AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

We Need Immigration Laws that are Strict and Enforced

Absolutely great comment regarding immigration reform (with which I agree completely) left in response to this post at AoSHQ: The Old “Nation of Immigrants” Trick, Eh?

Yes we need immigration reform, but NOT what has been rolled out the last half dozen times. Every bill that has come out since the first major rewrite in 1965 has basically been amnesty and open invitation for illegals to flood across the border.

We are no longer the country of the 19th century with vast open areas in the West. Our cities are overcrowded shit holes run by corrupt communist hacks AND there is no longer a vast area open for the inhabitants to flee to and take up farming.

This is not to mention that we have entire towns in CA with a population > 20,000 in which none of the citizens speak English. The current crew of “immigrants” do not appear to desire to assimilate and the current crowd of liberals do not think they should. The schools have gone from teaching America as a mixing pot to America as a salad bowl where “diversity” is celebrated and heritage counts for all, unless you have a European heritage then you are a racist.

Yes, there are a lot of things that need to be done to “fix” our immigration laws. The first one of these should be to repeal that POS of Amnesty Round I that got us where we are today.

We need immigration law that does the following AND that is enforced:

1. Eliminate the BS anchor baby interpretation by providing a definition of what the term “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means, which is not dashing across the border to deliver a baby. Personally, I would require that at least one of the parents of any child born in the U.S. be a citizen before that child was eligible for “birthright” citizenship. If not, then the child would have to undergo naturalization.

2. Provide a reliable means for employers to check the status of employees.

3. Provide severe punishments for knowingly hiring illegals (or reckless disregard). That punishment should include jail time for repeat violations.

4. Eliminate ALL benefits for illegals including schools for children.

5. Rewrite legal immigration to allow in immigrants with a desirable education and/or skill set and arrange the waiting list to have the most skilled/educated at the top of the list. (Australian system) Also include a check for communicable diseases (as we did in the past) and provide for immunization. Immigrants from countries on the list of terror support need not apply.

6. For groups that already have large populations in the U.S. who have not assimilated, reduce the allowable numbers until they do (eliminate whole towns that do not speak English)

7. Provide severe penalties for mules.

8. Provide the death penalty for people involved in sex slavery.

9. Eliminate all forms of asylum. That system has been abused to the point of making it a joke. Any true case that needs to be let in should be a case by case special act passed by congress. Get them on record.

10. Immigrants who become involved in any serious crime prior to becoming a citizen should be deported back to their home country.

11. Absolutely no dual citizenship allowed.

Posted by: Vic at October 05, 2010 09:07 AM

Also, great points made by Geoff in the original post:

This is based on the old canard that because the nation was founded by immigrants and continued to welcome large influxes of immigrants through its first 130 years, we must continue to honor that same ethic today. So even though the Constitution is considered by these sorts of folk to be a “living document,” our immigration policy must never change.

Well, I’m here to tell you that times do change, and that in this case they changed a long, long time ago. In fact, the notion that we are a “Nation of Immigrants” was, until relatively recently, an antiquity. A few years ago I wrote a post where I plotted up the number of foreign-born residents over the past 100 years:

The plot below shows the number of foreign-born people residing in the US (click on the graph for a better view). This includes both legal and illegal residents. As you can see, the total number of foreign-born residents stayed fairly constant from 1910 to 1970, even as the population of the US doubled. The foreign-born percentage of the total population dropped to just under 5% by 1970.

Today we have a foreign-born population of about 15%, which I would guess is a little high for easy assimilation. But the point is, until Ted Kennedy pushed the Immigration Act through back in 1965, we were not at all a “Nation of Immigrants.” We were a nation of Americans, 95% of whom were born and raised right here.

Heh, great point in the comments:

Casanova compared the hostility toward Muslims to the hostility toward Catholics from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century. A wave of Catholic immigration unsettled the dominant Protestant establishment.

Funny, I must have missed the part in history class where those whacky Catholics attacked and killed thousands of innocent civilians during the mid 19th-20th centuries.

I must have also missed the part where American citizens were brought to the Vatican and beheaded when they refused to convert. Or the part where Catholics kept commandeering ships and taking those people hostage. Or the part where those darned Catholics kept gathering together in large groups, burning the American flag and chanting about how they wanted us all dead.

Yup, I must have missed all that, otherwise I would have to find Casanova’s entire comparisson to be way off base and quite frankly stupid.

Posted by: StuckOnStupid at October 05, 2010 09:22 AM

Yeah, I must have been asleep in History class the days they taught about Catholic immigrants chanting “Death to America!”, asking for honor killings and asking to build Churches and Cathedrals on the ashes of our war dead. “Off-base” and “stupid” comparison is an understatement.

Good follow-up by Geoff:

I dont have a problem with appealing to the concept of “nation of immigrants” but with some caveats… which were all mentioned here… willingness to assimilate politically and willingness to support oneself economically.

I’m not suggesting restricting legal immigration, though some updating of that policy could be considered. I’m just saying that we don’t need to feel obligated to continue acting as a “Nation of Immigrants” when that isn’t an appropriate descriptor for much of the 20th century. Our policies should be based on today’s needs and realities, not a reference to policies of the 18th and 19th centuries.

