We love our forefathers, but maybe we think a little too much of them
Jeremy Aldrich -- June 1st, 2007
One of the most annoying myths spouted by anti-immigration forces is that this current wave of immigrants is somehow radically different from previous waves of immigrants. Since the DNR’s editorial page is still brimming with letters about immigration, and since our leaders in DC are preparing for a vote on a major immigration overhaul (which I tend to support, because it is a true compromise and probably the best chance we’ll have for a long time for true, comprehensive, balanced immigration reform), I thought this might be a good time to look at some of the myths about current immigrants.
Myth: “My ancestors came here legally, while these guys flaunt the nation’s laws”
This myth is technically true, but some critical information is missing. Laws were incredibly lax for most groups of immigrants in American history. In fact, until 1921 immigration was almost totally unrestricted except for “lunatics” and contagious disease carriers. That’s what they were checking for on Ellis Island, not proper visas! Even up until 1965, there was no immigration quota for people from Mexico. Naturalization had different laws, and their evolution is mostly based on the changing ideas about race in America. But the key point is that for most of us, our ancestors had nowhere near the kind of restrictive quotas and laws that modern immigrants do. Certainly not my first American ancestor, who arrived in 1632!
Myth: “My ancestors learned English and assimilated quickly”
There was a higher percentage of immigrants who didn’t speak English in the 1890 census than in the 2000 census. Previous groups of immigrants usually followed a pattern in which the first generation in the country spoke only their native language, the second generation was bilingual, and the third generation was almost totally monolingual in English. Similar patterns hold today.
Many people don’t realize that large numbers of previous European immigrants returned home and never became “American.” Estimates suggest that a third of historical immigrants returned home. This is to say nothing of the enclaves that developed in every major city with names like “Little Italy” and “Chinatown”.
And the myth of assimilation in education is just crazy. Previous generations of immigrants, and of native-born Americans, simply did not finish high school in large numbers. There were a few exceptions, particularly Jews and Chinese immigrants, but for the most part the notion of compulsory schooling is a recent one and it’s unfair to compare modern immigrants to previous groups of immigrants in the realm of education.
Myth: “Modern immigrants are criminals, while our forefathers just came for a better life”
A new study finds that incarceration rates among foreign-born residents is considerably lower than among native-born Americans. We’ll learn more about this issue as it relates to Virginia specifically when a task force releases its report about immigrants and crime in our commonwealth.
The best way to deal with this kind of myth, though, is to get to know some modern immigrants. What drives them to be here? What circumstances led them to leave what was familiar and take their families to a new place?
We are a nation of laws, it’s true. And we need laws that reflect our beliefs about fairness, about opportunity, and about humanity. I loved Katy Pitcock’s letter to the editor today.
I do reject the term “illegal immigrants” because a person cannot be illegal, just their actions. We don’t talk about illegal shooters, illegal drivers, or illegal computer users, do we?
One thing about this debate that’s hard for me to follow is the assumption that there are a bunch of liberals out there who “support illegal immigration.” This is also patently false. Find me one liberal/progressive, or one undocumented immigrant who is “in support of” people illegally crossing the border. They are not in favor of immigration being illegal. They want reform just as much as the Minutemen, just not the same kind of reform. In fact, perhaps the only ones in the US who want the laws to stay just the way they are, are big businesses that employ “unskilled laborors,” and want the flow of exploitable, expendable workers to continue.
Not surprisingly, our Congressman will not be voting for the amnesty bill.
Gxeremio
You have blessed this blog with the most coherent, rational and sensible argument on immigration reform that I have ever read. I don’t focus on the subject much because I am disconnected from it in my everyday life but I have recently focused on it because of the following.
I believe that politicians, media and government in general are focusing on issues like immigration to distract and divide us. I hope that “their” efforts do not succeed.
Awesome post Gxeremio and I agree with Finnegan’s comment as well. Most people want a solution, we just see different ways of getting there.
