Irish Need Not Apply…

|

…not anymore, anyhow. We've got newer immigrants who will do just fine, thank you.

In the LA Times (reg. required), The Manhattan Institute's Tamar Jacoby looks at four books about immigration and concludes, "If only more of the native-born could learn to trust our track record as a confident and successful nation of immigrants."

Whole thing here.

[Link via Arts & Letters Daily]

NEXT: Money Well Spent

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Paging Lonewacko! Paging Lonewacko!

  2. If only more libertarians would look at how much those immigrants paved the road to statism in the U.S.

  3. D Anghelone-

    How so? I’m guessing you’re not just talking about current immigrants, but previous generations as well? Or am I mistaken?

    I’m curious: Did earlier waves of immigrants vote any more statist than people whose ancestors had come pre-1776?

  4. This article doesn’t seem to mention the fact that immigration has historically come in waves, alternating between periods of low immigration and social integration.

  5. Yeah, they don’t vote like I do, so keep ’em out. Hell, better yet, throw ’em in jail.

    FWIW, D Anghelone, my Jewish immigrant lineage are almost entirely typical Jewish liberals, but I’ve begun to break the mold by entertaining libertarian ideas. So see, there’s hope for those damn immigrants after all.

    Ha ha.

  6. Thoreau, D Anghelone,

    Most of history’s great civilizations evolved into statism before they disintegrated. Ours (the U.S.) is well along that path. It would be an interesting endeavor to try and discover if 19th Century Germans and Irish were any more “statist-inclined” than 20th Century Italians or late-century Asians. But as Americans, we’re all to blame for our continued loss of freedoms.

  7. thoreau,

    I’m speaking, so to speak, solely of prior immigrants.

    I’m curious: Did earlier waves of immigrants vote any more statist than people whose ancestors had come pre-1776?

    I don’t know about “pre-1776”, but yes.

  8. Care to elaborate on (a) exactly which waves of immigrants you’re talking about, (b) how they voted, and (c) to whom you’re comparing them? i.e. did the immigrants vote any differently from native-born US citizens?

    Pardon my skepticism, but without elaboration your statement sounds like a slightly more sophisticated disguise for the age-old fear of dark-skinned people coming to marry our daughters, and some of them aren’t even Protestant! (gasp!)

  9. D Anghelone,

    Keeping immigrants out because of how they might vote is statist itself.

  10. Actually, I got a free copy of the Sunday Dog Trainer, and I’ve been meaning to comment on that book review.

    He (she?) makes several “mistatements.” Here’s one:

    “[one book argues that restrictionism has always been the majority view…] This is simply not true: If it were, we’d hardly be debating immigration as intensely as we are, in Washington and across the nation…”

    That comment is on the same level as statements declaring there’s no press bias. There is no “national debate.” There’s the vast majority of the people who favor an end to illegal immigration and a reduction of legal immigration on one side, and the elites on the other. You can go check out polls for yourself; the vast majority of Americans are “restrictionists.” Only the multicultural/racial left and the corporatist right elites are in favor the current situation for their own goals.

    And, as we’ve seen here and elsewhere, the left (and even the right) frequently attempts to slander restrictionists because they realize they have no argument.

    He/she also says that illegal migrants have sustained U.S. agribusiness since the 1930s. What he leaves out is the fact that all that cheap labor has retarded attempts to modernize agribusiness. All that serf labor has not sustained it, it’s hurt it.

    Here’s your reading assignment for today: Barbara Jordan’s immigration reform report.

  11. I was just thinking of my favorite line From “Blazing Saddles”:

    “…but we don’t want the Irish!”

  12. fyodor,

    I grew up (maybe) surrounded by your lineage in NYC. Did you much hear the phrase “for the workers”? My father said that his union was “good for the workers.” Hell, he said that Anastasia, as head of the ILA, was good for the workers. The Murder Inc. stuff didn’t matter.

    People didn’t talk about ecology or gay rights or anything that is Reason’s new emphasis. Foreign affairs amounted to, “Is there a war? With who?” But the workers…hoo boy!

  13. I have never understood the animosity toward immigration in America (of all fucking places). How many examples of success through self-reliance and industriousness do you need? And if you’re not willing to give the opportunity to others as to this gutter Irish, then fuck the lot o’ youse.

  14. Keeping immigrants out because of how they might vote is statist itself.

    Tsk, tsk! Presupposition is so unbecoming.

    I’m attempting nothing more than to get some libertarians to see more of reality than that which supports their biases.

  15. A while back I ran across an article that said Borneo headhunters excelled at stoop work. It also added that Yemeni tribesmen were excellent at roofing. Plus, due to their low expectations, they’d work really really cheap.

    Would we want to import one million of each? If not, why not?

  16. Lonewacko-

    A million roofers would be way more than the economy can absorb.

    On the other hand, a million individuals with a variety of talents could be absorbed if some of them are entrepreneurial.

  17. OK, let’s try another one then.

    If the market for Gendarmes de Langue disaparu, and we found out that Quebecers made great loggers, would there be any reason why importing hundreds of thousands of Quebecers into northern New England would be a bad idea? Here’s a hint.