I can’t count the number of libs who have quoted the Statue of Liberty inscription at me to argue in favor of illegal immigration. But that’s just a poem, not a policy.

Posted by: geoff at October 05, 2010 09:40 AM

More:

That “give me your huddled masses” plaque is not our constitution, it was just put in the base of the statue by people that donated money. And as HeatherRadish says:

“…if you didn’t work when you immigrated here in 1890, you starved to death. If you didn’t pass your physical examination at Ellis Island (or Boston, where my ancestors came through), they sent you back to Europe.

It’s all so f-ing simple.”

Only the destructive left could come up with “diversity is our strength”. Now Obama has advanced that to “America has taken too much from the world, time to redistribute”. Barry would water down any “exceptionalism” to where we are “equal” with the failures of the world.

Instead of the advancing the rest of the world, Barry would “diversify” America down to the insanity of mundanity.

Posted by: bill at October 05, 2010 09:43 AM

Another good point regarding assimilation (or lack there of):

Yes, I am really tiring of the “Muslims are the new Catholics!” meme. As has been pointed out above, the analogy is historically bankrupt. More to the point, Muslims are immigrating to America in an era in which assimilation is actively discouraged by the left.

Here’s the difference: when the Catholics heaved up off the boat in the 19th Century, Catholic community leaders immediately began to integrate them into the wider community, via churches, schools, employment, voter registration, military service and social organizations (e.g., the Knights of Columbus).

By and large, the current crop of Muslim community leaders issues them a grievance card at the airport and works hard to instill a distrust of the authorities (e.g., CAIR trying to close off the Minnesota Somalis from speaking with the Feds). There ain’t no Muslim K of C, that’s for sure. Just the flying Imams and lawfare.

Posted by: Steve the Pirate at October 05, 2010 10:10 AM

Great, great comments:

Every nation is a nation of immigrants if you go back far enough. What makes a nation is not the fact of one time immigration, but the shared ideals, history, culture, and, over time, ethnicity of the people. America has had long stretches of low immigration, most notably from 1924-1965, and these periods have done a lot to allow earlier waves of immigrants to assimilate.

The current wave of immigration is troubling for several reasons:

First, unlike the past, we now have a generous social welfare apparatus, and immigrants tend to be poor and overuse these entitltments.

Two, immigrants today are deliberately skewed to the Third World, and these include Muslims. Earlier waves, even Catholics, were mostly white. In a few generations, they were indistinguishable from native born Americans. New groups are more insular and obviously of foreign heritage long after they arrived. Plus our public schools and national leaders do little to encourage assimilation, even going so far as to be indifferent to savage foreign customs like the Burqa or polygamy.

Three, our country has fewer jobs for low IQ people with the loss of its manufacturing sector, and many of these newer groups are lower education and lower IQ, and this is true for their kids as well. This is a formula for multi-generational poverty. Look at East LA.

Finally, the earlier wave is not as successful as sometimes it’s made out; consider the Wobblie Riots, Soviet spies of the 1940s (i.e., the Rosenbergs, David Greenglass), strong support for European style socialism among immigrants vis a vis FDR, and the rise of labor unions at the turn of the century.

Immigration is America’s false consciousness. It is not what we’re about either historically or as part of our founding documents and way of life. It is a small part of our national character and only seems dominant because of the dominance of immigration in the identity of America’s Northeast, which has disproportionate influence on our media and national conversations. In any case, immigration today is clearly out of control, leading to an unnecessary population boom, the erasure of native born Americans in large parts of the country (Miami, Arizona) and straining our national unity and limited government ideals. It is also deliberately erasing America’s founding stock and majority and replacing them deliberately and thereby marginalizing them, not least because of the multiplier effect of affirmative action. This is not right, and, more important, we were never asked by our elites in politics and business if this is what we want. We are a generous and welcoming people; but there is a world of difference of a few guests and a de facto colonization.

Posted by: Roach at October 05, 2010 10:10 AM

Short response:

It’s not that the immigrants changed, it’s that our expectations changed.

You came here, you were expected to assimilate. You don’t set out to change America, America changes you. That was the expectation, and immigrants didn’t question it.

Early in the 20th century, it was not shocking to hear the president proclaim that the main purpose of public education was to assimilate immigrants. Early in the 21st century, no politician could utter “assimilate” without chocking on the word – or being choked.

Immigrants will try to live up – or down – to our expectations. It’s only human nature. Newcomers, anywhere, will change as little as possible, as little as expected.

Everytime a liberal says the right has forgotten we are “a nation of immigrants,” that we’ve changed our attitude because the immigrants now have brown skin, just note that no, you changed. You changed the contract between America and immigrants. We’re not anti-immigrant, we’re anti-YOU.

Posted by: CJ at October 05, 2010 10:29 AM

Advertisements

October 5, 2010 , 12:30PM - Posted by | Illegal Immigration, Islam, Muslims

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: