What role does racism play in the American anti-immigration movement?

Great Debates
21

Well, in theory anything is possible, but in practice, I’d say I’ve never seen anti-immigrant movements operate at any state or national scale without an undercurrent of fascism. Economically, they reflect a base fear of competition, and socially, they’re predicated on the myth of some sort of singular “American Culture”.

I can see (and I myself sympathize with) being anti-illegal immigration. I also support the idea of regulating trade with nations that have such poor labor standards that they force ethical capitalists* to compete with what are essentially slave laborers. But within the American job market, new immigrants often simply do more for less than those who came before them, without such unfairness or abuses. It ought to be a well-established fact that it’s the perfect antidote to stagnation, but when the fat-and-happy feel the pinch, they’d rather see stagnation than competition. So these fascist movements spring up, same as everywhere and -when such things have happened. What has probably saved the US from recent attrocity is that the natives were essentially wiped out long ago, so there’s no one left in power who can tenably lay claim to the xenophobic nationalism that flourished in Europe, and carry that claim to its most disastrous consequences. I’d say a constant influx of immigrants is a great antidote to fascist movements, simply by diluting them.

*It needn’t be an oxymoron.

22

I guess I missed the part where “flattening Iraq” kept gas under $2/gallon.
I just paid $2.30/gal filling up this morning - thank God I don’t need premium!

23

That evaporated into the same fantasy world as the cities full of cheering Iraqis throwing roses at our soldiers’ feet.

24

Well, of course it is. And if you look at who’s opposing immigration these days, I’ll just bet it’s mostly the descendants of white European immigrants. As I said in my original post, "They grew up playing by a different set of rules, they succeeded under those rules, and they expect – demand – that the next group play by the same rules."

I’m not saying there weren’t elements of racism in earlier immigration law. There were elements of every kind of bigotry and xenophobia imaginable. But the OP wasn’t asking about those eras. And I did say that there are racists who use the anti-immigration movement for their own ends. I also said that to someone who is experiencing that kind of bigotry, it’s a distinction without a difference.

But I’m sticking to my original argument that it’s more about “culture” than race.

25

How can we know? That’s the arguement. Is it race or culture that is really behind the immigration issue. Is it’s possible to be anti-immigration and not support radical seperatism?

I’m asking because I myself do not know. I’m sure psychological tests will prove nothing. The only way to know is to take everything we know and draw conclusions from it. And we have to understand past immigration policies to make sense of where we are today; those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

How can we know the intent of Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan, and others? How can we know the intent of members of communities that are having a large influx of documented immigrants? Would there be such an outcry if the immigrants were not predominately from Mexico but from Russia?

This article shows that the issue of immigration is not limited to America. Notice that one quarter of Europeans admited to being a racist. This article is just another standard reports off the wire; Europeans are decling, immigrants threaten jobs. Oh, but look at the comment left at the bottom. Yes, that’s the what you’ll hear from most of the people at your local pub or diner. You know, it’s what is said off the record.

Can they be seperated? Fear of economic competition, maybe. But what about those menial jobs Mexican immigrants take that no American will even think of doing. Lets say it about culture. Well, East Indians speak English and other second-generation immigrants are learning English. What else besides speaking English would mean assimilation? There was a fallacy between comparing the image of the Ellis island immigrants with the today’s immigration.

Here is how immigration and assimilation ought to work. America is an intererting experiement; you take from all over the world and put them in the United States and they become American. But if it’s about culture, when will they accept people with brown skin or different shaped eyes as American. It all comes down to the individual versus the collective. To say that it’s about religion. That’s just BS. “Most of them were raised as Catholics, and the fathers left this to the mothers and encouraged it. The fathers had neither the time nor the training to teach their children about, Islam, or Hinduism.” How do you think Mexicans became Catholic in the first place? How did Hindus become Sikhs. Culture can change.

It’s not just about groups. It’s about who you sit down with at the dinner table. Yes, we talk about our countries, our religions, our cultures, but when it really comes down to it its all about family. America is one family. At least that the dream, and our hope.

26

Historically, immigration to America has been been a study in peaks and valleys. That is, immigration has increased and decreased in waves. This allowed new immigrants the opportunity to generationally assimilate into American society.

This is not happening with the current wave of immigrants. Firstly, the sheer numbers are greater than at any time in US history. Secondly, given technological developments and the current notion that all cultures are essentially equal, there has been no real pressure for immigrants to learn English and assimilate into the host country. Indeed, even those who do assimilate (e.g. Cubab-Americans) are quickly replaced by newer immigrants at a faster rate then ever before. Whether or not this is a good thing is a subject for debate.

I personally believe that it is the hegiht of naiveity to assume that we’ll all just get along and that the current levels of immigration can continue unabated. Our human history suggests that, as a whole, we really don’t get along well with one another particularly when there are differences amongst us no matter how minor.

The dager with our current climate is that anyone who suggests that there may be too many immigrants coming to the US is instantly branded a “racist”. This marginalizes the debate and allows the radical elemet to fill the vacumn. Surely this isn’t a good thing?

