Why immigrants, as interested parties, should be disqualified from pronouncing on immigration policy

(See also the related entry, “National coalition of Jewish organizations demands end of immigration law enforcement.”)

Gintas writes:

Max Boot again. Loves the American military, despises the historic American people:

I only hope the Pentagon will widen and extend a draft program that allows the recruitment of immigrants who do not yet have Green Cards or citizenship. Immigrants have always been the strength of our country, and the armed forces should take full advantage of this great resource.

That’s right, the strength of our country is: immigrants. Any immigrant comes here, he becomes the strength of our country.

LA replies:

“Loves the American military, despises the historic American people.”

Sounds like Bush.

In fact, Boot is an immigrant, born of Jewish parents in Moscow in 1969. Which brings me to a new thought. I cannot treat it adequatly or cover all possible cases and exceptions in a brief comment. I”m trying to get at a basic principle here. People who are immigrants, or who are of an immigrant background that is more central to their identity than simply being an American, should be disqualified from taking positions on national immigration policy. I say this for the simple reason that it’s very difficult for a person whose immigrant background is a defining part of his being to have any view other than automatically and unthinkingly supporting more and more immigration. When such people advocate open borders, they are not acting as disinterested parties motivated by a rational concern for the national good. They are acting as interested parties, driven by an overwhelming and irresistible personal feeling that if they don’t support immigration for others, they will be undermining their own legitimacy in America. Indeed, people of immigrant background, particularly Jews, have repeatedly and openly described their own motivations for supporting open immigration in exactly these terms. For such persons, even to entertain a rational argument on why immigration should be restricted is beyond their capacity. When confronted with a strong argument on the issue, their brain shuts down. Even a rational and non-driven person who came to this country as an immigrant may understandably feel that, being an immigrant, he simply has no right to say that others should not be able to immigrate.

Therefore, just as judges recuse themselves from cases in which they have a personal interest which would prevent them from judging fairly, persons who are conspicuously compelled by their immigrant background to take pro-open borders positions should be recused from participating in the immigration debate. At the very least, their opinions on immigration should be recognized and labeled as being based not on an objective and patriotic concern for the national interest, but on a personal need to uphold open immigration at all costs, because they feel morally obligated to back the same policy that allowed them or their relatives to come here.

- end of initial entry -

James P. writes:

You wrote:

“People who are immigrants, or who are of an immigrant background that is more central to their identity than simply being an American, should be disqualified from taking positions on national immigration policy.”

I am an immigrant—from the UK by way of Australia—but I arrived here when I was 10 and became a U.S. citizen as soon as I could. I regard myself as American in all respects, and though being an immigrant is a fact of my identity, it is not a central one. Nobody would know this unless I told them, and when I am in Britain or Australia they think I am a “bloody Yank.” Not sure if this means I should be disqualified from having an opinion or not. :-)

I think that America needs to shut down the borders and take a breather on immigration for an indefinite period. I feel that I have every right to say this, regardless of being an immigrant myself, and couldn’t care less if liberals find it offensive or hypocritical. My opinion is based on consideration of cultural, social, economic, and political factors rather than generalization from my individual personal experience.

LA replies:

Thank you. Writing that entry was not easy, there are a lot of different sides to the issue, and it’s only a preliminary effort. But I think there’s a valid principle in there somewhere.

Ron L. writes:

Immigrants and natives are all interested parties. Sadly, natives, no less than immigrants may not see America’s heritage history and culture as their interest.

Before I suggested that no one is a true American until they can sing “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” without irony. I would like to expand upon this. I am not suggesting that one must literally renounce their ethnic or religious heritage, but they must be willing to say that being an American is their political heritage. They must be willing to join the American family, not as someone trying to add or change, but as someone who will be changed by becoming an American. I don’t care if the “citizen” is an immigrant children of immigrants or descendant of the Pilgrims, if he is not willing accept America’s historical heritage, then he is no American. Thanks to multiculturalism and the liberal assimilationist techniques of the 1920’s too few Americans can say this or see any reason to do so.

* * *

March 12

I asked Kidist Paulos Asrat, a Canadian originally from Ethiopia, what she thought of this entry, and she replied:

Firstly, I must comment on your thoughtful take on all these difficult issues, which you do without name-calling or demeaning references, whether it be women, Jews, blacks, Muslims or immigrants. I think this method is the only way to convince the “other side,” who will only respond to anger and aggression by retreating more into its shell. Also, many ordinary people don’t understand the issues, and need basic explanations with careful words to show them the errors.

Having said that, I agree with your post. I especially like this part:

“When confronted with a strong argument on the issue, their brain shuts down.”

Unfortunately, 99.9 percent of immigrants I have met behave in exactly this way. If I present the argument that say, in Ethiopia, any “foreigner” will immediately have to prove his worth, and not necessarily receive his citizenship, if he ever does, they don’t take this as a fair argument.

