Redstate

That is what they are after all.

The first rule of solving a problem is properly identifying the problem.

So, lets start identifying them as what they are, stopping yielding the high ground to the enemy.

Immigrant populations are growing rapidly. The US born kids of illegals are US citizens and will be eligible to vote at age 18. Like it or not, this would take a constitutional amendment to change, which is not likely.

If conservatives are seen as anti-immigrant or anti-hispanic, as opposed to being seen as pro-law and order they are signing their own political death warrant.

I say crack down on ILLEGAL immigration, but make LEGAL immigration easier. Keep the border secure, but allow willing workers to find willing employers.

Recommended.

Immigrant populations are growing rapidly. The US born kids of illegals are US citizens and will be eligible to vote at age 18. Like it or not, this would take a constitutional amendment to change, which is not likely.

This is a common misperception. It stems from what the word "jurisdiction" means in context.

It would only take an act of Congress to change the rule to which you refer.

Now that I'm back from nearly two weeks of being on the road doing my day job... I see a plethora of great diaries on RS.  This being one of them.

You are absolutely correct, and I salute your personal efforts to stop the problems associated with illegal immigration, and to force the police to enforce the laws.

Having said that, let me warn you and my fellow Republicans on something that is increasingly bothering me.

In Matworld the Bush administration stops trying to fix a broken flagpole with superglue and they start raising the American Flag by calling for an immigration halt for 10 years so we can assimilate those few who want to, and deport the rest. We as a country have taken immigration "time outs" in the past and they have been very successful.

We must avoid this conflation of illegal and legal immigration.  The other day, I heard a caller on Hannity's program raging on and on about illegal and legal immigration, and how they are destroying our culture, destroying our country, and so on and so forth.

This is not only factually wrong -- as there is a good amount of truth to the claim that America is a nation of legal immigrants, as opposed to being destroyed by it -- but it is politically disastrous.  You have pointed out that legal immigrants are among the staunchest supporters of enforcing the laws against illegal immigration.  I believe this is true.  Those of us who followed the laws, who have then assimilated into the country, embraced its ways as best as possible, and became citizens are among those who truly appreciate America for its greatness.  

I recently had the fortune of riding in a car with a driver from Lebanon, and we shared the thought that many Americans just don't appreciate what a gift they have been given, never having lived under a different political system and under a different society.

Alienate this group and all of its supporters and the Republican Party will wander the electoral wasteland for generations.

This 'halt on immigration' that you've called for brings to mind all the various bans on guns enacted by legislatures here in the Northeast.  We have a problem with illegal handguns ending up in the hands of gang members.  So let's ban legal handguns!  That'll solve the problem!  After all, it's the law-abiding gunowner who should be punished for the actions of criminals....  Sorry, but that isn't the conservative way.

The problem is illegal immigration, not illegal immigration -- the problem is criminal behavior -- the problem is law-breaking.  Focus on that, and we have common ground and a political winner.

Again, I strongly urge my fellow Republicans to avoid conflating illegal immigration and legal immigration.  Fight the former; support the latter -- and the country will be united behind us then.

-TS

I don't necessarily share your passion on the issue, but I am very heartened with your differentiation between illegal and legal immigrants.  Hopefully we can beef up our border security while supporting and encouraging the many legal immigrants to continue assimilating into American culture.

It would seem like a stretch to interpret the 14th Amendment any other way.

Even if Congress passed such a regulation, I don't see how it would pass the "laugh test" at the Supreme Court. The liberal justices wouldn't stand for it, and the conservative justices don't like creative interpretations of the constitution.

Amendment 14 Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

And the word had and has a specific meaning in context. See here, largely because I can't find my RedHot explication.

Just because nine people can't get it right doesn't mean it doesn't have a clear meaning.

See here.

Details and links here. It might be interpreted that way currently, but that's not what was intended by the original author.

Regarding the other canard mentioned, here's more on the so-called Hispanic vote.

The smaller-time, street-level folks include "immigrant's rights groups", some of which have direct or indirect links to the Mexican government.

Those higher in the building include the many Democratic and Republican politicians who support illegal immigration.

And, of course, a major enemy in the VA/DC area is the Washington Post, which continually prints "news" articles and editorial supporting illegal immigration.

The way to deal with them is to completely discredit them, showing how they're lying and having divided loyalties.

We must avoid this conflation of illegal and legal immigration.

I agree, though certainly do not feel as passionately as you do; but the immigration enthusiasts have not been very durned helpful on this point, to put it mildly. Every couple years they invent a new word to conceal the fact of illegal immigration. "Undocumented" is the latest, until it too becomes discredited, at which point a new piece of (apologies to TS) sophistry will be developed.

Part of the issue, I think, is that those of us who are legal immigrants (and children of legal immigrants) need to stop providing cover for the illegal immigrants and their supporters in the radical left.  You're right that language games like "undocumented" and pushing for multilingual government services and such are not sending the correct message.

-TS

"We must avoid this conflation of illegal and legal immigration."

You give no good reason why illegal and legal immigration should not be placed on the same table for discussion. Why should we treat the issue differently today than we have in the past?

I take umbrage at the notions inherent in your commentary that nobody should be concerned about our burgeoning cleft society, the incremental loss of our culture and the lessening of the prospects for America to still be American for future generations. Too many Americans are ignorant to our history these days, particularly the true history of American immigration. In short, our ability to assimilate newcomers has been predicated on breaks in the flow of new arrivals whether it was because of worldwide economics, wars or Congressional acts.  Without these pauses, this nation would not have been to accomplish many of the great things it has.

Over at Senator Frist's VOLPAC site, he even goes so far as to insist that America was founded by immigrants.  I am shocked that someone in his position would not know how offensive this notion is to those of us whose ancestors actually were the first American citizens.  Those who sacrificed, fought, bled and died for all of us were colonists who later coined the term "immigrant" to describe those who came after freedom was won. And they were not shy in pointing out the distinction. For much of this nation's history, calling someone whose ancestors were here at the time of the founding a descendant of immigrants was on par with a racial epithet.

I don't care how callous wanting a 10-year total immigration time-out might seem to those infected with the virus of political correctness.  Our being harsh to a certain extent with immigrants, regardless of their legal status, was important to overall assimilation patterns and to the widespread acceptance of the American creed. Until the stupid to the nth degree Immigration Reform of 1964, about one quarter of those who immigrated here repatriated themselves to their former homelands, usually because they found "becoming American" too difficult a task.  

This kind of repatriation does not happen today very much. Instead, we've been led to believe that on some level we must make every effort to accommodate immigrants, regardless of the intentions they arrived with or their legal status.  No longer is it necessary for any immigrant to arrive with the intention of "becoming American."  Instead, we've allowed all sorts of diasporas to crop up and insulate newcomers from the Americanization process.  

