The Forgotten “A” Word: Assimilation
One thing the pro-illegal immigration crowd seems to always confuse is the fact that there is a world of difference between immigrants lawfully coming in through Ellis Island and other designated ports of entry and illegals streaming across the Rio Grande or in through the Virgin Islands or other relatively undefended borders. The former ensured that past immigrants wanted to be here, wanted to assimilate as Americans and not as a slash, and that they did not pose a health or security risk to the Americans already here. The latter is a come now, maybe ask questions later approach, consequences be damned but corporations be blessed by a perverse government subsidy that also goes by the name of undermining our sovereignty. It should come as no surprise that is the former and not the latter approach that is more consistent with the wisdom of America’s Founders, as Michelle Malkin points out in her excellent article, “The Forgotten ‘A’ Word: Assimilation.” Here are some highlights:
The fact is: We are not a “nation of immigrants.” This is both a factual error and a warm-and-fuzzy non sequitur. Eighty-five percent of the residents currently in the United States were born here. Sure, we are almost all descendants of immigrants. But we are not a “nation of immigrants.”
…Even if we were a “nation of immigrants,” it does not explain why we should be against sensible immigration control. And if the open-borders advocates would actually read American history instead of revising it, they would see that the founding fathers were emphatically insistent on protecting the country against indiscriminate mass immigration. They insisted on assimilation as a pre-condition, not an afterthought…
– George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, stated that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that “by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people.”
– In a 1790 speech to Congress on the naturalization of immigrants, James Madison stated that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily “incorporate himself into our society.”
– Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1802: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.”
*****
(Eric Langborgh is the author of Borg Blog and the director of development for the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU). His views and comments expressed at the Control Congress blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent those of the ACRU, unless so specified.)
Eric, an excellent article, but I do believe it leaves out a major aspect of our Nation’s prior approach to immigration. I don’t recall the specific dates, but for a long period of time, and ending in 1965 (Ted Kennedy), the Congress allocated “slots” for new immigrants and those slots heavily favored European type folks to preserve our strength, unity, values, customs etc. Only after Kennedy managed to effect a change in our laws in 1965 did the new mantra “Diversity is our Greatest Strength”, come into play and get thrust down our throats 25 hours/day, and now non-European types are favored to the point where we are today – an absolute mess. And the seeds are now planted for the end of the nation, as we know it. Our earlier leaders understood human nature and knew that multiculturalism doesn’t work and is indeed suicide for the Western peoples. And if we look around the world, the multicultural societies are held together with strong dictators to keep every one from each other’s throats. Eric, have the read the book “The Dispossessed Majority” by Wilmot Robertson? I would most highly encourage you read it. The book is extremely well written (Robertson was a Yale graduate) and discusses each group and their potential to assimilate. And Eric, all groups can not successfully assimilate.
ps. I find it interesting that Michelle Malkin, the author of the article you posted gets so much air time. But the answer is simple, she’s non-white and thus safe to show on TV or the print media. Caucasians need not apply.
Hugh,
Malkin is also very charismatic, pretty, and not afraid to throw bombs. That attracts an audience and that is what explains her air time. Though there may be a tiny grain of truth to what you are saying on this point (for instance, local TV newscasts usually pair a woman and man, and if one is a minority that is a bonus to be preferred – but is also largely understandable from a marketing standpoint), your analysis is ultimately belied by the existence of hugely successful folks like Bill O’Reilly (who I respect, even if I often find areas of disagreement) and that ultimate neo-con brat, Sean Hannity (who I can’t stand).
I agree that there was that element to past immigration policies, and to a large extent I find it abhorrent. I find it a reprehensible fact of our history that FDR turned back a huge boat full of Jews trying to escape Hitler. And I find it a badge of honor that we were willing to take Vietnamese and Cubans and Eastern Europeans fleeing totalitarian persecution and oppression to join the land of freedom. And this is why I deplore our idiotic policy today concerning Cuban refugees that we will turn their make-shift boats around, but will take them if they make it past the Coast Guard and set foot on our soil.
The issue for me, regardless of place of origin or ethnicity, is a willingness to assimilate and to embrace our values and heritage as their own.
Are you aware that Malkin herself is an anchor baby? Her parents were here on visas when she was born.
Caroline,
I’m not aware of that if that is that case. Even if so, would that be her fault? Would her status as an anchor baby somehow invalidate her opposition to that law and practice?
Eric, are you aware of that book I referred to you – “The Dispossessed Majority”? It sounds as if you have not read it. The thesis of the book is that all groups are not assimilable (sp?) into Western Culture. I so wish you could read that book and then see if it changes your viewpoint here. And please let me directly say I’m not slamming other peoples, I’m merely acknowledging human nature and how “groups” behave. In fact a fellow just came out with a study, his name is Putnam I believe, and his study found that people withdraw into their personal cocoons, the more multicultural the society is. He is a liberal and was reluctant to publish his conclusions as they didn’t support his pre-drawn conclusion. Putnam found that if people have less in common, they withdraw. Makes sense to me. That’s not healthy for a nation!