Lastly, it seems fairly evident that new immigrants are displacing the black working class. They are working more hours and for less and appear to be taking jobs from African-Americans. Is this really a good thing?

The NY Times recently ran an article trumpeting the value of immigrant labour to social security. The article noted that immigrants pay into social security withou receiving any benefits and thus, are “saving” social security. What the article did not cover was the fact that any net benefits from these payments would be instantly wiped out if the immigrants ever actually availed of social security. Indeed, given the current deflation in wages due to immigration it is highly unlikely that the current group of immigrants will ever make enough to pay for their own costs much less “save” social security.

I would not be so blase about shift in demographics. Politics is a numbers game and if you lose the numbers then you tend to lose the power.

27

Correct me if I’m wrong, Lochdale, but aren’t you yourself an immigrant to America?

28

People love to say this, but it’s a gross oversimplification. There was a settlement (or conquest) phase of American history which overlapped into an immigration phase. During the settlement phase, cultural norms were established, such as the English language, the Christian religion, and representative government. Once this occurred, subsequent immigrants assimilated to these norms over a period of a couple of generations. You can always pick out minor exceptions to this pattern, but they simply prove the rule.

“We are a nation of immigrants” can mean a couple of different things - it can mean that immigration has been a continuous and important part of the development of American society. But more often the implication is that since most Americans are immigrants or descendants of immigrants, they have no right to impose any restrictions whatsoever on immigration, which is just silly. Besides, if you’re going to argue that today’s immigrants have the right to be treated like immigrants of the last great wave, that would mean shutting down illegal immigration and forcing assimilation of legal immigrants. That’s not what the “nation of immigrants” people usually have in mind.

29

I am indeed an immigrant to the United States. I am also a legal immigrant. I followed the rules and obeyed the law. I won a “diversity visa” and complied with all of the requirementst therein. Just because I am an immigrant that does not mean I cannot advocate for a reduction in the numbers entering this country. I recently became a citizen so I’d like to think I have a say :smiley:

30

Of course you have a say. But this attitude that others should not be allowed to do what you were allowed to do does make you look like a hypocrite.

31

You’re not comparing like with like. I followed the rules and obeyed the law when I entered the United States. I didn’t run across a border or make spurious claims for asylum. The lottery system allows for 50,000 visas a year which is a reasonable number for a country the size of the United States. Just because I am an immigrant it does not make me a hypocrite to want reasonable limits on immigration and the enforcement of law. Moreover, why not focus on my arguments rather than on me personally. My situation does not lessen the validity of my position and I think it’s meanspirited and small to suggest that it does.

32

I don’t see the hypocrisy. While I personally think the “diversity lottery” is a bad idea, Lochdale never said that it should be stopped.

33

Now you’re just changing your argument. Your initial post said nothing to indicate that your objections are limited to illegal immigration.

Yes, and let’s talk about that lottery system for a minute. It’s called the “Diversity Visa” and the intent of it is to increase the diversity of the United States by allowing in immigrants from under-represented countries. Your statement that “we really don’t get along well with one another particularly when there are differences amongst us” indicates that you have a problem with the idea of increasing diversity - and yet you had no problem using a scheme that does so to your own benefit. A bit like Clarence Thomas using affirmative action to advance his career, and then trying to outlaw it.

It does make you look like a hypocrite when you want limits but you don’t think they should apply to you (and yes, it does undermine your position). What makes you any better or more deserving of a green card than anyone else who wants to immigrate to America?

34

The reality is that large ethnic groups tend to clash with one another. 50,000 people though in a country of nearly three hundred million is hardly likely to cause much of a problem. Moreover, the fact that the program provides visa to a number of countries ensures that it won’t create ethnic “ghettos”.

The debate around immigration is typically focused on illegal immigration. I availed myself of a legal program. I followed the legal requirements of such a program and was awarded a green card. I didn’t foist myself or my extended family on another country. I didn’t illegally enter another country or make meritless claims for asylum. So because I immigrated legally to the US I now can never speak out against illegal immigration? Such myopia is hard to fathom.

Eh?

The limits did apply to me though. I was merely fortunate enough to win a lottery. It’s not like I was given preferential treatment. I am no more deserving of green card than anyone else who follows the law and who emmigrates legally to another country. I do believe I am more deserving though than someone who does illegally enters another country.

35

Here again is the article that shows that ethnic groups don’t always clash with one another. There were always ghettos; Polish, Italian, Chinese, and others. But some ethnic groups had a better time assimilating. Why? Was it religion? No! As the article explains: “Most of them were raised as Catholics, and the fathers left this to the mothers and encouraged it. The fathers had neither the time nor the training to teach their children about Islam, or Hinduism.”

Read this article and ask yourself why Mexicans embraced the Punjabi immigrants as their brothers, embraced them as lovers, and sat at the dinner table, for God’s sake, as one family. And Mexicans embraced the Punjabi immigrants also. There was hardly any culture clash.