It astounds me that there are so many commenting on these boards who just assume that all of these newcomers will just be fine and dandy for our futures and that no action need be taken to assure that America's core values, ethos and culture is preserved. Rather, there are those who will go to absurd lengths to stifle rational and honest discussion of the issue. For instance, your positing a straw-man argument equating handguns to immigrants is just utter nonsense, but it served the purpose of shutting the mouths of those who could not see through it, especially those who are Second Amendment activists.  This sort of intellectual dishonesty is a key method by which insidious politically-correct notions get fully promulgated these days.  And that is indeed a pity.  

a caustic reply, but it occurred to me that we can't begin to discuss what the problems with immigration are until we decide who "we" are and what it is that we intend immigration to do.  Since we don't agree on either, or even necessarily understand each other's perspectives, we simply talk past each other.  

This is not only factually wrong -- as there is a good amount of truth to the claim that America is a nation of legal immigrants, as opposed to being destroyed by it -- but it is politically disastrous...Alienate this group and all of its supporters and the Republican Party will wander the electoral wasteland for generations.

That will probably happen anyway if present trends continue.  The Republicans probably can not simultaneously keep their increasingly downscale white suburban and rural base and compete with (let alone surpass) the Democrats at ethnic pandering.

I suppose I could take umbrage myself at notions inherent in your response, but let me take a few things one at a time.

First, I believe I gave a very good reason for why Republicans ought not to conflate legal and illegal immigration: political disaster.  Just how many current U.S. citizens do you think are either immigrants or children and grandchildren of immigrants?  Think it's a small minority?  Think those people might have friends who aren't immigrants who might be convinced that Republicans are really bad for opposing legal immigration, the foundation of the whole American Dream story woven into the very fabric of the nation's collective soul?

If you really believe that opposing legal immigration is a political winner, then by all means, espouse it.  I believe it is a political loser that the Republicans will not overcome, at least for the next couple of generations, and quite possibly forever.

In short, our ability to assimilate newcomers has been predicated on breaks in the flow of new arrivals whether it was because of worldwide economics, wars or Congressional acts.  Without these pauses, this nation would not have been to accomplish many of the great things it has.

Interesting that both you and the Frontpage writer you cited neglected to mention the other reasons for "pauses"; indeed, the Frontpage writer does talk about how racism and xenophobia informed our immigration policies, but he downplays that part in ways that I guarantee the majority of American voters would find repellent.

Not everything in American history needs to be celebrated -- it's unthinkable to cite the long history of slavery in America to justify it today, and I think it is similarly unthinkable to cite the long history of immigration policies based on and informed by the rankest ignorance and racism to justify taking a similar stance today.

You talk about how these pauses in immigration enabled us to accomplish great things.  Like what?  Building a transcontinental railroad perhaps?  Would have been an interesting exercise to build the skyscrapers of Manhattan and Chicago without the Irish.  Citing some random statistics about the 1920's, as the Frontpage article does, seems to me to be rather short on proving causation and long on mistaking correlation as causation.

Over at Senator Frist's VOLPAC site, he even goes so far as to insist that America was founded by immigrants.  I am shocked that someone in his position would not know how offensive this notion is to those of us whose ancestors actually were the first American citizens.  Those who sacrificed, fought, bled and died for all of us were colonists who later coined the term "immigrant" to describe those who came after freedom was won. And they were not shy in pointing out the distinction. For much of this nation's history, calling someone whose ancestors were here at the time of the founding a descendant of immigrants was on par with a racial epithet.

For one thing, if you honestly believe that your claim back to the Mayflower gives you some sort of superiority as an American, as a citizen, as a patriot, or as anything at all over someone like me, whose claim goes back to 1970's, I'd love to hear your reasoning.  This would be an appropriate time for me to take some umbrage, methinks.

For another thing, the colonists sacrificed to win freedom... but did only Mayflower descendants die and bleed in the Civil War?  In the fields of Ypres during WW I?  On Omaha Beach and at Midway during WW II?  What about Korea?  Vietnam?  Iraq?

Just consider what you're suggesting here.  If you want the Republican Party to become the Party of the Mayflower Descendants, then you're preaching political suicide.

I don't care how callous wanting a 10-year total immigration time-out might seem to those infected with the virus of political correctness.  Our being harsh to a certain extent with immigrants, regardless of their legal status, was important to overall assimilation patterns and to the widespread acceptance of the American creed. Until the stupid to the nth degree Immigration Reform of 1964, about one quarter of those who immigrated here repatriated themselves to their former homelands, usually because they found "becoming American" too difficult a task.

Some evidence here would be good.  Please do tell how the anti-Catholic (i.e., anti-Irish and anti-Italian) movements of the 1920's were important to overall assimiliation and embracing of the American Creed by Irish and Italians.

As to the acceptance of the American Creed, do you really think that this guy has accepted the American Creed less than this guy?  Who is the bigger threat to widespread acceptance of the American Creed?  That statement doesn't pass the straight face test.

It astounds me that there are so many commenting on these boards who just assume that all of these newcomers will just be fine and dandy for our futures and that no action need be taken to assure that America's core values, ethos and culture is preserved. Rather, there are those who will go to absurd lengths to stifle rational and honest discussion of the issue. For instance, your positing a straw-man argument equating handguns to immigrants is just utter nonsense, but it served the purpose of shutting the mouths of those who could not see through it, especially those who are Second Amendment activists.  This sort of intellectual dishonesty is a key method by which insidious politically-correct notions get fully promulgated these days.  And that is indeed a pity.

I'm sorry you see the handgun example as nonsense, as I think it entirely a propos.  Because of the problem of illegal immigration, you propose to freeze legal immigration.  Hmm.  So those who are the type to obey the law in the first place get penalized because of those who think the law a joke.  Seems exactly like a handgun ban to me.  Criminals would continue to break the law; the law-abiding citizen (or immigrant) would get screwed.  With gun violence, the problem isn't the gun, it's the criminality; with illegal immigration, the problem isn't the second word but the first.  You may, of course, see things the other way -- doesn't matter to you whether immigration is legal or not; it isn't the lawbreaking that bothers you, but all those darned Mexicans and Chinese and icky foreigners.  Have it your way then; just don't expect the majority of Americans to go along with you.

So if the problem is criminality, then we're on the same page.  Prohibit illegal immigration?  Great.  Enforce our laws?  Grand.  About time.  Moratorium on immigration?  Sorry.

Speaking of astonishment, what astonishes me is the level of confidence that you have in this thing called "America's core values, ethos and culture."  Seems to me that Paul Cella and I, along with many others, have been struggling over that precise question, but since you appear to know with such confidence, please, do tell -- what exactly are America's core values, ethos and culture?

After you're done answering, one further question: what makes your definition the correct one?

