By Victor Davis Hanson // PJ Media
Legal immigration has historically been classically liberal and a great boon for the United States.
Immigrants often bring in energy and fresh ideas.
In the past, newcomers from around the world were eager for a second start in the United States. They nearly all worked hard, reminding American-born citizens that that they can never rest on their laurels.
Immigrants honed American competition and helped to keep the nation productive.
Immigrants were typically hyper-patriotic. They reminded complacent Americans how lucky they were to be born in the U.S.
No one knew better how uninviting were the alternatives abroad than did those who had been forced to live under fascism, communism, totalitarianism, tribalism, or endemic poverty and corruption. Most immigrants believed that they always had been Americans in spirit, just unfortunately born in the wrong country.
Immigrants characteristically had rejected their native cultures and were eager to adopt a new American identity. So they were not foolish enough to question what had made America attractive to them in the first place: constitutional government, the rule of law, personal freedom, free-market capitalism, and an independent judiciary and press.
Instead, immigrants often enriched that immutable Western core with diverse contributions of food, music, literature, and art.
Through integration and intermarriage immigrants quickly became part of the American dream. The path from Italian to Italian-American to American usually was completed in two generations.
What then were the ingredients of past successful American immigration policy?
Four enlightened rules.
One, immigrants came legally. Breaking the law was a lousy way to start American residency. How can an immigrant continue to respect and follow his adopted country’s legal system when his first act as an American resident is to mock federal law?
Two, immigration was blind and diverse. It did not favor one particular group over another. The more diverse the immigrant blocs, the less likely they were to form lasting separate communities. There were, of course, mass influxes of immigrants in the past, but they were quite diverse: gobs of Germans, hordes of Irish, masses of Italians and Sicilians, huge influxes of Poles and Jews, lots of Japanese and Chinese, large arrivals of Mexicans. But note how diverse and varied were the immigrants’ places of origin and how destined they were to bump into each other upon arrival. Each group was wary of the other trying to use immigration as a crass tool to boost their own political fortunes by bringing in more kin than their rivals.
Three, immigrants usually arrived in manageable numbers; mass arrivals were usually periodic and episodic, not continuous and institutionalized. Only that way could the melting pot absorb newcomers and avoid the tribalism and factionalism that had always plagued so many prior failed multi-ethnic national experiments abroad. To avoid the fate of Austria-Hungary or Yugoslavia, immigrants—geographically, politically, culturally—by needs were soon intermixed and intermingled.
Four, both hosts and immigrants insisted on rapid Americanization. Immigrants learned English, followed all the laws of their host, and assumed America was good without having to be perfect. Otherwise they would have stayed home.
Unfortunately, 21st century immigration policy has forgotten these old rules and become illiberal and tribal. Is it any surprise that foolish immigration practices are proving as reactionary and destructive as wise ones were once enlightened and beneficial?
Immigration is now often in violation of U.S. law. There are somewhere over 11 illegal immigrants currently living in the United States. Breaking the law should be the last not the first act of a new immigrant.
Under political pressure, entire cities have declared themselves immune from federal immigration laws—apparently on the theory that immigrants’ children and those given amnesty will vote for their enablers. Well-connected ethnic elites will have more careerist opportunities if they can pose as self-appointed representatives of masses of the unassimilated and poor.
In recent years, a third of all Texas murders were committed by unlawful immigrants. There are nearly 300,000 aliens in the nation’s state and local prisons.
A staggering one-quarter of all federal inmates are now aliens. There are over 20,000 unlawful immigrants in California prisons alone.
Immigration is growing less diverse. Over half of all immigrants come from a single country, Mexico. Over 70% of all unlawful immigrants come from Central America or Mexico.
Such an absence of diversity shorts immigration aspirations from dozens of other countries. We reward the unskilled who illegally cross into the United States, and punish the doctor or architect who waits patiently for a legal invitation. The lack of variety among immigrants makes integration and assimilation more difficult.
The number of immigrants is at a near-record percentage of the American population. In absolute numbers, there are now nearly 50 million foreign-born residents—the largest in our history. Democrats are not shy in warning their conservative opponents that they have changed the political future of the country—convinced that their sponsorship of government largess and destruction of immigration law will create a permanently indebted ethnic bloc. Such hopes remind us that otherwise, progressives have no agenda that appeals to the majority of American citizens. Therefore, they must impede integration and assimilation in fears that a successful and empowered immigrant is likely not to remain beholden to Democratic pieties.
There were waves of 19th century immigration in the past. But what is different this time around is that the host America has largely given up on the multiracial melting pot for the multicultural salad bowl.
