…keep on associating the party with anti-immigrant nativism. Thankfully, the president has always supported reasonable immigration reform, and so has California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, one of the biggest Republican winners in the debacle of 2006.
Take a look at these points in this Michael Medved column:
Regardless of the merits of the arguments on this issue, as a political strategy it flopped completely. Two of the most outspoken hardliners on the issue of illegals, Congressman J.D. Hayworth and one-issue radical Randy Graf, both got slaughtered by overwhelming margins in formerly Republican districts in Arizona—the state worst afflicted by the flood of unauthorized entrants. Arizona’s Democratic governor, who did demand more federal help for border security, drew denunciations from anti-immigration forces as a “squish†on the issue but won re-election with 63% of the vote. Arizona did pass several initiatives by overwhelming margins to take commonsense steps to deal with the flood of new arrivals– establishing English as the official language, banning law suits by illegals, denying state aid for illegals in higher education, and so forth – but these were rational, practical steps that all conservatives (and many moderates and liberals) could easily support.
On the other side of the issue, no prominent supporter of comprehensive immigration reform or earned legalization suffered the predicted dire consequences at the polls. The notion that immigration constituted a hot button concern that would mobilize millions for hard line Republicans, and punish their opponents at the poll, produced not a single example in all the House and Senate and governorship races. The most visible pro-immigrant Republican in the country, Arnold Schwarzenegger, also proved to be the most visible GOP success on Tuesday night.
Meanwhile, the exit polling showed the devastating impact of the Republican association with immigrant-bashing. Of all the major groups in the population (with more than thirty identified by pollsters), none shifted as significantly, as disastrously from GOP support in 2004 to Democratic support in 2006 than Hispanics. Republicans lost 8% of their overall white-Anglo support, and maintained the same meager level of Afro-American support, but gave up a staggering 30% of the Hispanic support they labored so hard to win in 2004. Lop-sided Latino margins for Democrats proved decisive in numerous House and Senate races. Hispanics will comprise rapidly increasing segments of the American electorate. Any party that risks driving these people away en masse—alienating 30% of its prior supporters in just two years! – runs a very real risk of extinction.
I think political commentators are making a big mistake by not concentrating on this issue. The anti-immigrant fever that has ran through the Republican House in the last year is embarrassing for our country, against our historical tradition of being welcoming to immigrants and, in my opinion, uncharitable. And, now we find out it is also bad politics (it’s never a good idea to alienate the fastest-growing potential voting bloc).
Globally minded Republicans have, in my opinion, stood for progress, entrepeneurialism and respect for risk-takers. We welcome people who will bring new energy, a desire to work and patriotism. Immigrants have always done that for the United States.
I hope and pray we will reject this anti-immigrant fever by 2008. Otherwise, is “hello, President Hillary.”
Ah, looking forward to President Clinton. 🙂
Yeah, Republicans, keep up the anti-immigration talk. 😉
Personally I think the best thing to kill the Republicans is to have Bush adopt the Murtha/Baker immediate pullout mentality, keep most of the existing Republican leadership in charge, continue to embrace the pork, and otherwise do everything I’m worried they are doing.
Given how much the Democrats are already demonstrating everything I suspected they would do: i.e. see this as a mandate on guns, abortion and social spending; put in the regular leaders from 1994 who put the Democrats in the situation they are in; repress the conservative Democrats; and push for immediate pull outs; it would be nice if the Republicans would have actually learned for their mistake.
I know it’s early. Some of the Democratic chairs that have been discussed in the media may not be appointed given all the flack Democrats are already getting. (Hey – let’s appoint a ex-judge who was kicked off the bench for accepting bribes as head of the intelligence committed) Further Pelosi is at least talking about not letting the far left wing of the party go wild. But I’m skeptical it will happen. And I see no evidence that the Democrats will embrace the pork busters mindset. Say what you will about Clinton/Gore, but they were conservative for Democrats and did a better job than Bush at cutting pork and making government efficient. But count on Democrats of the Daily Kos variety to completely miss what few things led Democrats to victory rather than dwindling power the last 20 years.