  18. I’m a lumber jack and I’m OK,
    I sleep all night and I work all day,
    I cut down treest, I skip and jump,
    I like to press wild flowers,
    I put on women’s clothing, and hang around in bars!

  19. to see more of reality than that which supports their biases.

    Oh, well gee, thanks. Tsk, tsk, so disengenuous. For the record, there’s pros & cons to any public policy, but telling us out how awful those previous immigrants were, even if I agree that I would disagree with some of their politics, is plain nasty.

  20. Lonewacko-

    Are you saying we should keep French Canadian immigrants out because some guy in a blog said maybe New England should secede and join Quebec in a new country? If some crazy comment in a blog is your standard of proof for keeping out a whole group of immigrants, then I don’t know what to say.

    Personally, I think the aspiring immigrant above would enjoy Northern California. There’s lots of big tall trees to cut down, and he can always go to San Francisco on weekends…

  21. Lonewacko,
    The problem with your point is the vast majority of immigrants that become naturalized know what they left. And they know that what they left is worse than America. There is no way in hell anyone in my family is going to vote to make the US more like Egypt. If we wanted to live in a country like the old one, we would have never moved. We’re more sympathetic to our country of origin when it comes to foreign policy (read: we don’t want Egypt to get screwed for the US or vice versa), but as far as internal policies go, why would anyone leave a country and want the same, ineffective policies? You’ll find that this is true of most permanent immigrants.

  22. “Are you saying we should keep French Canadian immigrants out because some guy in a blog said maybe New England should secede and join Quebec in a new country?”

    I’m saying that libertarians are either ignorant of history or choose to ignore it. Seriously, you do realize there have been and continue to be secessionist movements throughout the world throughout recorded history, right? And, you do realize there’s things called “ethnic strife,” “civil wars,” “occupying land in order to control it,” etc. etc. Our acceptance of immigrants should be based on various factors, chief among them how much worth they are to us and how much damage they might do to the rest of us.

    Hundreds of thousands of French Canadian imports into one area would lead to a difficult problem if they decided to do what they did in la Canada. These concepts are so basic I have trouble understanding how they could not be understood.

  23. Lonewacko asks: “Would we want to import one million of each? If not, why not?”

    Because “we” do not import people. Many of us, however, oppose preventing those who wish to come here from doing so, absent some serious criminal history. Others, like you, feverishly search for the most outre “reasons” to close our culture and country.

    –Mona–

  24. “There is no way in hell anyone in my family is going to vote to make the US more like Egypt… You’ll find that this is true of most permanent immigrants.”

    What percentage of our immigrants are “permanent immigrants” and what percentage are economic refugees or worse? What affect does the MultiCulti cult have on the children of those “permanent immigrants?” What affect do radicalized ethnic studies departments have on the children of those “permanent immigrants?” What affect does the massive ethnic media have on them? What affect does the active, virtually unopposed meddling of the Mexican government have on them? What affect do borderline traitorous racial demagogues have on them?

  25. Lonewacko-

    How many people immigrate so they can change a place as part of some larger scheme? Sure, it happens in colonies, where the conquering country encourages and/or forces its citizens to move to the colony that needs to be “civilized.” But how many people move to a sovereign nation so they can convert it? The best analogy I can think of is actually the Free State Project, strangely enough. And last I checked they show no signs of nearing their recruitment goal. (Pity for them that they picked the largest state on their list, since it will make it that much harder to transform NH on a short staff.)

    I’ll grant that when people show up they often try to recreate at least some aspects of their country of origin. But overall this has been a plus for America. And assimilation usually happens to the young even if their parents don’t like it. Apparently my Italian great-grandmother didn’t understand why her son wanted to stay in school instead of dropping out at age 12 to work full-time. She didn’t understand why he spent some of the money from his after-school job on American-style clothes instead of wearing the clothes that she made for him.

    But he became an officer in the US Army and the first in the family to graduate from college. He married a white girl. And his children and grandchildren only know a few words of Italian.

    Yes, I realize that not everybody assimilates. American history shows that most groups have assimilated, but in the process they’ve also assimilated America a little bit. And somehow we’ve become the richest and most powerful nation on earth. I really don’t fear immigrants.

    I have some sympathy for those who argue that immigration will strain resources. (I disagree, but I see where they’re coming from.) I have a lot of sympathy for those who fear terrorists will hide amongst peaceful immigrants. (I think there are ways to handle the problem without completely closing the borders, but I see their point.)

    But I have ZERO sympathy for the notion that there are vast hordes of immigrants hell-bent on changing this country into the places that they left behind. It’s ridiculous. There may be a handful of such lunatics, but most people who move someplace else do so because they like the new place better than the old.

  26. Here’s another sad Irish bastard agreeing with the first one above.
    (Yes, Ruthless is Irish.)

    Two points: Has anyone spoken with a Chinese person questioning his allegiance to the policy of one child per family? This is closely related to the topic of immigration because people, in general, either have value or they don’t. I doubt el Pope is posting here, but why does he have such a hard-on about abortion but ignore this thread?
    Second: Immigrants are the last out-of-town experts who should be consulted on this issue. Immigrants, just as dumb as the rest of us, suffer from “lifeboat syndrome.” That means they can be the most vociferous about keeping their fellow countrymen out–naturally assuming exceptions can be made for immediate family.