-TS

not to engage me or anyone else on this.  But it occurs to me that if conservative Republicans can't agree on who "we" are, then this entire topic -- at a minimum -- is not good politics for the GOP.

That will probably happen anyway if present trends continue.  The Republicans probably can not simultaneously keep their increasingly downscale white suburban and rural base and compete with (let alone surpass) the Democrats at ethnic pandering.

That is entirely too gloomy a prospect.  If anything, I submit to you and my fellow Republicans that as long as we don't become the American Nativist Party, we have a great chance of capturing the new immigrant vote for generations.

Democrats do indeed offer "better" ethnic pandering.  But that's just the thing -- most legal immigrants find that somewhat disgusting and odd.  They came here to find a better life for themselves and for their children, believing in the American Dream, embracing the American Creed.  They came here from countries where individualism, freedom, and free markets were not to be taken for granted.  Most immigrants, I submit, are indeed more "American" than many native-born Americans because they appreciate the things that make this country great.  You want to talk family values?  That resonates with vast majority of legal immigrants.  Hard work?  Liberty?  Tolerance?  Religious traditions?  You want to talk reducing size and scope of government?  That resonates with huge swaths of legal immigrants many of whom came here with $10 in their pockets and made something of themselves without handouts from the nanny state.

If we Republicans stand for the proposition that America is a good thing, that the American Creed which informs our values is a good thing, that immigrants who wish to join the American family are to be welcomed and encouraged, all at the same time we insist on the rule of law, respect for our borders and our laws, I think we can absolutely capture the immigrant vote all without pandering.

Arnold's speech at the 2004 RNC is something that I promise you resonates with all legal immigrants.  The example of Colin Powell, son of Jamaican immigrants, of AG Gonzalez, of Viet Dinh, just to name a few, resonate with immigrants -- all without a bit of ethnic pandering.

Let the Democrats pander away; let us stand for a different proposition.

-TS

but which way to the front?

But it occurs to me that if conservative Republicans can't agree on who "we" are, then this entire topic -- at a minimum -- is not good politics for the GOP.

Would ignoring the issue, and the rift, be better for the party?  Would restrictionists be interested in a party that ignores them?  Finally, can the party win without restrictionists?  The answers are no, no, and not for several decades, at least.

p.s. by "we" I meant, if it was not clear, Americans, not Republicans.

That is entirely too gloomy a prospect.  If anything, I submit to you and my fellow Republicans that as long as we don't become the American Nativist Party, we have a great chance of capturing the new immigrant vote for generations.

Where is the evidence?  All I see are pro-immigration platitudes about the small minority of immigrants who come here and are tremendously successful.  They're not the majority, and never were, not even in the days of the Horatio Alger stories.  The immigrants of today, legal and illegal together, are relatively less skilled than the immigrants of yesteryear and not surprisingly more likely to be recipients of public benefits.  As such, they are not going to be particularly responsive to appeals to bootstrap-pulling when the other side offers them public benefits and the pleasure of ethnic and racial resentment.  People respond to incentives, after all.  This is borne out so far, with Republicans winning, where they win, almost entirely on the strength of white voters, George Bush's attempts to be the first Mexican president of the US notwithstanding (or is that first gringo Presidente of Mexico?).  

If we Republicans stand for the proposition that America is a good thing, that the American Creed which informs our values is a good thing, that immigrants who wish to join the American family are to be welcomed and encouraged, all at the same time we insist on the rule of law, respect for our borders and our laws, I think we can absolutely capture the immigrant vote all without pandering.

But what is America?  Again, who, or what, are we?  As to inviting immigrants into our bulging "family", which ones, and why?  What is immigration for?

The example of Colin Powell, son of Jamaican immigrants, of AG Gonzalez, of Viet Dinh, just to name a few, resonate with immigrants -- all without a bit of ethnic pandering.

Is not this list an admission of the very pandering you deny?  Not to take anything away from any of them, Gen. Powell, especially, if the message were enough, it ought to be persuasive even coming from Johnny Whiteguy's lips.

Would ignoring the issue, and the rift, be better for the party?  Would restrictionists be interested in a party that ignores them?  Finally, can the party win without restrictionists?  The answers are no, no, and not for several decades, at least.

If there truly is a rift, then fine, let's have at it, debate it within the party, and go forward from there.

But let's make sure we're talking about the same thing.

If by "restrictionist" you mean those who wish to restrict illegal immigration and enforce our laws and secure our borders, I don't think the rift there is all that significant.  Disagreement on tactics and degrees perhaps, but fundamentally, we all agree that needs to be stopped.

If, on the other hand, by "restrictionist" you mean those who wish to restrict all immigration, then yeah, we've got a rift and a problem that ought to be addressed.  My argument is that if this sort of restrictionist position becomes the official position of the Republican Party, then (a) I can no longer be a Republican, as the Party will have essentially thrown me out of it, and (b) the GOP will be screwed politically for generations.  If nothing else, demographics dictate that outcome.

Where is the evidence?  All I see are pro-immigration platitudes about the small minority of immigrants who come here and are tremendously successful.  They're not the majority, and never were, not even in the days of the Horatio Alger stories.  The immigrants of today, legal and illegal together, are relatively less skilled than the immigrants of yesteryear and not surprisingly more likely to be recipients of public benefits.  As such, they are not going to be particularly responsive to appeals to bootstrap-pulling when the other side offers them public benefits and the pleasure of ethnic and racial resentment.  People respond to incentives, after all.  This is borne out so far, with Republicans winning, where they win, almost entirely on the strength of white voters, George Bush's attempts to be the first Mexican president of the US notwithstanding (or is that first gringo Presidente of Mexico?).

I submit that a large part of the reason why George Bush is president today is because he took 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004.  I submit that a big part of the reason why we have 55 Senators with (R) after their names is the same phenomenon.  I've read (but cannot find reference) that Indians are the single largest "identifiable" donor base to the Republican party.  I submit that Asian-Americans play a large and underappreciated role in the growth of evangelical Christianity with its impact on politics.

Maybe it's a difference in perspective.  Seems to me that all you see are Mexicans coming here to get on welfare; perhaps.  Whereas all I see and saw were immigrant families working 16 hour days, sleeping in the back room of their little corner stores, to send their kids to Yale.  For every story about benefits-sucking immigrant, I see two guys from Ghana hawking T-shirts on the streets of New York, and the dozens of Central Americans who file into my office building as I'm leaving to do the cleaning, and so forth.

Historically, you could, I suppose, say that the immigrant success stories have always been a small minority.  I think that depends on what you consider success.  While not every Irish immigrant became a Carnegie or a Kennedy, most of them worked hard, raised their kids, sent them to school, and became a real part of the fabric of American life and culture.  It's just not coherent to me to look at something like Notre Dame and think, "Hmm, not American."