As to immigration, it’s a difficult thing to figure out. I think some extensive worker’s program is necessary. But you also need action. One huge problem Republicans had this last election was having no real cohesive policy. That just pissed everyone off. I think Swartzenegger (and Utah’s Chris Cannon) end up being correct on this. But you have to increase security. You just have to. As is we end up with the worst of all worlds – largely thanks to Bush (IMO).
Clark, if the Republicans had treated this solely as a security issue — and worked with the Mexican government instead of against it — they would have avoided charges of racism and avoided angering Latino immigrants. Instead, the anti-immigration activities of the last year have been seen in the Latino community as aimed at preventing brown-skinned Spanish speakers from coming to this country. Big, big mistake.
Immigration is a hot topic in border states {due to the negative financial impact), but the issue doesn’t seem as important to non-border states (who do not experience quite the negative financial impact of illegal immigration).
In Arizona, where I live, all of the propositions dealing with illegal immigration passed by a wide margin. Of course, two conservative Republican candidates who took a hard-line approach to illegal immigration (Graf and Hayworth) lost their races.
The tide of illegal immigration needs to be stopped, but not at the expense of legal and sensible immigration.
Well, yeah, but the catch is that border states–California, Florida, Texas–also are very populous states, and thus wield a critical, unignorable number of electoral college votes.
Geoff, I completely agree. The fact is that some anti-immigration sentiment did verge on racism and xenophobia. I think Bush could have cut all this off by having the congressional members concerned with this to the white house and working out a compromise that made everyone happy. However as has been typical for Bush he doesn’t communicate well and tried to do things in a politically sneaky way. Had they gotten a good immigration reform bill passed fewer congressmen would have been lost. (Firing Rumsfeld before the election would have been wise as well)
The problem with the hard liners on immigration is that they are living in a dream world. You have to have both sticks and carrots. They want only sticks and are naive about how successful such sticks would be. (IMO)
Further the fact is that you aren’t going to stop illegal immigration. At best you can manage it and a guest worker’s program would do that. However both Americans and Mexicans are pretty skeptical and Bush (and the congress) have done nothing to make things better.
I’ll bite on this one:
Brian Duffin: non-border states (who do not experience quite the negative financial impact of illegal immigration)
And the positive financial impact that their economies are based on…
I agree pretty much straight up with Geoff B on this one: anti-immigration = anti-American. What makes this country work, both theoretically and pragmatically, is economic, social and ethnic diversity. The founders planned it that way, and encouraged diversity as a way of maintaining the checks and balances we depend on to keep a real democracy working.
The tide of illegal immigration needs to be stopped, but not at the expense of legal and sensible immigration.
and I think that’s the problem: what is sensible? In my mind, this problem is at least as difficult as what’s happening in Iraq: if you completely pull out the troops, Iraq is a goner. If you stay the course, Iraq is a goner. If you immediately stop all illegal immigration and start hunting down illegal immigrants, our country’s economy and unskilled labor markets are both goners. The sad thing about the whole illegal thing is that it’s purely a legal status. The majority of these people haven’t done anything wrong, they just were born on the wrong side of a fence. It’s a catch 22, though, because in order to change the status and make people feel like they’re not “leaching” off our taxes, we have to legitimize them and let them pay taxes. But legitimizing them is exactly the opposite of what people who are anti-immigration want: somehow it makes them feel devalued to have somebody else become the next wave of immigration into our country… It’s a lot like the Sunni’s in iraq, too, I suppose. How do you say to former Bathists that they’re welcome into the political game when they’re clearly the people who messed up Iraq so badly in the first place? You have to legitimize them to get them to stop the civil war, but how do you legitimize somebody without making other people feel disenfranchised.
It’s a tough, tough problem.
Count me as one who blesses the day that J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf and John Hostettler and others of their ilk ended up on the short end of the tally sheets. And, as Medved rightly points out, don’t look at the Arizona initiatives as evidence that people believe the Grafs and Hayworths: those initiatives were things that most people interested in immigration could have supported. But the demagogues on the fringe lost decisively.
