An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Does Illegal Immigration Threaten Our Culture?
Some say yes and some say no. Me, I’m in the “no” category.
Here’s an additional perspective…
Assimilation into the American culture has never been a one-way street. Some native traditions are discarded when immigrant groups become Americans, but some traditions are adopted into the cultural fabric of America and define the cultures of our many regions. Whether it’s the Scandinavian influences in our northern plains, the Jewish influences on the East Coast, the Chinese influences in San Francisco, the Germans in Pennsylvania, the Cubans in Florida or the Irish and Africans in Tennessee, local culture is heavily laced with the traditions, cuisines and cultural identifiers of the immigrants who settled there.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
16 Responses to “Does Illegal Immigration Threaten Our Culture?”
Yeah we keep forgetting that cuisines like Pizza, spaghetti, corn beef and cabbage and other foods are the byproducts of the assimilation that xenophobes from 100 years ago were fighting against. That says nothing for a lot of our cultural growth. However, that is a different conversation than if we should allow carte blanche to people who choose to come here outside the established system. I’m all for liberal immigration policies since neither side of my family would be here if they didn’t have it at the turn of the last century. I am not for having an open border or providing amnesty for people who have gotten here illegally in the first place.
As with Mr. Moderate, I don’t view this as a matter of protecting our culture seeing as our culture is made up of a mix of cultures from around the world. What I am concerned about is allowing these people who are breaking the law to not just get away with it but actually stay here while people who are following the law still have to wait to get into the country.
I’m all for a much more liberal immigration policy than what we have today. I’m not for treating the people who came here illegally better than those who have been following our laws, which is what these “guest worker” programs would do.
Mmm…bagels.
Since I advocate changing unjust laws, and I think our current immigration policy is unjust, I have no real objection to amnesty and citizenship for illegals. The opposing “law is law, even when it’s bad law” argument just rings hollow to me, like saying “I support the outcome of Lawrence v. Texas, but still think anyone who had homosexual sex before then should be locked up.”
Also, if these protests are telling us anything, its that the legal immigrants don’t seem to be all that upset with the prospect that their illegal brethren might get better treatment. Much the reverse actually. So perhaps we should let them speak for themselve, no?
Do you believe the protesters are speaking for the majority of legal immigrants? Heck, as I was reading articles about the latest round of protests, only one interviewed protester was not an illegal immigrant.
I have spoken personally with legal immigrants, including my wife and her family. They consider it a slap in the face that, in the case of my wife’s family, after waiting for a decade and a half to come to this country legally, they now find out that people they know who came here illegally and are in a better financial position now because of that might soon be able to also get their citizenship. They feel that they are being punished for following the law while the people they know are being rewarded for breaking the law.
How is she being “punished”? Nothing bad is happening to her. Other people are getting a benefit without going through the hoops she had to go through (and recall I wish to dismantle those hoops too), but that isn’t a “punishment” under any normal definition of the term.
And again, whenever I read these articles, I’m struck by just how many of the protestors are either citizens are legal residents. Undoubtedly, there are fissures in the community (like there are in all communities). But I think its facile to act as if expelling all illegals is being done due to pressure from the legal immigrant community. Every political analysis I’ve ever seen concludes the opposite, that legal immigrants turn and run from parties which advocate anti-illegal immigrant measures (remember the California GOP, you might say).
Try telling anyone from her family that nothing bad happened during the 15+ years in a refugee camp. They were being punished by being forced to live in conditions very few, if any, Americans can even imagine while those who broke the law simply came here, started their lives, and now shortly could be on equal legal ground as them, better financial ground because they had more time to establish their lives.
The fact as I have seen it after talking to legal immigrants is that they are very starkly against anti-immigration measures but they are very much in favor of punishing illegal immigrants while making legal immigration easier. Why is this so hard to understand? Why is punishing illegal immigrants while making legal immigration easier a bad thing? Why is it bad to punish those who broke our laws while making it easier to follow the law in the future? I have yet to see an answer to this simple question.
I think the simple answer is “because the law they broke was an unjust law.”
The issue is far more complex. See, The Gay Species, April 9, “Immigration,” for reasons policies must change.
