How many "Emilio Ibáñez"s did we deport before this government finally got to him?
Also, how the fuck is it that the government so hell bent on eliminating people over staying their visas needed a political vendetta to find that one?
I have not read it also. But I have read similar articles, and by " there’s no amount of immigration that’s bad" they mean amounts of immigration that is actually occurring, not some scenario that is highly unlikely. Example- if we allowed all the Mexican farm laborers that want to work in the US and can find jobs- that would be a Good Thing. But if the entire population of Mexico decided to immigrate here- that would be Bad= and unrealistic. So, moist people are talking about realistic numbers of immigration, not numbers that have never occurred and likely never would.
So- "unlimited immigration from all poor countries: is not realistic.
Not everyone is willing to leave their community, their friends and family, the comfort of what they’re familiar with, in order to start completely fresh in an alien culture with a different language. And, where do you live? Housing isn’t free and you might have little money. It’s hard to emigrate.
Think about American regions that are poor, stuck with very high unemployment due to the decline of mining or manufacturing, poor healthcare, drug problems, low life expectancy, deaths from despair. It’s not like everyone from Appalachia is moving to NYC, and that kind of migration is completely legal, they already speak the language, etc.
I wondered if that was the case.
I also feel like maybe the Europeans have created themselves a self-reinforcing cycle - I can understand why people would be against immigration if immigrants are typically underemployed and don’t assimilate, especially in nations with robust safety nets, even if they (the natives) are the reason for those problems.
And while there are a lot of Americans who are anti-immigration, there are also a lot of people who are proud when we hear about people getting naturalized and getting citizenship. I mean it was a feeling of pride and happiness when a friend of my wife’s from Bangladesh got her citizenship. Sort of a feeling of how great it is that she’d want to come and deliberately be part of our country.
Birthright citizenship goes a long way to ensuring the children of immigrants have an opportunity to assimilate. And they generally do.
There are European countries where children of immigrants are considered semi-immigrants themselves; they are not ordinary citizens. Which perpetuates their second-class status in every way. And sends a very unsubtle message that your kind is grudgingly tolerated, but never welcomed. And never will be.
ISTM that in many parts of the world “assimilation” implies adopting a very specific culture. Traditional American tradition has a wider range of difference being accepted as long as there are also some elements overlapping with the common whole.
Oh, like we treat Black people?
I want to be clear that I’m not talking to any individual posting here, but talking about the country as a whole. Not just Black people, of course: it’s just that birthright citizenship doesn’t trump institutionalized racism.
Right. Few people are concerned if you’re part of your particular national/ethnic community, as long as you are also engaged in regular American life as well.
It’s more the idea that some people might immigrate here without any intent of assimilation or engagement that makes some feel like that’s somehow taking advantage without being part of it all.
Institutional racism is indeed a major ongoing issue in America, but as much of an issue as it is at this point in history the dominant culture does not consider Black Americans as not really American … if anything much of what is considered most American culturally is originated in Black American culture, from music to food to fashion to language evolution. Immigrant groups have also had some of their cultures become part of the greater whole more than in many other countries.
There have always been and always will be elements that object to the changes to what was American culture as new ingredients add different textures and flavors … but by a next generation or sooner what was new is become standard, again much more so than much of the rest of the world.
But engaged in regular American life is a phrase with no fixed meaning.
That’s true.
But lets say a U.S. president was elected pledged to follow the Democratic Socialists of America platform on immigration:
Most people in second/third world countries are familiar with how autocracy and hostility towards outgroups is commonplace, and would realize the strange policy of legalized migration without caps would be a short time deal. That’s why hundreds of millions who are poor by our standards (but not the poorest of the poor, as you have to be able to buy a ticket) would rush in fast, knowing this was a short-time deal, despite also knowing that the first few years would be hard.