I don’t think that passage of a good immigration reform bill (such as the Senate passed last May, but which the House refused even to take up) would have made much of a difference for the Republicans last Tuesday. But the immigration “restrictionists” are painting the Republicans into a corner, and that corner will keep getting smaller if saner heads don’t push Tom Tancredo and his nativist caucus back into the caves whence they came.
I am hopeful that the new Congress will soon pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill–but it may be too late for the Republicans who did their best (many of them, anyway) to drive away the Hispanic vote for a generation.
Ah, the immigration topic again. Geoff, I can see you’re still as misguided on this as you were the last time this came up here. Despite my obvious agreement with you on other political matters, I continue to dispute the terms you use to frame the argument.
We are not talking legal immigration here. We are talking about an illegal and unchecked flood of Mexican citizens through an essentially open border, posing all kinds of security and financial risks. The people you deride are not “anti-immigration” or “nativist.” Yet you frame your argument around a strawman notion that anybody opposed to illegal immigration is a racist, nativist pig.
I have security fears. I have economic fears. I don’t like that there seems to be very little desire amongst illegals to assimilate. I don’t like all the reconquista talk. I don’t like the gangs primarily made up of illegals. I don’t like walking into a Salt Lake City Wal-Mart and never hearing a word of English. I do not like illegal immigration, and I will never support it- even if it is politically correct. If Hillary Clinton would stem the tide of illegal immigration, she’d have my vote in a heartbeat.
Clark, #7,
Why can’t we stop it?
A. Nonny Mouse, #8,
Anti-immigration = anti-American. Anti-illegal immigration does not equal anti-immigration.
Oh, and please tell me exactly what positive financial impact illegal immigration has had.
Tossman, if we can’t stop other kinds of smuggling and illegal activity, why do we think we can stop millions of poor who see America as their hope? Even if you think it possible to stop in theory the means suggested definitely won’t do it.
What we need is management which means some sort of guest worker program that avoids the failures of similar programs in Europe. Beyond that we also have to fix the mess that is the legal immigration program in the US. That is so broken and so difficult for honest people that it is no wonder so many turn to illegal means.
I suppose you’ll be glad to hear that the Democrats might take a pass on locking in the Hispanic vote by letting immigration reform slide down their list of priorities. See, passing immigration reform (by which I mean last year’s Senate bill) would mean cooperating with Bush, and we just can’t have that.
Clark, you can relax about your list of horribles. House Democrats may put on some political theater, and some of it might actually come to a vote, but none of it will get through the Senate and if it did, it could not overcome a presidential veto. Just enjoy the show and know that it is motivating your base for next time.
And what Baker is it that you think advocates immediate withdrawal?
I don’t like gangs either, Tossman, but I don’t care whether they’re made up of U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents or recent border jumpers. Criminals are criminals, whatever their immigration status.
But, I think you can rest easy on the reconquista thing. The only people who talk about it are the nativist fringe who heard the word once and think it’s a useful bugaboo to scare others into agreeing with them.
If you don’t like hearing Spanish in Wal-Mart, why don’t you shop somewhere else? I never shop at Wal-Mart (I think I’ve been in one twice, but have since repented) and so I never have to hear any language spoken there.
But if hearing a foreign language spoken anywhere bothers you, perhaps you should relax. I hear Spanish, French, Polish, Russian, Chinese, Korean, Albanian, Greek, etc. spoken all the time. I frankly don’t feel threatened by it, and don’t know why you should.
I’m not sure how you measure the desire of someone to assimilate–but the assimilation of Hispanics into U.S. culture occurs at rates that are comparable to the assimilation of earlier immigrant groups. You may not worry about non-assimilation of Italian immigrants, but that’s only because the last big wave of Italian immigration occurred nearly 100 years ago. Furthermore, the restrictive and unworkable immigration laws, which push people underground rather than drawing them out into our society, may be as much to blame as anything for that non-assimilation that you sense.
Finally, security. Why waste the border patrol’s time trying to catch all those wanna-be busboys, waiters, gardeners, chambermaids, construction workers, etc. etc.? Manage the flow of those folks in through an orderly border, and then the CBP can use their resources to go after criminals, drug-smugglers, wanna-be terrorists, etc.