Why would Punjabi and Lebanese immigrants have no problems assimilating with Mexicans but there are problems with Americans assimilating with Mexicans? Hint: there’s no language barrier either. They learned Spanish just as well as the Mexicans who learned Spanish from the conquistadors and there was mutual assimilation between all groups in colonial Mexico, and it’s still working in Mexico today.

Why it is that in America, German speaking immigrants are being assimilated while English speaking Indians are not?
No one has been answering these questions because they are too afraid of the truth. White America has been and still is largely racist and they will not accept non-white immigrants as Americans. White Americans for the most part are against assimilating completely (read: marrying) with non-white immigrants.

So lets debate this! If it’s culture, fine it’s culture! If is race, OK then it’s race!

What else besides language and religion are components of culture? If there is another component of culture which conflicts with the majority of Americans then me know. We must figure out if it race or culture, and explain why. Only then can solutions be found to the problems surrounding immigration.

Let it out if you are a white nationalist. While I don’t agree with your positions, I do understand your fears and want to have a civil discussion on the various points of debate.
The bottom line is this: these questions I posed need to be answered by everyone or we are going nowhere!

36

In a word, yes. I’m an example.

And it doesn’t matter to me if people I dislike hold the same opinion on this issue, it’s still my opinion.

I support controlled immigration, but I also support “immigration reductionism”, and I vehemently oppose any sort of amnesty for illegals, as well as driver licenses for illegals, public assistance for illegals, etc.

Race, culture, religion, et al don’t matter to me. I also oppose red-lining and think folks who oppose “inter-racial” marriage are fundamentally un-American. I am not in the English-only camp.

So yes, it’s possible to lobby for reduced immigration and harsh policies against illegals while not being racist.

37

Right. Just reduce the total number of immigrants allowed without regard to where. From the data I found it looks like the US is allowing around a million legal immigrants a year. I was surprised it is that high.

38

Actually, I believe assimilation is possible (as I noted in my earlier post) just as long as there are limits to the numbers entering the country. A “peaks and valleys” system of immigration will lend itself to generational assimilation. People will assimilate over time but it is made more difficult when there are constant numbers of their countrymen joining them. Such waves act as a disincentive to assimilation.

I do, however, take umbrage to your post. You have provided one, very discrete example of alleged harmony. You then jump to the conclusion that all whites are racists and it is their fault that we all can’t get along. Put another way, but for the evil white-man everyone else would get along just fine. That’s a simplistic and rather dangerous position to have.

Mexico itself has a long history of institutional racism. Mexican-Americans and African-Americans are not getting along at all. Violence between the two groups increases annually and there has been no real assimilation between the two groups. There have been a variety of ethnic clashes from California to Georgia to New York.

I’m certainly not a white nationalist, I’m not even an Irish nationalist. It’s a much more complex issue than you or you’re article would like to think it is.

Ask yourself this, how many are too many? How much cheap labour does any country really need? Does it matter that wages are being deflated by cheap labour? Does is matter that there is a brain-drain from third-world countries? It’s not as simply as blaming one group or in your case an entire race, it is a matter of getting it right though because there is too much at stake to ignore this issue.

39

I read the article you posted. Firstly, it’s a very partisan piece. Secondly, the nummbers immigrating where, relatively, de minimis which most certainly encourage assimilation. This is consistent with my earlier posts.

Further, it’s not just racial groups who will clash but ethnic groups of identical race. Numerous “white” ethnicities have clashed. It’s a numbers thing. That trumps any cultural argument that may be made. A peaks and valleys system will work, an open system will not work.

40

First, I’d like to thank you for your post because you were assertive with your arguments which I believe is necessary in moving any debate forward. This question is a difficult one to answer because it must be answered by basically saying either ‘Yes, here is the role that racism plays in the American anti-immigration movement and here’s proof’ or ‘No, there is no racism in American anti-immigration movement and here’s proof’.

Here is a crux of the argument. If immigration was scaled back, assimilation would be successful.

Yes, I showed this example to demonstrate that immigrants have changed religions and adopted languages, which refutes the arguments that “they’ll never learn English and they’ll never change their religion”. But as you pointed out, there was a small percentage of immigrants and that’s why there were few problems. There are so many facinating aspects about the story of the Punjabi immigrants and I think we can all learn from their experiences. Where did you get the data on the actual percentages of immigrants?

These are important points in of themselves. I hope that these and other examples can be put into the perspective of the immigration debate in America. I will go into this later.

So here is the question I’ve been framing. It’s a question that I posed previously but was not as specific:

What was different about past immigration and current immigration? Is there a larger percentage of immigrants today? Is there an disproportionate percentage of immigrants of one ethnicity and why is that a problem? What percentage of immigrants are living where, and why? Are the immigrants assimilating amongst themselves or not? Are they assimilating with whites or not? How can we improve assimilation?
Under what conditions (eg. scaled back immigration) would suffice to acertain that racism has no role in the anti-immigration movement?