Now... having said all this... let's not forget something.  I can't speak for other pro-immigration folks, but I don't know that many who are pro-benefits while also being pro-immigration on our side of the aisle.  I'm no fan of government handouts; but I suppose I see that separately as a problem to be solved for all Americans.  

A related point of mine is that support for getting rid of entitlement programs like Medicaid and Social Security is quite a bit higher among immigrant communities (at least the ones I know) because they justly feel pride in having made it without needing government assistance.  I don't know how many immigrants you know, but I've known and members of my family have been that storybook immigrant: landed here with $50 in their pocket.  Did they once apply for food stamps?  No -- they got by with support from family, friends, church, and other organizations.  Did they once put in for unemployment?  No -- they just got two or three cruddy jobs until they saved enough to do something.  Does this background strike you as more friendly to conservative ideals or to nanny-state pandering ideals?

But what is America?  Again, who, or what, are we?  As to inviting immigrants into our bulging "family", which ones, and why?  What is immigration for?

That's the $64,000 question, isn't it?  I submit that reasonable people differ on this.  But unreasonable people also differ, and their opinions need to be marginalized on both ends -- neither nativism nor multiculturalism are acceptable ideologies.  Your followup questions really depend on the answer to that critical first one, and it's just not settled.

As to my examples of Colin Powell and Viet Dinh etc., I think you misunderstood my point.  My point was not that those individuals need to speak the message; rather, my point is that those individuals are the message.  My point is that for most legal immigrants, the greatness of America is to see that immigrants and the children of immigrants can achieve the highest levels of success and be accepted at the highest levels of society.  What those people have achieved here is simply unthinkable in most countries around the world.  If I moved tomorrow to Pakistan, would my son have the chance to become the operational head of the Pakistani military?  No way.  France?  Germany?  Even the U.K.?  No way.

That isn't pandering.  That's the American Dream, and it is absolutely fundamental to who we are as a nation and as a people.

-TS

First, I believe I gave a very good reason for why Republicans ought not to conflate legal and illegal immigration: political disaster.  

The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, in essence a time-out (150,000 cap), lasted for 41 years and was far from a political disaster. Today, the public clamor for restrictions is not dissimilar to that experienced from about 1910 onward.  From the studies I've read, we appear to be about on par with about 1920 as far as national consciousness of the problem is concerned.

Just how many current U.S. citizens do you think are either immigrants or children and grandchildren of immigrants?  Think it's a small minority?

Yes, it is.  That is if you're referring to the number of who oppose restrictive immigration and would have the political inclination to "punish" a political party for affecting change.

Do you work for the US Chamber of Commerce (Today's U.N. for Business)?  The stuff you bandy about reads like their talking points.

Think those people might have friends who aren't immigrants who might be convinced that Republicans are really bad for opposing legal immigration, the foundation of the whole American Dream story woven into the very fabric of the nation's collective soul?

Let's all sing with Barney..."I love you, you love me..."  

But seriously, do you actually believe that any significant portion of those who have arrived since the Hart-Cellar debacle really came with the intent of following the "American Dream?"  That's laughable.  If the "American Dream" were still a factor, we'd not have all of the multiculturalist, diversity enforcement police ruling the roost in corporate human resources offices. Let me flip over to Univision for a second to see the American Dream.  I'll be right back.

[flip]

That Sabado Gigante show is such a hoot! Don Francisco.  What a guy!

[flip]

Not.

Right now, you're reading this in Red-State...the heartland.  That's where Republican power is to be made, and where "the people" are just beginning to be astonished at the scope of the invasion that's afoot. The Sensenbrenner Bill represents a real chance for the GOP to overcome its blunders and not take a huge step backwards this November.

If you really believe that opposing legal immigration is a political winner, then by all means, espouse it.  I believe it is a political loser that the Republicans will not overcome, at least for the next couple of generations, and quite possibly forever.

Ever since that insidious Hart-Cellar was foisted upon an unsuspecting public, the leftist multi-cult sure has done a good job of misindocrinating a lot of people.  Were your fear-mongering true, then why is there a GOP today?  Surely it would have been exterminated by its passing the 1924 reforms.

Interesting that both you and the Frontpage writer you cited neglected to mention the other reasons for "pauses"; indeed, the Frontpage writer does talk about how racism and xenophobia informed our immigration policies, but he downplays that part in ways that I guarantee the majority of American voters would find repellent.

People are really starting to become tuned into the fact that shrieks of racism and xenophobia are usually overblown attempts to insert the cultural Marxism of political correctness into the debate.  If you read the crosstabs on the polls (and, as 20-year political campaign consultant, I do), there already is a majority of Republicans, when you throw out the Neocons, who support curbs on all immigration.  Why throw out the Neocons?  With their faith in big-government and disdain for notions like "American Exceptionalism," it just doesn't make sense to count on them being in the GOP for all that long.  That's why.

Not everything in American history needs to be celebrated -- it's unthinkable to cite the long history of slavery in America to justify it today, and I think it is similarly unthinkable to cite the long history of immigration policies based on and informed by the rankest ignorance and racism to justify taking a similar stance today.

Straw man.  It is so very disingenuous to equate slavery to immigration policy.  Slavery would still far more prevalent in this world today were it not for the discussions of abolition which began in the Consitutional Convention.  On the other hand, the Federalist Papers (particularly number two) clearly state that this nation came to be because our first citizens were similar values and language.  Your comments strongly suggest that John Jay was "ignorant."  Then you drop that "R" bomb again. That's not "sophistry," it's banality.

You talk about how these pauses in immigration enabled us to accomplish great things.  Like what?  Building a transcontinental railroad perhaps?  Would have been an interesting exercise to build the skyscrapers of Manhattan and Chicago without the Irish.  Citing some random statistics about the 1920's, as the Frontpage article does, seems to me to be rather short on proving causation and long on mistaking correlation as causation.

What we now call the "greatest generation" would not have been were it not for the prevention of lingering diasporas brought on by the reforms in the 1920's.  Is that great enough for you?  The railroad skyscraper examples always sound an awful lot like that "jobs that Americans won't do" gibberish. Let me get my violin.

For one thing, if you honestly believe that your claim back to the Mayflower gives you some sort of superiority as an American, as a citizen, as a patriot, or as anything at all over someone like me, whose claim goes back to 1970's, I'd love to hear your reasoning.  This would be an appropriate time for me to take some umbrage, methinks.

There are no claims here of superiority, but I know that I'm certainly more well-informed and in tune with creedal history than any child of recent immigrants.  Plus, having completed my education about the time your first generation arrived, I didn't have to read the drivel that was foisted upon you as "history."  