Last Lemming, considering Bush’s proclivities I suspect he’d let a lot of Democratic programs through. While he’s a social conservative he’s not really conservative in most other areas.
I hadn’t heard that about immigration reform. I’m mixed on that since I think a bipartisan reform is the way to go. I think it is less about working with Bush than just that the Democratic base is as divided on the issue as the Republican base.
BTW – I like hearing other languages and seeing other races at stores. My hometown in Nova Scotia was very multicultural with a lot of immigrants from all over. It’s just a tad too homogenous here in Utah. I like the increasing variety here. Plus from a gospel standpoint immigrants make great converts. And I think Utah Mormons could use the influx of new blood.
Mark B. You’ve misunderstood me completely. It doesn’t bother me to hear other languages at a store, nor do I feel threatened by it. I think the bigger hypocrisy in the immigration debate is the pro-illegals’ quickness to label everybody racist who disagrees with them.
If you don’t think an open border is a security risk, I’m don’t know what to say to you. Go rent an apartment in Chula Vista and tell me how safe you feel. Talk to some people in Arizona, New Mexico, and SoCal. What about terrorists who want into the U.S.? Could they not just hop a plane to Mexico and walk across like everybody else? There is evidence of this happening, by the way, and a quick Google News search will turn up several articles from this summer supporting it.
Look, immigration is good. I don’t know how many people you’ll find who say differently. But illegal immigration and all the amnesty programs proposed by politicians is absolutely not fair to the rest of non-Mexicans (yes, I’m saying Mexicans, not ‘latinos’ because that’s who’se coming. No numbers of other nationalities even compare, so let’s cut the crap). We make everybody jump thru all these hoops, wade thru a mountain of paperwork, and wait for years and years. Yet all Mexicans have to do is walk across the border. How is that fair? How is that not in some ways racist?
I have mentioned this here before I think, but I have a Mexican-American neighbor who has helped shape much of my opinion on illegal immigration. This guy came here legally. He jumped thru the hoops and gave up a lot to come here. He worked his way up from a janitor job at the elementary school to a UPS supervisor. He speaks Spanish at home with his wife, but he speaks English at work. He has a Mexican flag bumper sticker on his car, but an American flag in his window.
And he’s pissed as hell at illegal immigration. No matter how compassionate or touchy-feely you make it sound, you will never convince him, or me, that illegal immigration is good for America.
There’s a myth about the American melting pot how everyone put aside their ethnicities and embraced this new American vista. In reality, the Irish, the Italians, the Russians, the Polish, the [fill in your nationality] all tended to cluster together, defend each other, speak their own languages and practice their customs within their own group, and only acted “American” after they’d been here a couple of generations. I don’t see how a first-generation Hispanic or Asian immigrant is being any different than our own forefathers were.
queuno- After a couple generations of illegal immigration/amnesty at even the current rate, it will be ME assimilating into THEIR culture. One thing I don’t hear any of you address is the impact of mass influx of one homogenized culture. What does that do to the diversity of our nation? Goodbye, melting pot.
I don’t think there’s anybody, except los coyotes and maybe the employers who drive down wages and exploit those without documents, who is in favor of illegal immigration. That’s the whole point of reforming the immigration laws: to bring the stream of immigration within the law.
I also don’t think there are many who advocate an open border. The point of reforming the immigration law is to bring all the construction workers and busboys and fruit pickers and gardeners and small businessmen and women and on and on to the U.S. through the front door, so the back door can be guarded against the criminals and wanna-be terrorists.
I agree that it’s not fair that a Mexican can simply sneak across the border, but someone starving in Darfur can’t. I’ll have to leave that problem for later–the problem we face is what to do with the developing country to our south, and the millions of its citizens who think the only way to have a decent shot at life is to head north to a foreign land where they speak a funny language and they think Mexicans are criminals.
It’s really nice that you have a Mexican-American neighbor who obtained an immigrant visa and entered the country legally after jumping through all those hoops that you mention. But, tell me how he got that coveted immigrant visa.
Not through the visa lottery–it’s not available to Mexicans.