So those who decide for themselves that a law is unjust and decide to break it should be given favoritism over those who follow the law? Giving credence to that idea opens us up to anarchy. How many laws exist that one group or another feels is unjust? Should we allow all these people to break all these laws because they think the law is unjust?
No…but if we agree that the law is unjust too (and we both do–we both have stated that the current immigration regime is unjust), then I think that if NOBODY (or more accurately, most people) thinks the law is just, enforcement for enforcement sake is idiotic. The objective of my advocacy is to show that these laws are really really bad. The logical extension of that is that they shouldn’t be enforced.
This is kind of the essence of civil disobedience. You break the law, and while you’re willing to accept the punishment, the objective is to convince the dominant party that the law is unjust and should be changed (and by extension, you shouldn’t be punished either). Illegal immigrants don’t have a right (in terms of a legal claim) to be here, but they have the right to argue that we should allow them to be here. And I think it is perfectly within our power as a governmental body to say “yeah, you’re right,” and decline legal action against them.
Why is everyone attacking or addressing the illegal/legal immigrants. Don’t buissnesses create a market for cheap labor by illegal immigrants. If their is to be any punutive actions let immigrants and exploitive buissness share in the penalties. Why all the coverage of Hispanics, I know that in the Northern states some illegals are from the Orient, yet none of this is mentioned in media coverage.
David, I just find it completely unjust that we allow people who broke our laws, which may not be great but should not be compared to segregation laws as I often see (“Would you have advocated throwing Rosa Parks in jail?”) to get rewarded while those who follow our laws are being punished by having to wait sometimes decades or generations to make it to this country. It sets a dangerous precedent.
Rudi, I think the reason that discussion doesn’t often go in the direction of punishing employers is because most people agree on that issue. Establish some very strict laws against those who hire illegal immigrants and enforce them with no exceptions. Discussion of something that is widely agreed upon tends to fade quickly, as we continue on to discuss issues where we need to reach some kind of compromise. There’s not much debate about what to do about the employers, the country is much more divided on what to do about the illegal immigrants themselves.
Ryan, I think you are (perhaps unintentionally) misrepresenting the position of those who advocate a “path to citizenship” for illegals. The fact is that every single proprosal being debated in Congress to offer this “path” includes a provision for very hefty fines as punishment for the law that was broken. You seem to believe that people are proposing that illegals be let off scott-free, but no one has proposed such a thing.
Consider: Suppose for a moment that I failed to file my income taxes this year. At some future date the IRS might discover this. At that point what would they do? Well, since I broke the law they would collect a hefty fine from me, and then all would be forgiven. To me, this seems like a very reasonable punishment, and one that applies equally well to the case of illegals.
So… No one is suggesting that illegals get off scott-free. Rather, all of the proposals include a punishment. This is important to keep in mind.
Laurence, the “hefty” fines I have seen mentioned amount to less than many people pay in legal fees to get the paperwork done to enter the country legally. Also, these “hefty” fines amount to less than they make while being here especially when combined with services such as free education, as opposed to some people who have nothing and make nothing at their homes while waiting to enter legally (not suggesting the fines should equate to every dollar they made while here but maybe more than fines are needed). They are still getting off better than people who try to enter legally, both financially and in terms of getting to stay here while those who have been trying to enter legally have to continue waiting to get here.
Ryan,
Let’s agree to disagree on the amount of the fines. I think they are sufficient given the offense, while you think they should be larger.
But let’s not pretend that the debate is between those who would let illegals off scott-free, and those who would not. The debate is between those who think the proposed fines are sufficient, and those who think a more severe penalty (such as jail-time) is appropriate. Right?
Laurence,
As far as I am concerned, it is between those who want to treat those who break our laws better than those who follow our laws and those who don’t. I know it’s a very complex issue and I won’t even pretend to know the complete answer but, to me, it all boils down to one point. Those who broke our laws, even after the proposed fines, will be better off than those who follow our laws. In my mind, that makes the proposed solution the wrong solution.
Several people have said they disagree with me but nobody has given me a convincing argument on how this is not the case. Until I’m given that argument, I’m left asking why we should treat the lawbreakers better than those who are trying to come here legally.