So, tell me, how many stories were handed down to you about your ancestors who came to Jamestown in 1608, founded Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1629 or was George Washington's Neighbor, Masonic Lodge Brother and subordinate Captain, or participated in Sherman's campaign through Georgia?  If there is no value in what I know for the likes of those we've let come here of late, they we probably have already lost this nation.  We just haven't hung the "bankrupt" sign yet.

If the stories and memes that my ancestors left in my care have no value, then we already are in post-American America.  That's a shame.  Damn that Hart-Cellar act!

Please do tell how the anti-Catholic (i.e., anti-Irish and anti-Italian) movements of the 1920's were important to overall assimiliation and embracing of the American Creed by Irish and Italians.

Tolerance is so incredibly over-rated.  Ask the French...after they put out all of those burning cars.

Because of the problem of illegal immigration, you propose to freeze legal immigration.

Don't put words in my mouth.  I propose to freeze legal immigration because we need to reimplement the intense Americanization processes that Teddy Roosevelt demanded in the early 1900's.  The diasporas must be broken up.  Those who cannot assimilate can just go home.  I'm tired of the endless stories of those who come here for "a better life," but no longer are required by circumstances to also become Americanized.  Wanting to "become American" used to be an equal corrolary to the "better life" meme.  But that is not what is happening today.  My family and I basically had to flee south Florida a few years back solely because we were determined never to be forced to assimilate to diasporas around us that demanded it, often without subtlety.

When there are hundreds of thousands of stories, if not millions of stories, of American's being exiled from their hometowns, simply for wanting to live within their own culture, then something has gone awry.  It is high time that we do visit a period of isolationism before we lose our American Kernel.  

Do you also have a problem with Americans simply wanting to keep their neighborhoods, cities, counties, states and nation American?  Let me guess, you think its racist that I won't let my daughter learn spanish as a second language.  We're getting her a german tutor so she can learn her maternal great-grandmother's native tongue.  You'll hear no Dora the freaking Explorer coming from our house.  Does that bother you?

Speaking of astonishment, what astonishes me is the level of confidence that you have in this thing called "America's core values, ethos and culture."  Seems to me that Paul Cella and I, along with many others, have been struggling over that precise question, but since you appear to know with such confidence, please, do tell -- what exactly are America's core values, ethos and culture?

I'd suggest you read both of Sam Huntinton's masterpieces. I don't agree with everything, but he comes the closest to explaining things about who we are than anything I've read.  When I weigh his writing against the histories passed down to me, it all just rings true.  Putting the two together, thats why mine is the correct one.  If it is no longer, then many (perhaps most) of my ancestors' sacrifices were for nothing.

I am thinking that the first paragraph of your response pretty much encapsulates my various reasons for opposing what you propose.

The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, in essence a time-out (150,000 cap), lasted for 41 years and was far from a political disaster. Today, the public clamor for restrictions is not dissimilar to that experienced from about 1910 onward.  From the studies I've read, we appear to be about on par with about 1920 as far as national consciousness of the problem is concerned.

What you propose, then, essentially is to align the modern Republican Party with those who proposed and passed the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924.  Are you ignorant of or simply uncaring about what political force was so powerful in the 20's and led to the passage of laws like the Quota Act of 1921 or the Johnson-Reed Act?

We appear to be on part with the 20's?  Maybe you're right.  But this isn't the 20's; there have been enormous and significant changes both culturally and demographically since the days when the Klan numbered 4,000,000 members.  I think most Americans of every race, ethnicity, and backgrond would consider those changes positive and enduring.

To associate the modern Republican Party with the politics of the 1920's is political suicide.  You are welcome to preach it, of course, but if the GOP goes along with what you propose, then that will be the last mistake it gets to make.  You could call it fearmongering, but if you think the consequences of these policies in 2006 will be identical to the consequences in 1924, it makes me wonder who your clients in political consulting are.  Hopefully, they are Democrats.

Additionally, I really think you have some serious blinders on as to the current politics of immigrant communities.

But seriously, do you actually believe that any significant portion of those who have arrived since the Hart-Cellar debacle really came with the intent of following the "American Dream?"  That's laughable.  If the "American Dream" were still a factor, we'd not have all of the multiculturalist, diversity enforcement police ruling the roost in corporate human resources offices. Let me flip over to Univision for a second to see the American Dream.  I'll be right back.

Seeing as how I and my family would not be Americans today without the Hart-Cellar Act, I have a different take on the meaning of that legislation.  But I suppose if your goal is to prevent people like me and Viet Dinh from becoming Americans, then yeah, I see how it would be a disaster.  I hope to God that most Republicans do not share your sentiment.

And seriously, with these statements you're making, what do you know about the American Dream anyhow?  Ever lived in fear of a knock in the middle of the night by the secret police?  Ever been told your station in life is limited by the family into which you were born?  Do you even know any immigrants?

That you know little about the American Dream is evidenced by the fact that you lay the blame for multiculturalism and diversocrats at the feet of immigrants.  Sorry pal -- look to your own native-born white-liberal-guilt academics and their friends in government as to that problem.  How many immigrants working two and three menial labor jobs do you suppose are pressuring corporate HR departments, or teaching multi-culti nonsense in colleges?  You have a grievance against white (and I suppose black) liberals and the new generation of power-hungry "ethnic leaders" in the Hispanic, Asian, and other groups.  So do I.  The difference is that you would spit in the face of the best possible allies against the race-diversity grievance merchants: the immigrants themselves.

What we now call the "greatest generation" would not have been were it not for the prevention of lingering diasporas brought on by the reforms in the 1920's.  Is that great enough for you?  The railroad skyscraper examples always sound an awful lot like that "jobs that Americans won't do" gibberish. Let me get my violin.

Yawn.  Let me know when you can do more than some counterfactual 'coulda been' theories.  Seems to me there were an awful lot of folks in the Greatest Generation who were targeted by precisely the same sort of rhetoric and policy you are spouting now.

So, tell me, how many stories were handed down to you about your ancestors who came to Jamestown in 1608, founded Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1629 or was George Washington's Neighbor, Masonic Lodge Brother and subordinate Captain, or participated in Sherman's campaign through Georgia?  If there is no value in what I know for the likes of those we've let come here of late, they we probably have already lost this nation.  We just haven't hung the "bankrupt" sign yet.

And here we have in all honesty the best example of what sets us apart.  Despite all the venom in both of our posts, let me attempt to be a bit more calm about this, as this is the point that you're simply not getting -- and I hope to God others will get.

The beautiful thing about America, the absolute wonder that is America, lies in the fact that those stories are transferable -- they can be adopted.  My ancestors did not come to Jamestown, did not found the Massachusetts Bay Colony, did not fight with Sherman, did not expand West to California, did not march with King on Washington, did not fight for freedom in two world wars, and did not sacrifice blood and lives in far away places like Vietnam and Korea to stop the scourge of communism.  But as far as I am concerned -- and as far as all true immigrants are concerned -- we adopted those stories and those traditions and those histories when we became Americans.