Which one of his close relatives petitioned for him? Mother or Father? Wife? Child? How did that petitioner get his residency/citizenship? Did an employer petition for him? If so, how did your neighbor and the employer meet? Is the employer a relative? If you were a poor Mexican down in Chiapas and you had no family or friendly potential employers in the U.S., you know what your chance of emigrating to the U.S. legally is? A nice round number–try ZERO.
Mark B.- A much more sensible post, and one that I do not entirely disagree with. I agree that we are morally obligated to reform immigration policy. I would support a system that simplifies the procedure and makes it equally accessible for everyone.
About my neighbor, I don’t know the details. I do know that he is a U.S. citizen, born in Mexico. To my knowledge he has no close family members in the U.S. He was in the military though, so that may have played a role.
I won’t pretend to know as much about immigration policy as you obviously do. About your compassion for the Mexico’s poor. I share it, but I have to think there is a better way to help them without taking every single one of them in. I care about the homeless, but I’m not inviting them to sleep in my house. I can help the homeless in other ways. I believe the same mindset can be applied to the Mexican situation. I think we should-
1) Stop illegal immigration as much as we can and get our own house in order.
2) Normalize the illegals already here.
3) Reform our policy so it’s feasible to come here from ALL countries.
4) Work with Mexico to somehow improve the situation down there, so they don’t need to come here.
I would still like somebody to address my post #18.
Tossman — And what is your culture, anyway? If you’re like “most” white Americans, it’s a bland, heterogenized amalgamation of your ancestors. The same thing went on in the 1800s when all of the ethnic Europeans came and started clashing with the French-English who were already here. My mother’s Italian-American ancestors were scandalized when one of them married a Russian-American.
I’m not disagreeing with the need for enforced immigration. In fact, I’m probably to the right of 99% of Americans on this issue. But it’s a bad argument to cite melting pot gloom-and-doom. There was no melting pot for the adult immigrants when your ancestors got here. What happened is that the children and the grandchildren melted. It is that way in every culture.
Anyway, there hasn’t been much discussion here of last night’s vote in Farmers Branch, TX (of which I whole-heartedly support).
At any rate … I’d find it more interesting to discuss how illegal immigration may have impacted the Church.
queuno- I’m a mix of a lot of things- predominantly Irish on my mother’s side, Tongan on my father’s. An interesting mix, I know. On top of that I have a heavy north Texas accent. See, the melting pot thing for me has been a good thing.
As for how illegal immigration has impacted the Church, I would say that membership-wise it has probably helped. Welfare-wise it’s been very bad.
Tossman’s posts pretty-much reinforce the point of the origninal post.
Americans want the law to be observed. They don’t typically resent immigrants much. This was purely a matter of law enforcement. But the conservatives decided to turn it into something much bigger and nasty than that. I think most people were turned-off by that. The GOP wasn’t just looking for mere law enforcement. They were rapidly becoming affiliated with an all-out campaign of xenophobia.
Truth is, immigration didn’t even need to be an issue this election.
Tossman,
#18:
I’m curious, just what is wrong with THEIR culture? I’m guessing you’ll never move to Mexico, or if you do, you would not, from the sound of your post, ever assimilate with Mexican culture. Could it be possible that some Mexicans see American culture with the same derrision that some Americans view Mexican culture?
Oh, I bet you’d move there in a heartbeat, huh Dan? Your self-righteousness is killing me. It’s not necessary to read bigotry/racism into everything. I lived in the Ukraine (mission). I basically assimilated into their culture. I spoke their language. I lived in their apartments. I ate their food. For two years I essentially became Ukrainian. Had I been called to Mexico, or Haiti, or Canada, I would have done the same thing.
So then what’s wrong with their culture? Your post (#18) seems to indicate you have a problem about assimilating into THEIR culture. You state: “it will be ME assimilating into THEIR culture.” Is there anything really wrong with that?
oh, and I would have no problem moving to Mexico. My wife would love it actually. I won’t do it because it’s just too darn hot. I spent too much time in Alaska I guess. 🙂 I don’t like hot places anymore.
Man, politics are polarizing, aren’t they? I can’t stand cold places. Two Ukrainian winters were enough for me! As long as Mexico is moving up here, maybe they could bring a bit of their climate with them. Now that I COULD assimilate into!