The result is that millions of new arrivals are not meeting enough with others outside their ethnic group. Assimilation, to the degree it is even seen as a positive, is delayed for generations. One in four American residents currently does not speak English at home–the former common tie that helped bind multiracial America. Careers are enhanced by accent marks and hyphenation. Ethnic identity is now essential not secondary to character.
Most immigrants still come to work. But the sheer size of the pool of new immigrants means that those who don’t seek jobs can pose staggering costs on the host. Currently about 30% of all immigrant-headed households are on some form of public assistance. That is not much of a problem when strapped middle-class taxpayers can be dubbed racists and xenophobes for opposing expansions of entitlements in a country $20 trillion in debt.
The mentality of many immigrants has changed as well from one of excitement at becoming an American, to sometimes resentment that the host has not measured up to particular agendas and expectations. When an immigrant is waved through the border without legality, he has less respect for the United States, whose magnanimity earns contempt as weakness not gratitude for caring. Cheering the Mexican national team and booing the U.S flag at a soccer match in Pasadena are what the host now expects of the guest.
Even unlawful immigrants routinely now sue universities to ensure discounted rates of in-state tuition, sue property owners for being in the way of their illegal migration pathways, sue states for not providing them with driver’s licenses, and sue the U.S. government for insufficient services. In contrast, the Mexican constitution prohibits immigration that imperils the ethnic essence of the Mexican people. Is such a racialist worldview shared by illegal immigrants in their eagerness to see racism as the cause for worry over open borders—on the logic of “our racist government does not let in others unlike ourselves, so why would they?”
The classically liberal ideals of legality, moderation, diversity, assimilation and gratitude explain why America’s immigration policies in the past were so beneficial to the growth of the United States.
Likewise, the lack of all that explains the present immigration chaos.
Discussion (13)
Join the conversation. Logged in subscribers avoid the Captcha verification and get priority commenting approvals. No vulgarity, links, or code allowed.
Reflections on Wise and Suicidal Immigration.. Hire an experienced attorney for the best legal representation and also to protect your rights!
Typo ("million" missing I assume) in the above: "There are somewhere over 11 illegal immigrants currently living in the United States." Great article!
I have just a couple questions. I'm asking these not because I'm trying to poke holes in the argument, but because I wish to reconcile what I'm learning in My U.S. History class, which I take to be accurate, with what you are saying, which I also take to be accurate. 1) How would you address the Chinese Exclusion Act? 2) What would your response be to those who say that immigrants to America in the early 20th century tended to form fairly insular groups, such as little Armenias, Little Italys, etc.
"Under political pressure, entire cities have declared themselves immune from federal immigration laws—apparently on the theory that immigrants’ children and those given amnesty will vote for their enablers." It's even better than that. Before they are granted amnesty, their numbers are still counted toward representation in Congress for their districts, and in the electoral college. The *current* voters have that increased political representation controlled by their votes, basically being allowed to vote for the illegals. One man, one vote, plus a vote for your share of the illegals in your district. It's like getting representation for your slaves, only better, because slaves only counted 3/5, and illegals count 5/5.
Mr. Hanson, thank you for this article. I am an immigrant. I've lived in America since 1983, and I am honored and proud that the United States invited me to live here. When I moved to America, I had demonstrate that I had a skill that mattered to the United States, I was required to execute agreements with the INS that I would not accept any type of social assistance for a number of years, and I had to find a sponsor to cosign that agreement. It was required that I pass a series of medical tests so that I would not bring unwanted diseases, and associated societal costs, into America. Not only did I agree to these requirements, they made perfect sense to me; why should America invite me if I was going to be a burden. When I first received my "Green Card", it's label proclaimed "Permanent Alien". The term, Permanent Resident came later. I did not take offense at these labels; they accurately described my situation. Now, since the politically correct have eliminated the term "Illegal Alien", everyone who moves to America, legally or illegally, are lumped together under the term "Immigrant". I know I share this sentiment with many other Legal Immigrants: We are deeply offended that we are lumped into the same bucket as those people who deliberately break the law. As a Legal Immigrant, I'd like to suggest the term "Illegal Alien" become reintroduced into our mainstream vernacular. I am proud that America is my adopted homeland. I love this country. I love the opportunities that America has given me to become a successful businessman who has created dozens of jobs with no significant help from the "system". I love that my children are Americans through and through. I love that I've been able to assimilate, both from language and cultural perspectives, so that people don't look at me as something other than American. I am proud to be an American Immigrant. Immigration does not have to be chaotic. I hope that by enforcing the rules, we can renew the historic benefit that legal immigration has been for the United States. God Bless America!
