I was gonna post this on this thread, but it seemed like it deserved a debate of its own. On that thread, lochdale said:
Local radio host the other day was talking about the same thing. He proposed a moratorium on all Hispanic immigration for at least a decade, in order to allow some breathing room for assimilation without constant reinforcements from the homelands. And since we still do need and want immigrants, we could make up the difference by allowing in more Asians, Africans, Europeans, etc.
What do you think? Any merit in this approach? Personally, I’m not too concerned about where the immigrants come from, but I am concerned about getting well-educated immigrants: report on TV the other day said that the vast majority of illegal immigrants we get are highly uneducated. Well, we have enough uneducated people here to do grunt work; we need more innovators and inventors to move the economy along in the long run. Having said that, assimilation is important, and the proposal above might be worth considering.
(Of course, it’s a complete pipe dream, as no politician would be willing to offend Hispanic voters by proposing such legislation, but still…)
This presumes that “reinforcements from the homelands” are a hindrance to assimilation of those already here. I don’t believe this is proven. It could well be that what some people perceive as a failure to assimilate were just an artifact precisely of the constant replenishment of the “newcomer” cohort – that is, that Hispanics ARE “assimilating” just OK, whatever that means, but by the time the first bunch are “assimilated”, there’s already another bunch of just as many just getting started.
In any case, the “assimilation” we should primarily look for is into America’s values, and those translate just fine into most languages…
In a way, we already have this, though the quota system is based on country of origin rather than on race or cultural identity. There is an annual quota for most categories of green cards, but in addition to the overall quota for each category, there is a limit of 7% of the green cards in each category that can be granted to natives of any single country. Details here:
“Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320.”
There is an analogous limitation for employment-based green cards.
You know, I agree with this. I think it should be done on a state-by-state basis, to preserve the states culture and allow new populations to assimilate.
For example, in California, an important culture is in danger. These people founded our cities, layed our roads, turned the wilderness into productive ranches and farms, built the foundations of commerce and set California’s history in motion. At one time their culture and langage was strong and the standard throughout the land. They had strong family values, truely believing in strong marriages and raising children well. We had unity of language, culture, religion and national character.
Then the newcomers starter pouring in. Unchecked. By the millions. Now, they are a minority, just a whisp of their former glory. There are whole towns where nobody speaks their language- and some suggest they shouldn’t speak it at all in public places like schools and hospitals. Newcomers have taken over their jobs and indeed, overran the very towns that they built. They find themselves having to band together in undesireable parts of the cities they built just to keep a bit of their culture alive. It’s sad how these unstoppable masses have turned the states culture into a mishmash that barely resembles what it once was.
People, of San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Jose, Sacramento and all around California. Let’s allow the newcomers to settle in. Let them get used to our ways. Let’s put a moratorium on Anglo immigration into California today.
Well, how beneficial do you think immigration was to the American Indian?
It’s really not a cultural issue but a numbers issue. It’s not a finite problem but an infinite one. That is, the numbers are so vast that it really is a significant issue.
I believe that Mexican immigrants would assimilate better (and would do better economically if their wages weren’t being undercut by their newly admitted brethern) if there were a moratorium on Mexican immigration to allow the current immigrants to actually assimilate. As it stands now, Mexican ghettos (and I use that in the Shakesperean sense) are being constantly reinforced by new immigrants. In essence, they are transplanting Mexico north. There is really no need or drive for them to assimilate. That may be a good thing in small doses (China town, Irish areas etc.) but when it starts to become near or at majority status then there are bound to be problems. By limiting the number of immigrants entering the country you can maintain current wage structure (how about enforcing minimum wage) and, by necessity, force immigrants to assimilate into the country as a whole.
Glib criticisms of Anglo-culture doesn’t get us anywhere as it is in all of our best interest to ensure a smooth transition for new immigrants. A moratorium on new immigrants would benefit all concerned.
As an FYI, when the first missionaries from Spain arrived in California in the 16th and 17th century it’s estimated that there were less than 10,000 people in the entire state of what is now California.
As I noted above, mass immigration was good for the American Indian how exactly?