Ha! well, global warming should be your bestest buddy then. I’m moving further north as this world heats up. You stay where you are and you’ll get your wish of having the same temperatures as in Mexico. 🙂
Re: Tossman #20
As to your four recommendations:
1. I agree that the border should be secured. But I don’t think it’s possible to do it simply by closing it, without providing a means for people to immigrate legally in realistic numbers. That would be like building a dam without spillways across a river–you shouldn’t be surprised if the water ends up going over the banks of the river.
2. I agree. There’s no way that this country will abide the forced removal of 15,000,000 people. The only way to do that would be to forget all our notions of fairness–just round them up, put them in sealed cattle cars and ship them south. But even the J.D. Hayworth’s of the world wouldn’t agree to that. Well, maybe he would.
3. Law and policy actually permit that, although there is still a national quota system that limits the number of immigrants from any one country to a certain percentage of the worldwide total. (That explains why the waiting list for Filipinos in the 4th family preference category–brothers/sisters of U.S. citizens–have a 24 year wait.) The reason that more Sudanese or Rwandans don’t immigrate is that the family or employer sponsorship model doesn’t work for them–they generally don’t know anybody here, family or potential employer, who would sponsor them. One possible way to change this is to change the whole system for one like Canada’s, where you get “points” for various things: speak English, have a college degree, speak French, have a trade/craft, have a job offer, have a relative here, etc.–rack up enough points otherwise and you can immigrate, even w/o the job offer or the relative.
4. The only solution, ultimately, to the issue. Mexico is a country rich in natural resources, with hard-working people. Reform of its political and economic systems could make it an economic powerhouse. Then the pressure to emigrate will disappear. Last month Ireland (which has been a net “exporter” of its citizens for nearly 200 years, and as recently as 1990 there was a special provision in a immigration bill to provide added visas to the Irish–thank Sen. Kennedy for that one) held a job fair here in NYC, looking for people to go to Ireland to fill jobs there. Someday we need to see the same thing from Mexico.
Have we ever thought of simply annexing Mexico? Seriously. Not that it would be that easy or cut and dry, but I think it’s safe to say they pretty much all want up here. Why not make here there? As screwed up as our political system is, it’s far superior to Mexico’s. I’m not saying this is realistic, but I’d be interested in others’ thoughts on it.
That would also greatly reduce the length of our southern border, making a fence much more feasible.
Tossman,
Um, Mexico is a sovereign nation. I doubt they would take too kindly to being taken in under the protective wing of America. Moreover, I doubt they really want to assimilate into American culture against their will, much like your own fears about YOU assimilating into THEIR culture.
Tossman, come on. I don’t think Mexicans want to be annexed.
Dan- I’m speaking hypothetically. I’m not proposing taking over Mexico. I’m just saying it’s people would probably do better under our government.
If Mexico is the proud sovereign nation you make it out to be, why does the bulk of it’s population prefer to live in the U.S. I wonder, if you took a poll, what percentage of the Mexican population would be in favor of becoming the 51st state.
You’re really stuck on my comment about assimilation. Somebody please prove that statement wrong. And be honest, would you actually be ok with giving up the bulk of your own culture to assimilate into one that has moved into your country? It’s one thing to move someplace and assimilate- as I have pointed out in several examples. But it’s another to be assimilating into a new culture in your own country.
Tossman,
I think if you did a survey, most Mexicans would not want to become the 51st state of the union.
And yes, I’m frankly not bothered by an influx of another culture into my own. In order to prove your statement “wrong,” let’s first begin by asking you just what you describe as American “culture.” What parts of American culture do you see threatened by an influx of Mexican culture?
Tossman, surely you know that most Mexicans don’t live in the United States. It has a population of over 100,00 million. Further a lot of people who work here still value Mexico. They just need jobs. They might not like the corruption and lack of opportunity in Mexico but that doesn’t mean they suddenly want Mexico to become the United States. No offense but it’s kind of hard to take you seriously when you make these sorts of comments.