    Bottom line is people have value. Whoa! Hard for Ruthless to express even as he would be first to bend over and pick up a fallen nickel.
    Some are rotten apples needing culling. Others happen to be conceived but not born into families who weren’t ready for them.

    Ruthless like apples too.

  27. ? Is there any case when immigration restrictions are moral. In fact the moral debate is hanging over immigration policy like the sword of Damocles. This is not helpful for expediency, something which politicians hold dear. The argument about “statism” is of limited interest, what other behaviour do you expect from govenments? The state does what local towns are not prepared to do: offer places to immigrants. Of course the state has to react to the prevailing winds of economic benevolence, fear, paranoia, population growth, cultural imperialism etc etc.

    ? Britain takes more asylum seekers than any other country at the moment, which is nice because we get to choose who we want. Also, the UK is alone in not having migrant-quotas as part of the expansion of the EC. Expediency rules: we’ll get to cherry-pick the best candidates and turn away others. Leaving you guys to argue it out here.

  28. Exactly, Joe, that is his point.

    I don’t agree with it, though, but do agree totally with the FormerlyLoneWacko on the immigration issue.

  29. “Also, we are a representational republic, and non-citizens cannot vote. Having a significant number of adult residents disfranchised is not good for the health of our political system”

    To paraphrase CATO idol Dan Griswold: “our serf laborers will be so tired they won’t even be thinking of voting.” It kinda makes you wonder exactly what would be his preferred political system.

    Former MALDEF president and current UCLA professor Joaquin Avila recently proposed (yet again) that illegal aliens be allowed to vote. After driver’s licenses, that will probably be their next issue.

    Also, it looks like we’re importing “suicides.” See this important news story: Homeland Security official dead in Tucson.

  30. Acceptance of large numbers of illegal immigrants is unfair to those legal immigrants who have the patience to take the time and effort to follows US immigration law.

    Also, we are a representational republic, and non-citizens cannot vote. Having a significant number of adult residents disfranchised is not good for the health of our political system. This is made worse as people of non-assimilated ethnicities tend to congregate together, raising their percentages of the electorate higher than the national average in local districts. That being said, just handing out voting rights to resident aliens, especially illegal ones does not seem to me to a be a just solution.

  31. MJ,
    US immigration law is unfair to the US. Immigrants are not.
    Re who can vote and who can’t:
    As I’ve said elsewhere, voting is also unfair to the US. It should be abstained from, and ridiculed out of existence.

  32. I like Anglehorne’s theory – in order to prevent immigrants from making the country more “statist,” we need to have a lot of armed men in uniform, paid by the government, stringing up fences, checking people’s papers, and throwing violators in jail.

    Sounds like the liberty lovers in 19th century California.

  33. joe,

    You like the voices in your head, joe. That “theory” appears nowhere in this thread, joe. It’s just the voices in your head, joe. Seek help, joe.

  34. “Many of us, however, oppose preventing those who wish to come here from doing so, absent some serious criminal history. Others, like you, feverishly search for the most outre “reasons” to close our culture and country.”

    Look everybody, it’s part of our National Immigration Debate, just like Tamar Jacoby sez!

    So, apparently “Mona” would feel good about letting in a million Borneo headhunters. Sure, their children might be OK, but I’d imagine it might be a bit difficult to keep the parents from doing here what they did back home. If the kids decided to “get back to their roots,” then we’d have a bit of a problem.

    As for the Yemeni tribesmen, “Mona” wouldn’t mind a million of them coming here as well, just as long as they don’t have a criminal history. The fact that many of them would have some sort of kinship with OBL seems to have escaped Mona’s thought processes. But, that’s OK as long as they haven’t shoplifted or something.

    “Britain takes more asylum seekers than any other country at the moment”

    I already posted on this. Apparently Britain and other European countries are finally wising up. Don’t expect that to be a permanent stance; get your burkas now before the rush.

    “How many people immigrate so they can change a place as part of some larger scheme?”

    People don’t have to be – and are frequently not – cognizant of being part of a larger movement, whether master planned or not.

    Recall the story of the Soviet power plant which was taken down by trojan horsed software. The Soviets thought they’d stolen the software fair and square. Only after a few years did they realize they’d been part of someone’s scheme.

    Were those who settled the prairie, or the Scots-Irish, or those who settled Siberia constantly aware that they were part of a large, centrally-planned scheme? No doubt some were, but many weren’t.

    Despite that, both groups were part of the scheme.

    And, the fact that those settlers could be expected to think generally one way was part of the larger scheme of which they were a part.

  35. “…those immigrants paved the road to statism in the U.S…” Anglehorne, 4:23, March 16.

    Perhaps I missed the part where “the road to statism” is a good thing that should be encouraged.

  36. Whoa, is it just me or is The Lonewacko getting Whackier and wackier?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.