Let us face fact, the most serious issue on peoples' minds, at this time, is Muslim immigration!! The world, according to Muslims, is divided into two camps. One camp is Dar Al Islam and the other is Dar Al Harb! Dar Al Islam is defined as the "The Territory of Islam and Dar Al Harb is defined as the "Territory of War". Muslims cannot coexist with the "Harbi" which means you and me! Islam's edict is it must reign supreme over all non believers or the Harbi! Muslims are legally, morally, ethically justified, under Islamic law, in killing the "Harbi"! I've only touched on a few things here, due to my time constraint! I know the vast majority of you out there don't understand Islam! To remedy this problem, please rent or buy the DVD "Farewell Israel" and you will shocked by what you see, but fully informed!!
Dr. Hanson: You made a typo early on. 11,000,000, not 11. Larry
There are somewhere over 11 illegal immigrants currently living in the United States. Should it read 11 million immigrants. Unless I'm really missing something obvious... ;o) Peter
The point that can never be overemphasized is that an obsession with form over substance, as seems to be the norm of late, especially in the age of Obama, produces unintended consequences. One of them is a de facto appearance of bigotry, and its practice by default. It is a fine line that divides the much needed effort at cultural assimilation and the despicable sacrifice of your soul in the altar of multiculturalism. The former demands you galvanize all the useful aspects of your background to become viable tools to establish your role in the new cultural setting, thereby enhancing your chances at success. The latter is wont to embellish some of the primitive and provincial reflexes of your background.
I might also point out that Byron Roth argues in his book that the current debate over immigration policy is unlikely to produce a satisfying outcome since it takes place uninformed by the science of evolutionary psychology. He thoroughly reviews theory and research indicating that the success of any policy of mass immigration will be profoundly constrained by fundamental features of human nature. Prominent among those features is a natural bias toward one’s own kind and a certain wariness of others, making harmony in multi-ethnic societies problematic at best. The problems for such societies are compounded when groups differ in ability and temperament in non-trivial ways. The author explores the history of immigration to the United States prior to World War II and contrasts it with post-war immigration in the West. The evidence marshaled makes clear that the earlier largely European immigration experience of the United States is so different from current patterns that it cannot provide a useful template for understanding and assessing those patterns. For most of its history, the U.S. was a European-derived nation with a small minority population. In 1970 the USA was 84 percent white, 11 percent black, and just 4 percent Hispanic. Although Mexican immigration (both legal and illegal) had been increasing since the end of the Bracero program in 1964, Mexican Americans were still less than 3 percent of the population, with many claiming U.S. ancestry stretching back to the Mexican-American war. It is only recently that the USA is getting an actual sense of what it means to be a multicultural democracy and it seems clear that the reality doesn’t meet the idealized theory for many Americans.
Victor says "There were, of course, mass influxes of immigrants in the past, but they were quite diverse" "Quite diverse"? Mr. Hanson, they were all European. How can they be compared to the post 1965 immigration period? The answer is that "it can't" be compared. Professor Byron M. Roth, has written a sober, yet sobering summa on immigration: “The Perils of Diversity: Immigration and Human Nature”. Roth reviews the social science in tremendous detail (The Perils of Diversity includes 993 footnotes and a 35-page bibliography). He concludes of both the multiculturalists and the assimilationists: "What is disturbing is that these positions are taken as self-evident by their advocates who seem uninterested in serious theoretical and empirical evidence … They certainly have not consulted the social sciences for, if they did, they would soon discover that the evidence for both the multiculturalist and the assimilationist positions is either nonexistent or contradictory." Roth points out that “multiculturism denies historical and scientific evidence that people differ in important biological and cultural ways that makes their assimilation into host countries problematic. It is also extreme in the viciousness with which it attacks those who differ on this issue.” These attacks are accompanied by a very generalized and one-sided denigration of Western traditions and Western accomplishments, and claims that a collective guilt should be assumed by all Europeans (whites) for the sins of their forebears. The diversity and multicultural ideology is based on a huge distortion of history and is alien to the vast majority of citizens. It can only be maintained by ignoring the wishes of the majority and by increasingly coercive and totalitarian means to silence dissent. This coercion takes the form of insult and social ostracism in the United States, and in Europe it has been supplemented by civil and criminal sanction against dissenters.
Dr. Hanson: You wrote that there were "...somewhere over 11 illegal immigrants currently living in the United States..." How hard can it be to round up a dozen or so illegal immigrants and deport them?
How you could leave out the new group of illegal immigrants that come here to destroy us just amazes me!!! Yes, Islamic radicals terrorists from Muslim countries are entering our country both legally and illegally, mainly by overstaying their visas to do us harm. This is an entirely new development that is only first being addressed; and, being hidden by Obama whenever & wherever possible. And make no mistake, the harm they can cause is potentially catastrophic---taking down our subway systems, electric grids, starting fires, and then the worst of all possibilities, bringing in a "big" bomb in a suitcase!!! Thus far, I'm very sad to say, the worst has yet to come.