Once again, this was a hypothetical question. It’s obvious that the bulk of Mexicans living in the United States (10% of the Mexican population lives here) have a great pride in their heritage. I must not be making my point clear because nobody seems to be getting it.
Re-reading my statements, Clark, I don’t see any as frivolous or not well thought out. I’m not sure what you mean by having a hard time taking me serious when I make “these sort of comments.”
Dan- I’ll answer your question with an example. I used to love riding the train through the Ukraine, because you’d pass by all these little towns that had never seen anything Western. They were rich with culture and history. Today, a great number of these little towns outlining the larger cities have been almost completely Westernized. Streets that were once open markets now look like Main Street USA. McDonalds, Dunkin’ Donuts, and all kinds of European business now line them. If you were to walk down one of those streets today, you’d get nowhere near the experience you would have when I lived there. Today you can go to Ukraine without actually going there. Westernization has done a lot of damage to local culture in these places.
Some of these places are no longer “Ukrainian” towns. They are bland, empty westernized developments- little extensions of Euroamerica.
Tossman,
If we assimilate any part of “Mexican culture,” it will be because we like it and for no other reason.
I don’t know about that, Seth. Language is a huge part of culture. I’ don’t know if my kids will want to learn Spanish, but it’s looking like (if they want to work in Salt Lake City), they will have to. A few years ago my employer initiated a program that offers incentives to learn Spanish, which inherantly punished those employees that wouldn’t (or couldn’t) learn the language. Why? Because our Salt Lake based business now has more Spanish-only speaking customers than bilinguals and English speakers.
In order to advance in my job, I had to learn Spanish. In order to stay afloat, our business had to make that assimilation.
This is part of what I mean by a huge influx one homogenous culture effectively replacing the culture before it, as demonstrated in my Ukrainian example. Why am I wrong to lament this? Of course, it seems like most of you are totally ok with it, and I’m talking to a brick wall.
Love the scare quotes around “Mexican Culture” by the way. I’m discovering that you ‘naccle folk are great with the scare quotes.
Tossman,
Being from Romania, I am pretty familiar with small villages like the ones you describe in the Ukraine. While I’ve not been to the Ukraine, I’ve been to other parts of eastern Europe and have found most villages to have very similar designs in their houses. Just what makes the village Ukrainian instead of Christian-oriented with a church in the middle of town, taken, or perhaps forced upon by, the Roman Catholic Church—or in Eastern Europe, by the Greek and Russian Orthodox Church?
There are so many ways that Eastern European cultures have mixed with those of the West, yet still retain their differences that it amazes me. Same with the West and the influx of eastern Europeans.
Are you suggesting though that the Ukraine not develop large buildings and architecture that allows for more business? Small villages in the middle of nowhere are and forever will be on a road to nowhere because they don’t develop, they don’t change.
Basically, cultures that cannot adapt to change end up being lost to history. The strength and power of American culture is in its ability to adapt, to borrow, to expand other cultures that come into contact with its own. It is truly magical. America has also shoved other cultures down the drain of history, most notably Native American culture. It’s too bad. There were some real good qualities to North American cultures, but whites had a hard time associating with, or even putting them on the same level as, Native Americans.
Tossman,
Then you best learn Spanish and move on.
Here’s what troubles me. The arrival and complete domination of computers on our nation has utterly changed our American culture, so drastically from what it was just 50 years ago, yet no one laments those days gone by, except the very old. Yet, we’re so troubled about learning a new language that we would rather forcibly remove them from our presence. I don’t get it. Why are we so quick to accept such a change as computers (with the requirement that we learn something different than what we did before—I certainly need to learn computer programming—that’s where the money is), yet so wary of accepting a different language?
Dan- I don’t disagree. I’m not saying those villages should be frozen in time. I’m saying I lament that westernization has diluted the culture. I realize this is natural. And I agree with your assertion that the ability to adapt has made America strong.
But you’re talking small-scale mixing/assimilation/grafting/borrowing. Your example of Native American culture fits more with my view of what will happen to American subcultures with the large-scale influx of Mexican culture. I think you would agree that an ideal society is a diverse one. But what happens to diversity when entire locales are swallowed up by one very high-context culture?
