm pretty sure I've never so much as hinted anywhere that to be "anti-illegal-immigrant" is to be some kind of drooling Nazi.

I'd like to give one example of how the two groups interact. I once attended a Michelle Malkin reading in Westwood (and I should say here what I didn't in the column: there is some good & useful reporting in that book, hysterical as I find the tone to be), and she started off by pointing out the absurd loopholes in the immigration system, and how they have been used by bad guys & could be used by bad guys in the future. All very interesting, relevant stuff, especially here in L.A., where the airport security has been a mess. The audience had very much a revival-meeting vibe, and it didn't take long at all for some guy to stand up and say, approximately, "Yeah! And when I went into the store the other day, THEY DIDN'T EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH to me! It's like Little Mexico here!" Many murmurs of assent in the crowd, followed by similar stories. Much of the rest of the lecture had little or nothing to do with National Security.

Not that THAT isn't something interesting to talk about as well; in fact, I'd say the pro-immigration crowd needs to articulate to people who've lived in the same neighborhood for 40 years why it's good that the people and places around them are no longer recognizable. And, to say the least, it is important and often difficult to have an intelligent policy discussion about the effects of immigration on impacted states like California.

Also, for what it's worth, I found much in that Hanson article reasonable or at least interesting, disagreed with some of it, and in any case didn't pass judgment on it in this column. One of the columnists at VDare criticized him for being too soft on Diversity.

Lonester -- There are *many* things I didn't talk about in the column, and my leaving-it-out list started with things with which I know of the least, such as the Mexican government's policie. But with your guidance, knock on wood, I will get up to speed (and I'm not being sarcastic. In fact, I would like to put in a rare *good* word for the American Patrol guys & others for, at the very least, running copious links to various immigration-related stories; Lonewacko's immigration page is quite useful, regardless of where you stand on the Treaty of Richard Hidalgo).

As for conflating a bunch of stuff -- that was the point. Not to say that there is one insidious Movement gathering steam just out of view, but in fact the opposite: There are *many* conflicting currents that all happen to be happening right now, and to my eyes policies and politics are changing very quickly.

And finally, to reiterate one last point that wasn't in the column -- our visa policies, and immigration-enforcement, will end up affecting most every American who travels abroad. Even if your town or state has never heard a Spanish word, your freedom to travel could (and I think will likely be) restricted.

[Douglas Fletcher]

From Jack

"What is Hanson brilliant in? Certainly not history (which he continually misrepresents through omissions and highly selective examples)."

Such as?

[Todd Fletcher]

Matt, I didn't think you were implying that "t be "anti-illegal-immigrant" is to be some kind of drooling Nazi" either.

Hansen is very sympathetic in the CIS article. His main point seems to be that the lack of assimilation is a problem for both society and the immigrants themselves.

I guess I did't really get the point of your article, perhaps I should read it again.

[Steve Sailer]

One big factor you didn't mention was California's financial meltdown. During the dot.com bubble, open borders enthusiasts would point to California's prosperity to show the wonders of having a lot of illegal immigrants. It wasn't much of a cause-and-effect argument even then, but it of course has evaporated now.

The major role of the Democratic Latino Caucus (20% of the legislature, although Democratic Latinos accounted for only 7-8% of the electorate last November -- the discrepancy is due to the "rotten boroughs" effect in legislative redistricting that means it takes far fewer votes to elect a member of the Latino Caucus than a black or white legislator) in blowing through all that tax money should give libertarians second thoughts, no? Do libertarians really want to repeat this same process on the national level?

[Croesus]

Everytime someone says that "x" group cannot possibly assimilate, etc., they do (infusing America with their own culture in the process). Its like we are re-visiting the 1840s and 1850s.

[joe]

Hypothesis: Immigrants coming to America today learn English faster, better, and in greater numbers than those arriving at any other time in history. The reason this seems counter-intuitive is because us native born Yankees hear people speaking foreign languages more. This is because they are getting jobs, going shopping, etc in "American" places, rather than hanging out with their own kind in segregated neighborhoods, as they were in the good old days. People who whine about hearing ferners speak other languages aren't complaining about immigrants who aren't assimilating; they're complaing about immigrants who are.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

"Immigrants coming to America today learn English faster, better, and in greater numbers than those arriving at any other time in history"

Yeah, that explains why we have 20 Spanish-language radio stations in L.A. and about 4 or 5 such TV stations. I'll let someone else address the xenophobia-baiting and double-speak.

"Everytime someone says that "x" group cannot possibly assimilate, etc."

See the comments above. And, as you will note, sometimes things change and, while history is a very good guide, one must use it correctly.

For instance, was there Italian- or Polish-language mass media 100 years ago? Were the Italian or Polish governments trying to create dual loyalties not only with recent immigrants but with those past the first generation? Were there government forms, websites, and the like printed in Italian and Polish? Was there the multi-cult cult 100 years ago, or was the common belief that America was a big melting pot?

There are big differences between then and now; don't assume that just because something happened one way once it will happen the same way if the other conditions change.

[joe]

"For instance, was there Italian- or Polish-language mass media 100 years ago?"

You've never seen a foreign language newspaper?

[Joe]

hi

[surma]

my name is surma and i went to this website

[Shimura Haru]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 82.146.43.155
URL: http://www.americanpaydayloans.net
DATE: 02/27/2004 01:38:33
Nothing's far when one wants to get there.