'Nuff said.
Posted on 11/19/2015 7:17:57 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Listen for a few minutes to the raging debate over the fate of the Syrian refugees, and you will hear a familiar phrase rear its weary head: "The United States is a nation of immigrants." This line has two purposes in modern American life. The first is to serve as a dry description of the period between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the Roaring Twenties, during which the United States accepted tens of millions of émigrés looking for a better life. The second is to act as a cudgel in our contemporary immigration debate. Over the past few years, President Obama has proven himself to be especially fond of the phrase. The United States, Obama submits, has "weaved a tradition of welcoming immigrants into the very fabric of who we are"; its people, he argues, "were strangers once, too," and found good neighbors here; this is, above all else, "a nation of immigrants." His conclusion? We should change our current system in exactly the way he desires.
In a purely historical sense, the president and his parrots are correct: The United States does indeed have a long tradition of welcoming outsiders to its shores. But, in the immediate context, one must ask "So what?" The question currently before us is not "Should Americans ever accept new people into their midst?" or "Is immigration a good thing per se?" but "What policy should the United States adopt toward the Syrian refugee crisis?" It cannot be answered merely by appealing to general principles. Unless you're for open borders without checks, you are, by definition, in favor of drawing a line somewhere. And if you're for a drawing a line somewhere, you are, by definition, for some restrictions. Perhaps you are less restrictionist than others. Perhaps you consider yourself to be less "fearful" or less "racist" than those with whom you disagree. Perhaps you think that your policy is the only moral and practical one. Fine, fine, and fine. But you're still a restrictionist; you just covet a different set of restrictions than do some others. Picking a point on the continuum and deciding that it represents timeless American values is little more than folly. Unless you want a complete absence of laws, someone will always be able to out-Nation-of-Immigrants you.
As far as I can see, the questions with which the people of the United States are presently grappling are, 1) Should we take a risk and allow into the country a host of people among whom a few terrorists might be hiding?; 2) If so, how many should we take?; 3) Which criteria should we lay out when deciding who exactly is eligible?; and 4) Which processes should we put in place to screen those who apply? Mawkishly reminding one another that America has played host to a lot of immigrants in the last two centuries does precisely nothing to help us in this endeavor. It's an appeal to emotion, and little else.
That the phrase is so often thrown down as a potential conversation stopper is especially peculiar given that the people of the United States are legally authorized to contrive whatever immigration plan they wish. In the last two hundred years, there have been periods during which there were no immigration laws at all, and periods during which those laws were complex, and even evil. There have been periods during which outsiders flooded in, and periods during which the borders were all but closed. The system has been unpredictable: A Japanese expat heading for California in 1885 would have been welcomed with just an inspection; his grandson, applying in 1933, would have been summarily turned away. Romanticize it as we may, this area is just not as simple as we pretend it is. When a free-speech or Second Amendment advocate notes in absolute terms that this is a nation founded upon certain political precepts, he is correctly reminding his audience that the government is legally allowed to restrict his liberty in only a small number of ways. When an immigration advocate appeals to history, he is doing little more than begging the question.
Ultimately, our present contretemps is the result of two equally important aims coming into conflict. Certainly, there are many Americans who remain instinctively friendly toward those fleeing oppression. The Mayflower, Ellis Island, and the Irish Potato Famine still loom large in the American imagination, as does Emma Lazarus's famous paean to the "masses yearning to breathe free." But there are a host of Americans who are also wary of allowing Europe's problems into their backyard. (This paradox has haunted the question of immigration since the Founding era.)
Put bluntly, Americans do generally want to invite exiles in, but not at the expense of establishing in the United States the conditions that led them to flee in the first place. As Ian Tuttle established convincingly earlier today, it is neither irrational nor unreasonable to worry that a liberal policy toward the Syrian refugees will bring in both a host of deserving outcasts and a smattering of their tormenters. Quite how we attempt to square this circle I am not sure. As so often in American politics, conflicting values have led us to a messy place. But shrieking hysterically about history and attempting to shame the dissenters is not going to cut it this time.
-- Charles C. W. Cooke is a staff writer at National Review.
All MY grandparents came here in the ‘20’s... they left Turkey (were thrown out) and were glad to be Americans. They had NO allegiance to the Turks and were themselves refugees because of Muslim atrocities in Asia Minor.
Since America wasn’t letting JUST ANYONE in... they had to pass a physical and a mental exam.
Once here, they were proud to be American and couldn’t assimilate fast enough.
Their politics were THOROUGHLY American and their identity was AMERICAN...to the core.
During the second war and the Korean war, Greek boys, who were only first generation American citizens, enlisted and were proud and honored to serve.
MY grandparents expected and GOT no special treatment or consideration! They were just plain elated to BE HERE and welcome to avail themselves of the many opportunities, and to WORK for themselves!
There IS an incontrovertible and colossal emotional and practical difference between MY grandparents and the crowd of greedy, disrespectful, treasonous, hateful creeps who mock and insult America WHILE demanding entry!!!
Yes there is a GREAT difference and I personally resent that any sort of comparison can be made.
Many of my ancestors were here before the first white man set foot onshore. Others, from Europe, were here 200 years before the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. They didn’t immigrate to the United States; they were born here.
As the late, great Terry Anderson used to say, just because we “used to” do something, or “have always” done something, doesn’t mean we always have to do it. Yeah, we “used to” let in a lot of immigrants. (Back when we had a frontier that needed to be settled, or back when most of the immigrants were from Europe, or back when immigrants had to cross an ocean in the steerage compartment of a ship, and thus were very motivated to become Americans, or back when there wasn’t the welfare state we have now, etc., etc.) But we also “used to” have slavery, segregation, women not allowed to vote, and lots of other things that we STOPPED doing because they don’t work for us anymore. Immigration doesn’t work for us anymore. We don’t need all those people. We’ve got homeless and unemployed here already.
Bottom line, this country is our HOME. We have a right to say who comes here, and how many come here, and under what conditions, and what rights they do or do not have once they come here. It doesn’t matter a whit what we “used to” do. It’s time for an immigration moratorium. Period.
'Nuff said.
In the past there were plenty of jobs. This is no longer the case. There is nothing to be gained by admitting invaders whose goal is to destroy us. Of course women can also be terrorists and they will train their children and grandchildren to be terrorists as we have seen, for example, with the Somalis.
There is nothing to be gained by admitting Syrians - no they are not refugees - only a great deal to lose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.