In no other nation, in no other society on the face of the planet is this possible.

You as well, being the descendant of Jamestown colonists, should (and indeed must) also embrace the stories of the Underground Railroad, the Civil Rights movement, the Irish and Italian immigration of the 19th century, the stories of Jews in America, and so on, as your own.

What I have been arguing for some months now on RS is that those stories from the founding of the Republic are valuable.  Indeed, I have been arguing that they are central to what it means to be an American -- even as I take a more creedalist perspective on the question, rather than a culturalist one.  The flipside of that argument, however, is that those stories must be open to adoption and internalization.

People talk alot about assimilation.  Thing is, how many of those who talk about it have actually done it?  I have, and I'm telling you and anyone else I could that assimilation is exactly the act (often conscious) of adopting and internalizing the stories and values of ancestors not your own.  Furthermore, assimilation requires defending that adopted history and those transferred values as your own, not to be taken away, not even by those who claim some 'original connection' to such stories.  To extend even further, assimilation requires in my mind accepting even those stories and those histories that are repulsive.  My ancestors and I never lynched a man because of the color of his skin -- and yet, I have to embrace that as well.  We never exterminated the Indian tribes, or excluded Chinese from these shores on racist xenophobic grounds -- yet, I have to embrace that history as well as my own.

You may be a Jamestown descendant; you have no right whatsoever to tell me that those stories are not my own as well.  

The reason why I am a Creedalist as comes to the question of American identity is because I absolutely believe that this peculiarity of being an American is one of our greatest strengths as a nation and as a people.  To ascribe to the Culturalist point of view is to effectively put up barriers to assimilation; it is to say to those who would become Americans that they cannot because they had the wrong ancestors.  That is what the French, the Japanese, and all the other nations and peoples of the world do.  It is not what Americans do.

As might be evident from this reply, as well as any of my past writings on this subject, don't mistake me for a member of some multi-culti open-borders "we are citizens of the world" club.  I've come by my Americanness the hard way, if you will, and I value it beyond your imagination.  You have issues with people who just want to make money and never become Americanized -- well, so do I.  The difference may be that I speak with some inside knowledge on the process, and I truly believe that the way forward is to celebrate and welcome those who would come here legally, following the rules.

Am I concerned about what is happening with respect to the Latino immigrant communities?  Of course I am.  You simply cannot read Huntington's Who We Are and still remain unconcerned.  It is impossible not to be concerned when you see signs at airports, government offices, and businesses in English and Spanish.  To be unconcerned about what is going on in places like California, Florida, and Arizona is simply irresponsible.

And yet, as Huntington himself points out, there is something really unique about immigration from Latin America, particularly from Mexico.  I think it dangerous to extrapolate from the particular issues of Mexican/Latino immigration and generalize to all immigration -- or for that matter, to generalize to immigration itself.  As I have said elsewhere, I remain hopeful that even the Latino immigrants will ultimately assimilate within a couple of generations.  I would support policies that encourage such assimiliation -- for example, making English our official language.

At the same time, I am advocating a pro-immigration, pro-assimilation, anti-illegal immigration stance for my party (and indeed for my country) -- rather than associating ourselves with the now discredited and politically disastrous policies of the 1920's.

Do you also have a problem with Americans simply wanting to keep their neighborhoods, cities, counties, states and nation American?  Let me guess, you think its racist that I won't let my daughter learn spanish as a second language.  We're getting her a german tutor so she can learn her maternal great-grandmother's native tongue.  You'll hear no Dora the freaking Explorer coming from our house.  Does that bother you?

Let me end by disposing of this silliness.  In case it isn't abundantly clear, I have absolutely no problem with Americans wanting to keep our neighborhoods, cities, counties, states and nation American.  What I do have a problem with is your use of the word "their".  By what mystical transformation I've become other than American is beyond me, and if I am to take umbrage at anything, that would be it.  Beyond that, we have differing interpretations, perhaps, of what it means to be American.  You are influenced more by Sam Huntington of Who Are We?; I may be more influenced by Sam Huntington of The Politics of Disharmony.

Do I think you racist for refusing to teach spanish to your girl?  Not one bit.  Teach her whatever language you wish her to learn.  I plan on teaching my son Korean and Chinese; does that make him not American?  I don't think so.  Does that make me racist?  I don't think so.

But to tell my son that he isn't really an American because his ancestors did not land on Plymouth Rock, or that he isn't American because his parents taught him Chinese, or that he isn't American because he prefers the taste of kimchee over Apple Pie -- now that would be racist and un-American.

-TS

They continued thusly:

What you propose, then, essentially is to align the modern Republican Party with those who proposed and passed the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924.  Are you ignorant of or simply uncaring about what political force was so powerful in the 20's and led to the passage of laws like the Quota Act of 1921 or the Johnson-Reed Act?

There's a quasi-Godwinian notion here. Congress is, by its nature, consistently behind the curve on big issues.  This is especially evident when its cloistered membership deems what "The People" want to be too radical. All of the post-1910 reforms were passed by Representatives only after the vast majority, not some bigoted minority, instilled in them fear for continued electoral viability.  The people understood on some basic level that malingering diasporas were not good for America's viability.  They didn't have be aware, although many were, that our founders warned against our allowing the numbers of immigrants, particularly those innately incompatibile with Judeo-Christian-based Republican Democracy, to outpace or subvert our ability to make them American:  

"[Is] rapid population [growth] by as great importations of foreigners as possible... founded in good policy?... They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their number, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass... If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:118

The Hart-Cellar act remains an "extraordinary encouragement" that treats those of us who even look like they may be descendants of colonists in the same manner that Affirmative Action does: with contempt.  The hallmark of the post-Hart-Cellar, Affirmative Action, Great Society era has been the mass indoctrination to the lie that that America has always been minion to the multicult.  Evidence?  We're having a debate in which I have to defend a position that was, for nearly 200 years, incontrovertible:

I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.

-John Jay, Federalist Paper No. 2

To me, this little "discussion" we're having is evidentiary of the presence of forces about which Jay was so rightly concerned.

Seeing as how I and my family would not be Americans today without the Hart-Cellar Act, I have a different take on the meaning of that legislation.  But I suppose if your goal is to prevent people like me and Viet Dinh from becoming Americans, then yeah, I see how it would be a disaster.  I hope to God that most Republicans do not share your sentiment.

I consider Hart-Cellar to be a gargantuan mistake foisted upon the unsuspecting majority.  We were handed legislation that had a back-door intent of fundamentally altering the cultural foundation of this nation.  Just because there are those who claim to be conservative and who like Hart-Cellar's results is no reason to continue down the path to balkanization.  There remains a huge bloc, an Americanist core, within the Red Counties that will take a walk if they see their communities being turned into petri-dishes for multicultural experimentation. They will stop "voting with their feet" and fleeing as they have in California, South Florida and Northern Illinois.  They will take a stand.  And the Hart-Cellar cheerleading section is not going to like it.