Why do I say buy a ticket, rather than walk in over the Mexican border? Because I think the travel expenses of the walking route are at least as expensive. Plus, a lot of those who walk in from Mexico are at the end of a long trip that included train and air tickets. Focus on Mexico misses the dynamic.
I do not think a pure Democratic Socialists of America could win the U.S. presidency. Nationalism is too big a part of human nature for a principled anti-nationalism Democrat to win. I just think arguing in favor of it is a gift to the Trumpers.
P.S. What about the idea that, rather than a gift to the Trumpers, advocacy of unlimited immigration shifts the overton window on immigration to the left? Obviously, I think the opposite. But I do agree with trying to find messaging that supports a more humane policy.
I didn’t think this thread was about what was a winning issue in a presidential election. I thought it was about what was the right thing to do, ethically or economically or whatever. I was trying to respond to your post that there would be, essentially, an unlimited number of migrants if restrictions were lifted.
Anyway, I don’t remember the book well enough to defend its positions, I just remember that it made a ton of sense when I read it.
And?
In that way it is like many other concepts from “chair” to “red” to “fish” … let alone to social group contexts. The relevant point is the the circle around “regular [insert nationality here] life as a concept is broader in American society than in many other nations.
It results in definitions of engaged in regular American life that are, intentionally, not consistent between groups.
As an example, if you want to live a very not engaged in regular American life like the Hasidim or various Christian groups (that are definitely not limited to the Amish) you, currently, get a pass. But that same tolerance is not extended, to the same degree, to Muslims.
I said the opposite – during the short period of time that unlimited migration to the U.S., or any other first world country, the limiting factor would be the number of now-empty airline seats. I haven’t calculated the number, and it depends on the unknown amount of time until this foolish proposal brings back the Trumpers, but it isn’t in the billions.
First, not really related to the point being made. No one is claiming there is not discrimination.
Second though is that you underestimate the antipathy to the Haredi communities and to many of those insular Christian ones.
Third is that you are comparing sub populations who are insular and fairly recent to the country, to ones that most are here for several generations or more. The Haredi communities for example had their big influx in the ‘30s and ‘40s and have kids young, so lots of generations in the country.
Not compared to the antipathy to Muslim communities.
No one is calling for a ban on Jewish women wearing wigs or Christian women wearing hair coverings, but calls for bans on Muslim women wearing comparable hair coverings on the other hand.
No one notices eruvs, almost no one complains about church bells but hearing the Call to Prayer from a Muslim neighborhood on the other hand.
Exactly when are those communities going to be required to engage in regular American life like the recent ones are expected to?
Heck, even “assimilated” Jews get grief for not saying “Merry Christmas.”
Everyone that does not say “Merry Christmas” gets grief for not saying “Merry Christmas”.
The “War on Christmas” is about opposition to the separation of church and state and maintaining a performative Christian hegemony in American culture.
No one is singling out Jews, Muslims on the other hand…
I think it’s actually the flip side of something that I’ve mentioned in other threads, namely that there isn’t an “American” ethnic identity in the same way that someone can be Irish, French, German, Croatian, Walloon, etc.
That’s what I feel like is the big sticking point in Europe; a lot of the countries there are largely mono-ethnic states where something like 80% of the population are that same ethnicity. Even France, which does have a lot of immigration, is still 77% ethnically French. The UK is 77% ethnically British (English, Scottish, Welsh), or Irish. Greece is 91% Greeks, Italy is roughly 90% Italians.
Contrast that with the US, where we’re 65% white, and most of those people are several generations removed from their European roots, and are usually “mixed breeds” in dog parlance. I myself am descended from Germans, French (regular and Norman), English, Scottish/Irish (not sure which), and probably some other stuff in there somewhere.
So the concept of being “American” is pretty hazy by comparison to somewhere like Italy, where being Italian is very well defined beyond merely having citizenship and speaking the language. And I think it shows in the way some of us treat immigrants (well), and that lack of a firm identity shows in how some others choose to mistreat immigrants, because they’re trying to define that identity.