It’s like making a pot of soup, but taking one ingredient and increasing it’s proportion a few hundred percent. Doesn’t make for a very palatable soup, does it?
An ideal immigration policy is one that equalizes opportunity while prventing demographic overkill.
Dan, I’m going to bet you don’t live in a state or city that’s affected much by illegal immigration. I think if you did, you wouldn’t have such a tough time understanding my point of view.
And I’m sorry, but a computer language doesn’t carry the cultural weight that a spoken language does. You’re comparing manzanas to naranjas.
Wait, Tossman, are you comparing current America with the Native Americans of old? Are you suggesting that Mexicans are going to so strongly overcome American culture as to nearly completely wipe it out? Dude, you give Mexican culture way too much credit, and insult your own culture quite strongly.
Frankly, if American culture cannot withstand the influx of a culture such as that of Mexico, what is it doing as the world’s strongest culture today?
Um, I live in Pennsylvania, close to Hazleton. I’m sure you’re familiar with what happened in Hazleton recently. I used to live in New York City—no white-boy country town, that’s fo sho! I grew up in the Bay Area in California. My high school queen was Mexican, and high school king was black. Yo! Yeah, what do I know about immigration and diversity.
Actually it probably has a more powerful effect on our culture than the influx of another strong culture like that of Mexico.
Dang- my html sucks. I meant for only Dan’s comment to be block-quoted, not my response. I guess my assimilation into that computer language isn’t quite complete.
Hmmm….Mexico has 100 million. The United States has 300 million. Demographically, which one wins? The United States has a 3 to 1 advantage over Mexico. Sorry, it won’t come by democraphic force.
moreover, only about 10-15 million Mexicans make any kind of trip over the border into America. So in reality the number is, say 15 to 300. Who wins that fight? America.
You really don’t think very highly about your own culture, that you feel threatened by such a small influx of another group. It’s alright, America moved in the right direction on November 7.
I’m glad you’re so familiar with my culture, Dan. Compare Mexican immigration numbers to those of any other nationality. Comparitively, it ain’t that small an influx. The majority of these immigrants are illegal. If this argument ever becomes worthwhile, I’ll post some stats.
And you’re not factoring birth rate into your equation, either.
nah, it’s really not worthwile to continue this any further. you’ll still feel threatened by Mexican culture. such is life. ciao.
Nice cop out, Danny boy.
Dan, Tossman,
Reality check. In all honesty, how much do you really disagree with each other and what is the disagreement about?
Cause it seems like we’re wandering off into petty minutiae here and I’m just not sure we really disagree with each other as much as we think we do on the central issue. At least, I’m getting that sense.
And yes Tossman, I do like “scare quotes.” You got a “problem” with that?
“scare” quotes “are” often “overused” by “people” who have “no idea” what “they” are “really” talking “about.”
😉
Seth,
I think the disagreement is over the issue of whether or not our American culture is at “risk” of being wiped out, eaten up and spit out in the desert, by the few million Mexicans who cross over every now and then. I don’t see my American culture at risk; Tossman does. I see my culture as stronger than Tossman sees it. He thinks any addition of Mexican culture “taints” American culture, like a disease, and destroys it.
Is that a fair description, Mr. Tossman? 🙂
Not so fast, Dan. I do not think for a second that the addition of Mexican culture taints American culture. Do not put words in my mouth. Your last statement is a lie, Dan, and you know it.
One of the reasons I could never vote Democrat to save my life is that every Dem I’ve ever met is a hypersensitive reactionary. Anybody that dares buck the PC trend or disagree with the established liberal social position is automatically labeled racist or bigoted. Don’t agree with gay marriage? Homophobe. Don’t like 10,000 plus illegal aliens entering our country every day, with between 287,000 and 363,000 anchor babies born to illegals each year? Nativist pig. Worried about the cultural implications of illegal immigration? Racist. Think America is a good country? Naive fool. Military action is an option to defend the country? Warmonger.
I think American culture is at “risk” of being watered down to the point of blandness, lack of diversity, and character. My dad came to a great country, where he was, and continues to be a minority, yet he is intrinsically American. I refuse to feel guilty about worrying about my culture.