Tough.

And seriously, with these statements you're making, what do you know about the American Dream anyhow?  Ever lived in fear of a knock in the middle of the night by the secret police?  Ever been told your station in life is limited by the family into which you were born?  Do you even know any immigrants?

Yes, I know plenty of immigrants. I grew up in South Florida. What a silly question.  I still have many immigrant friends, but know few who actually understand the America my family helped create. A tipping point was reached at which instead of us being allowed to expect them to become like us, it became the opposite.  Again, I'll take a cue from Jefferson here: "These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their number, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass."  

Winthop's "City on a Hill" was not intended to draw the world's  repressed moths to its flame, it was meant to be an example by which others, if they chose, could throw off their oppressors and establish their own beacons. My ancestor did fear that knock on the door.  They did fear being unrepresented in the halls of power.  They risked their lives in an epic struggle to start this nation.  I have no sympathy for those who instead of taking a stand are more comfortable gorging like ticks on the blood my ancestors spilled.  Sometimes I wish I could go back in time and slap that little witch, Emma Lazarus, silly.

That you know little about the American Dream is evidenced by the fact that you lay the blame for multiculturalism and diversocrats at the feet of immigrants.

Oh yes, those immigrants did so much to pass Hart-Cellar, Affirmative Action, the Great Society, etc.  Get real.

Let me know when you can do more than some counterfactual 'coulda been' theories.  Seems to me there were an awful lot of folks in the Greatest Generation who were targeted by precisely the same sort of rhetoric and policy you are spouting now.

Without the Know-Nothings, there would not have been a Republican Party. And, of course, you embrace the Know-nothings, right?

The beautiful thing about America, the absolute wonder that is America, lies in the fact that those stories are transferable -- they can be adopted.  My ancestors did not come to Jamestown, did not found the Massachusetts Bay Colony, did not fight with Sherman, did not expand West to California, did not march with King on Washington, did not fight for freedom in two world wars, and did not sacrifice blood and lives in far away places like Vietnam and Korea to stop the scourge of communism.  But as far as I am concerned -- and as far as all true immigrants are concerned -- we adopted those stories and those traditions and those histories when we became Americans.

In only heavily revised versions of Americana could a continuous, without pause and unselective, immigration flow be possible. Your antipathy for any sort of time-out or selectivity indicates you cling solely to the things you want America to be, and have readily abandoned its founders' counsel.

You as well, being the descendant of Jamestown colonists, should (and indeed must) also embrace the stories of the Underground Railroad, the Civil Rights movement, the Irish and Italian immigration of the 19th century, the stories of Jews in America, and so on, as your own.

Huh? I must?  BS.

You may be a Jamestown descendant; you have no right whatsoever to tell me that those stories are not my own as well.

Certainly they are yours, but I do have the right to point out when your ideation about them is revisionist.  And yours, when it comes to immigration, surely is.

As might be evident from this reply, as well as any of my past writings on this subject, don't mistake me for a member of some multi-culti open-borders "we are citizens of the world" club.  I've come by my Americanness the hard way, if you will, and I value it beyond your imagination.  You have issues with people who just want to make money and never become Americanized -- well, so do I.  The difference may be that I speak with some inside knowledge on the process, and I truly believe that the way forward is to celebrate and welcome those who would come here legally, following the rules.

In order for you to maintain your positions, it is imperative that you dismiss the cultural aspects of immigration.  You have made that point clear.  And my position is that your imperative is anathema to the nation I know as America.  Your attitude toward the cultural aspects of all of this is the far more toxic inverse of xenophobia and nativism. Underneath it all, I strongly sense your desire to be rid of the ethos, values and mores that built this nation.  You wish to dispose of the kernel and keep the creedalist husk.  The notion disgusts me.  Your writing reeks in cloaked contempt for the parts of Americanism you apparently cannot grasp, so you dispense with them as mere inconveniences.

This is precisely the reason why we need to have a time-out. Within multiculturalism, there festers a climate in which those who have made such incredible efforts to Americanize, like you, but who have been unable to get beyond the superficialities.  Each time-out this nation has experienced has been akin to hitting a cultural reset button. The fact that you must cavalierly dispense with many of the founder's imperatives, lest all of your theses collapse, is exemplar of why we need to take a break from the inflow.

I am advocating a pro-immigration, pro-assimilation, anti-illegal immigration stance for my party (and indeed for my country) -- rather than associating ourselves with the now discredited and politically disastrous policies of the 1920's.

Discredited by whom?  Why they were "discredited" by the very liberal whites you just railed against, of course.

Your American assimilation model is bigoted in so many ways against the one I have been charged by ancestry to uphold, it is no wonder that we cannot connect.  No matter how you try to gyrate about it, your insistence that legal immigration remain a constant is dismissive of history. But that's a pattern, isn't it.  Don't like the thought that Anglo-Protestant culture is still at the core of what you seek?  Dismiss it.  Don't think that America remains significantly composed of a rock-solid God-Fearing, Christian core?  Bring up the ephemeral top pop culture icon, whomever that may be today.  

You say you revere our founding documents, but God forbid you actually delve into the Providential notions behind them. I've always suspected is would be much easier to reinvent Americanism than to actually whole-cloth embrace it.  Thank you for proving my suspicions true.  

Yep, it's time for a time-out.

Until today.  I had to paint this weekend.  

By restrictionist, I mean people who wish to reduce net immigration.  Yes, I am a restrictionist.  I'd like to see immigration reduced to a relative trickle of highly-educated and healthy individuals

Now... having said all this... let's not forget something.  I can't speak for other pro-immigration folks, but I don't know that many who are pro-benefits while also being pro-immigration on our side of the aisle.  I'm no fan of government handouts; but I suppose I see that separately as a problem to be solved for all Americans.

I know, and at least you have the virtue of consistency.  That is not the world we inhabit, however.

Maybe it's a difference in perspective.  Seems to me that all you see are Mexicans coming here to get on welfare; perhaps.  Whereas all I see and saw were immigrant families working 16 hour days, sleeping in the back room of their little corner stores, to send their kids to Yale.  For every story about benefits-sucking immigrant, I see two guys from Ghana hawking T-shirts on the streets of New York, and the dozens of Central Americans who file into my office building as I'm leaving to do the cleaning, and so forth.