They think that America and Canada have a God-given obligation to help, and accept, all their “brethren” of the world. I don’t know where this charity mentality came from, except that I think they blame these countries (the West in general and America specifically) for the predicaments of their countries. This drives much of their thoughts on immigration policy, I think.

And once here, as you have written, they will not behave in the national interest of the country, but in the interest of their fellow-immigrants. They feel that the country should accommodate everyone, and that is an endless stream of people—infinite, actually. And all the programs—multicultural, affirmative action, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, etc. also support them unequivocally, and encourage these thought processes.

I think it is a weak and defeatist mentality. I think it is also greedy and if I dare say, evil. Rather than concentrate on reforming their own countries, they would rather sit in the comforts and plenty of another country, encouraging innocent people to leave their homes in order to be helped by foreign nations and peoples. They destroy two countries at once, their homeland and the land they immigrated to.

Kidist continues:

I think your question was more specific, which I believe is, “Can we isolate immigrants, who make important policies on immigration based on their immigrant “identity,” and address their input in the immigration debate accordingly?”

I think not, because as I said earlier, firstly about 99 percent of immigrants I have met will behave in this manner. And secondly, they will refuse to be placed outside these decision-making circles, maybe calling on discrimination, racism, freedom of expression etc. to say that their positions are valid and should be part of the debate.

Unless you put a specific, measurable criterion such as: only third generation individuals with demonstrated civic contributions, who have received such and such recognition for their patriotic behavior, can participate in the debate. But even then, in these modern times, immigrants will not stand for this, and will not accept alternatives to their world view. Because, as you said, their brain shuts down anyway, and they will see any opposition to that “opinion” as antagonistic. Being an immigrant-centered individual is a valid way to live one’s life in America or Canada now.

LA replies:

I was not proposing a law. I was proposing, to start with, (1) an awareness of the reality that many people derive their positions on immigration not from a concern about the national good but simply from identification with their own immigrant status and background; followed by (2) a practical application of that awareness to the immigration debate, in which we state openly that people who simply have a personal compulsion to support immigration at all costs have nothing useful to add to the debate, and that the debate should be limited to people who are thinking about the national good.

This kind of radical (non-liberal!) statement would startle the other side and put it on the offensive. They would no longer be able to get away free with the kinds of sweeping, personalistic arguments they routinely use.

An example of such personalism in the immigration debate is a 2007 column by Paul Greenberg, “Me, Ma, and Ben Franklin” (how’s that for a personalistic title?), in which he urged essentially open borders to allow into America all the people in the world who want to come here, as his mother came. As I discussed in this thread, Greenberg said he supported the Comprehensive Immigration Bill, though he detested it, and the reason he detested it was that it was not open enough, and, under its rules, his mother might not have been allowed to immigrate. He wrote:

Far from allowing too much immigration, this bill wouldn’t allow enough. Around the world, the most determined, ambitious, hard-working and congenitally hopeful people in the world are dying to get into this country, sometimes literally. We are turning our backs on the most valuable form of wealth ever offered a nation: human capital.

Nor did this bill sufficiently emphasize education for immigrants—education in English, in civics, and generally in what we were once allowed to call Americanism. I’m all for the wonderful mosaic of cultures in this country—social, religious, linguistic, culinary and every other kind in this country of countries. Each contributes something to the way we all see things, think about things. We learn from each other. But here there is room for only one, indivisible, unhyphenated civic culture. A civic and civil culture that gives us a common tongue to argue in, and common ground to stand on. E pluribus unum, it used to be said: From out of many, one. Not from one, many.

So what Greenberg wants, based entirely on his mother’s experience as an immigrant, is literally open borders for everyone in the world who wants to come here, plus civic education for the immigrants to make sure they assimilate.

Further, based on his mother’s experience, Greenberg approves of all illegal aliens. He wrote:

I saw a picture on television the other day, one of those grainy shots of an illegal who’d just climbed over the fence. Finally on American soil, exhausted, still peering about anxiously, but alive, hopeful, grateful, he stopped to cross himself. I thought of Ma.

How do you quantify that kind of absolute determination, absolute faith?

Thus he identifies all illegal aliens with his sainted mother, and wants them all to come.

Greenberg’s way of thinking (or rather of feeling) is extremely common among Jews, and needs to be exposed and refuted, and not just refuted, but delegitimized.

Kidist replies:

You wrote:

“Greenberg’s way of thinking (or rather of feeling) is extremely common among Jews, and needs to be exposed and refuted, and not just refuted, but delegitimized.”

Yes, I understand. It is to spell out the rationale for immigration that those like Greenberg hold, and present it on the public stage (articles, debates, blogs, etc.). You are right, the immigration debate bypasses this fundamental step and attacks the issues rather than expose (and reject) the immigrant-centered thinking behind the issues, whether it is in memoriam of immigrant mothers, or to give Third World peoples their “deserved” share of the goods in America or Canada (and I’m sure there are many more reasons).

LA replies:

Yes, that’s it.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 11, 2009 08:52 PM | Send