We are a nation of laws! We must enforce the law! Just today I witnessed hundreds of people openly and blatantly breaking the law driving well over the clearly posted speed limit on I-81 and I-64! Something must be done or our children, oh the children . . . (weeping here)
OK, it seems to me that we have several options when it comes to fixing the speeding crisis that threatens to kill thousands of people this year, waste millions of gallons of gas, and did I mention that we are a nation of laws? The children . . . (more weeping)
Option number 1: We could solve the speeding crisis by reposting the speed limit on I-81 to 80 miles per hour. This would bring the law into conformity with the economic reality that our cars are built for 80, our highways are built for 90, and the current 65 is not being enforced. This proposal would decriminalize many illegals whose only crime is wanting to get to where they are going as fast as they can. This proposal highlights the circular fact that these illegals are illegal only because we have passed (but do not enforce) an unrealistic regulatory law that is the very thing that makes them illegal drivers.
Option number 2: We could ignore the whole situation, deny that we have a speeding crisis on our hands, and admit that the “we are a nation of laws” b*** s*** is a political tool we apply only to laws we want it to apply to.
Option number 3: We could say that we are really really serious about the importance of the 65 mile per hour speed limit and hire thousands of troopers to patrol the interstates and ticket everyone at 66 and over. Everyone. This evil must be stopped!
Option number 4: We could try to rethink the entire speed limit concept. Are we really concerned about rates of speed or are we more concerned about something else? What is that something else? Can we regulate that something else more effectively without reference to rates of speed? Can you imagine the political will it would take to move from a speed limit based system to something else?
There are probably several other options here as well, but the Bushmills 10 year single malt, well, the children, oh the children . . . THE SPEEDING MUST BE STOPPED, FOLKS, WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS!!!!!!!
Cook, I am extremely saddened by your post. I am extremely disappointed in my friend . . . how could you run out of the Bushmills 16 year and be reduced to the 10 year? How far the mighty have fallen!
does mrs. reaganite have filet mignon on the table every night?
Reaganite and Cook,
Quite frankly I am more than disappointed and dismayed with your line of discussion on what is indeed a very important issue.
Serious and contemplative thinking is best accomplished through southern grace and the purity of Kentucky. I quite agree with Benjamin Franklin that the only true consideration of a bird to represent our unique and forward looking spirit and soul should be the Wild Turkey. Anything less, is quite simply less. I would gladly sit down with you two fine gentlemen to help cultivate within yourselves the true appreciation of thinking which can only flow from the beautiful blue hills of Kentucky.
I remain good Sirs, humbly at your service.
Lowell, it is true that one should never forget all of our friends in Kentucky, to include the noble turkey and in particular the Rare Breed of that bird. Please feel free to stop by any afternoon after 4:00 (ish) and Cook and I will join you on a float down Knob Creek to a place where Booker noes (that is on purpose Dave!) a Baker named Basil Hayden. On another day we can all visit the isle of Islay and visit my wee plot outside the bay of Laphroaig. Remember to bring your wellies and headgear for the geese!
How quickly we digress – it really was a great post on a very important and timely topic, GX. Perhaps, though, it covered a little too much territory for the simpler ones to keep up.
And I invite the three of you to join me at Calhouns where the Maker’s work does not go unnoticed and the Plowman’s till, to avoid would take a great deal of will.
Good post, GX, but it raises issues that worry me.
Great-great grandmother never learned English: Check.
My forebears came from a poor rural country: Check.
Sent money home to old country: Check.
Stayed out of trouble for fear of deportation: Check.
Worked menial agricultural jobs: Check.
Catholic: Check.
Looks as if, statistically, I’m a Mexican “illegal.” Please don’t tell the MinuteMaids.
I personally love how people don’t see this as blatant racism. “These” people are coming here, stealing my job at Rocco and for God’s sake, they’re brown. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
lol, I hope no one who wants to stop”illegal immigration” reads that. I know it will offend them but still. How else do you rationally explain it. We have resources, we have a great economy (well, we did until 2000 GWanomics took affect), we have jobs and land and food. All of that and we don’t want to share. Kindergarten for America. Share dammit.