You see lots of inspiring anecdotes, colored no doubt by what I assume is your own, or your family's, story of success.  In response, your experience as an educated (IIRC) Korean is not necessarily the same as that of Mexicans or Central Americans with 8th grade educations.  They don't go to Yale, and their children in all likelihood won't, either.  The Latino high school or GED completion rate for 18-24 year olds is only 63%.  For whites and Asians, it's over 90%.  It's over 80% for blacks.  Secondly, being hard-working and receiving various forms of public assistance at the same time are not mutually exclusive!  Someone who earns poor wages at a job with no benefits, from which he sends much of his pay back to the homeland, will, when he is sick or injured, be treated on our dime.  He may well be fed on our dime, too.  If I may counter with my own anecdotal impressions, I frequently see Latino families in the checkout line at Giant, paying with foodstamps.  I'm sure they're industrious, but they remain poor.  Most of human history is one of overwork coupled with poverty.  

You see lots of inspiring anecdotes, colored no doubt by what I assume is your own, or your family's, story of success.

No doubt; I think it silly to pretend to perfect objectivity.  We can only try, but there's no doubt my views are colored by my subjective experiences.

On the other hand, there are enough of these success stories in virtually every immigrant community in the entire history of the United States, that at a minimum, one must raise the possibility that this is in fact the norm for the average legal immigrant.  If there are exceptions within the current Latino immigrant community, then that is something we all must deal with in some fashion.

In response, your experience as an educated (IIRC) Korean is not necessarily the same as that of Mexicans or Central Americans with 8th grade educations.  They don't go to Yale, and their children in all likelihood won't, either.  The Latino high school or GED completion rate for 18-24 year olds is only 63%.  For whites and Asians, it's over 90%.  It's over 80% for blacks.

Couple of things -- I disagree that the children of Mexicans with 7th grade educations don't go to Yale.  One of my best friends at Yale was precisely that kid, whose Ecuadorian father never finished high school and worked in a factory for one shift, and then as a janitor in the night shift.  Anecdote is not singular for evidence, but still, it's the common thread for immigrants to America, from the earliest days of the Republic to the current crop: the first generation suffers so that the second generation can "make it".

Second, with respect to the Latino high school/GED completion rate, I have to wonder if that survey took into account the difference between legal immigrants and the admittedly very large population of illegal immigrants.  Since many schools are prohibited from even learning about whether their students are legal or illegal, it makes me wonder about the verity of such statistics.  In other words, the figure might very well be in line with rest of the U.S. if we only look at legal immigrants from Latin America.

Secondly, being hard-working and receiving various forms of public assistance at the same time are not mutually exclusive!  Someone who earns poor wages at a job with no benefits, from which he sends much of his pay back to the homeland, will, when he is sick or injured, be treated on our dime.  He may well be fed on our dime, too.  If I may counter with my own anecdotal impressions, I frequently see Latino families in the checkout line at Giant, paying with foodstamps.  I'm sure they're industrious, but they remain poor.  Most of human history is one of overwork coupled with poverty.

I don't disagree with you here, cyrus, as you well know.  However, let us distinguish between the legal immigrant and the illegal in this instance.

The legal immigrant, after all, pays taxes like the rest of us.  From that standpoint, if he should get injured or sick, he is as entitled to healthcare as any American taxpayer.  While I oppose goverment healthcare generally, in light of the fact that we do have it, and we will have it for the foreseeable future, I do think it fair to point out that legal immigrants pay into our system just like everyone else.  That many legal immigrants are poor and have little net contribution is not their fault for being immigrants, but our fault for having a flawed tax system in which large sections of the population -- immigrant or not -- do not shoulder any part of the burden.

The illegal immigrant, however, is a different story.  And you should know by now that and most pro-immigrant conservatives are united in opposition to illegal immigration and policies that encourage or support it.  So if we're talking about requiring documentation before the receipt of healthcare, that's okay with me.  If we're talking about not allowing children of illegals to attend school at public expense, fine.

The heart of the matter, as I see it, between conservatives who are pro-immigration and anti-immigration, is with the question of Culture.  Sometimes the discussion gets heated (as above between KDaddy and myself) and sometimes it is somber and serious, as between Paul, Maximos, and others, but I recognize that at the heart of the disagreement is something touching on the question of American Identity and American Culture.

My suggestion is to separate the two threads of argument.  We can, I think, as a party unite behind opposition to illegal immigration.  But before we go into opposition to legal immigration, we need to continue the conversation about Culture both on philosophical grounds and on practical political grounds.  Because of this, I am recommending to my party that we refrain from conflating illegal immigration with legal immigration; it is detrimental to the debate, and frankly dangerous for the party IMHO.

I believe my expansionist Creedalist approach is more sound on both philosophical and political grounds, but of course, that's my considered opinion and reasonable people may differ.

-TS

are always so long and well-considered.  I'm a bit ashamed of my own brief sniping forays.  

The graduation rates were from a 1999 Federal Government report.  The rates for "Hispanic" students with both parents born in the US were in the 80% range, but I don't think it broke them down by immigration status.  

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/dropout/HighSchoolRates3.asp

And you should know by now that and most pro-immigrant conservatives are united in opposition to illegal immigration and policies that encourage or support it.

Some of them (not you) seem to do so with their fingers crossed.  I'm not so concerned, however, that the majesty of the law is besmirched by rampant border-hopping.  Honestly, I think I would prefer that all our immigration were illegal if the net immigration rate were to go down by say, half or more.  Not ideal, but preferable to the current situation, I think.

<quote>The heart of the matter, as I see it, between conservatives who are pro-immigration and anti-immigration, is with the question of Culture.  Sometimes the discussion gets heated (as above between KDaddy and myself) and sometimes it is somber and serious, as between Paul, Maximos, and others, but I recognize that at the heart of the disagreement is something touching on the question of American Identity and American Culture.</quote&gt

More basic than that, what is the good at which politics aims?

My suggestion is to separate the two threads of argument.  We can, I think, as a party unite behind opposition to illegal immigration.  But before we go into opposition to legal immigration, we need to continue the conversation about Culture both on philosophical grounds and on practical political grounds.  Because of this, I am recommending to my party that we refrain from conflating illegal immigration with legal immigration; it is detrimental to the debate, and frankly dangerous for the party IMHO.

I don't accept the premise that the illegality of illegal immigration is the major problem with it.  It is for me primarily a question of sheer numbers of immigrants, and secondarily the attributes of the particular immigrants that we choose - and make no mistake, we are choosing even the illegals - to admit to the country.  My contention is that first, 1+ million net immigrants per year is simply far too many for the general good, and that, even if we were to decide that we actually need or want that many immigrants per year, we would probably not choose the ones we actually get, on the grounds that they impose too many general costs for too few general benefits.  If the objective of immigration policy were simply to maximize the growth of our economy, for instance, we would probably prefer to seek out only educated English speakers who would be highly likely to be net taxpayers, and highly unlikely to join gangs.  Again, what is immigration supposed to do for us, or is there no greater us in the first place?  I think the latter is the implicit basis of much support for further immigration, and I wonder if it's not right.