Hugh,
I have not read that book, though I agree that not all groups will as readily assimilate as others. My comments in #2 were in response to the rest of what you wrote in #1.
Re: your assertion about cocoons, I believe you are correct here. This is why balkanization through multiculturalism is so wrong and dangerous. A certain level of diversity is good, but let’s not pretend that it is diversity that makes a nation strong. A nation is defined by what the people have in common.
Eric,
It’s just something to ponder. Following her logic perhaps she shouldn’t have been here either. Maybe her parents should have gone “home” for her to be born there.
Caroline – your usual “left side” is really showing now. There is a HUGE difference between ILLEGAL ALIENS having babies in order to gain the right to stay here and valid, visa-holding people here legally.
I don’t know if Ms. Malkin is an “anchor baby” under your narrow definition, but I DO know she’s a Patriot of the first order and a friend of America’s fighting men and women.
If she IS an anchor baby, let’s have more and more of them!
John Konop for U.S. Senate – Let’s take a chance and see if he can change things!
Uh, Sgt, where does she mention illegal? In the cited reference above she talks about just immigration. Not surprised you would call her a “patriot”. LOL.
Eric’s post #6 closed with the following sentence:
“A nation is defined by what the people have in common.”
I say AMEN to what Eric said. And of course this thought is 180 degrees out of phase with the “Diversity is our greatest strength” mantra.
And Eric also noted a “certain degree of diversity is good” and I would agree with that statement. But the balance is way out of wack these days. Suicidal, as I mentioned before!
Caroline,
The main point of Malkin’s article is the assimilation of immigrants. However, she clearly differentiated out the illegals in the second sentence of her article, found via the provided link:
[...] Posted by Eric F. Langborgh on 07 Jul 2007 at 07:40 am | Tagged as: Control Congress Blog, Illegal Immigration Be sure to read my latest post at the Control Congress blog: “The Forgotten ‘A’ Word: Assimilation.” The ensuing conversation in the comments section there is especially good. Here is a taste of what I wrote: One thing the pro-illegal immigration crowd seems to always confuse is the fact that there is a world of difference between immigrants lawfully coming in through Ellis Island and other designated ports of entry and illegals streaming across the Rio Grande or in through the Virgin Islands or other relatively undefended borders. The former ensured that past immigrants wanted to be here, wanted to assimilate as Americans and not as a slash, and that they did not pose a health or security risk to the Americans already here. The latter is a come now, maybe ask questions later approach, consequences be damned but corporations be blessed by a perverse government subsidy that also goes by the name of undermining our sovereignty… © 2004-2007 Eric F. Langborgh [...]
Um, John, I just poked fun at our good man Al for moving a post of his up by changing the post date. I assume you had a good reason for doing the same to mine?
Eric
Yes it was hot with lots of views!
BTW it is a good post!
I’m actually beginning to see some of your anti-immigrant points here.
In fact, I’d like to propose that we begin deporting some of the more recent immigrants.
I’ve got documentation proving that my ancestors arrived on the continent in 1799, and made their way to Ohio via New Orleans, the Mississippi River, and its tributaries.
This puts me above many other Americans, and frankly I feel cheated that so many of you have benefited more than me.
If only President Taft had been on the ball we could have stopped many of you descendents of lowly Euro-trash from coming over. And I wouldn’t have to share all the greatness this country has to offer.
Look out, we’ll be coming for you next. I hope you have your geneology clearly documented.
The “Ellis Island immigrants” were skilled laborers whose skills bolstered our economy at the time and whose success in our free market determined their viability. Those who couldn’t make it did not have a welfare system safety net and returned to their countries on their own free will. Unskilled, uneducated immigrants from Mexico or elsewhere benefit no one expect the profit margins of business owners and drain our social services and healthcare system.
No one (at least I don’t believe that anyone) here is “anti-immigrant,” Capt. Menace, least of all me. Please note my distinction. I and most others in the overall debate are talking about modes of immigration – legal ones versus illegal ones. Some of us happen to think that distinction is important, in terms of sovereignty, homeland security, crime, national economy, and heath concerns, etc.
Eric Langborgh, in your post #18 you state “No one (at least I don’t believe that anyone) here is “anti-immigrant,”…”
I’m not sure what the definition of “anti-immigrant” is. I would add, however, that I’m a very strong supporter of a “time out” from new immigration as we have way too many now, and they need to be absorbed or assimilated!!!!
Cap’n.
I can trace my family tree to a mercenary soldier fighting under Washington.
Do I get to tell you to go back?
MD
P.S. I wanted to try the “My great grandmother was a full blooded Cherokee Indian” ploy. But, that didn’t work the last time I tried it. DAMN DNA!
[...] At my other blogging locales, my only unique blog at Control Congress in July was “The Forgotten ‘A’ Word: Assimilation.” At The ACRU Blog, my most notable unique blog was “ In Defense of Discrimination and Freedom of Association.” (Though be sure to see the letter I wrote, “In Defense of Judge Southwick: An Open Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.” [...]