L’Intifada en Los Estados Unidos

National Review ^ | 17 November 2005 | Mark Krikorian

[RKV]

“Their parents’ generation was invited to France as laborers who were expected to return home but didn’t.” — “France Beefs Up Response to Riots,” Washington Post, November 8, 2005

“This program expects temporary workers to return permanently to their home countries after their period of work in the United States has expired.” — President George W. Bush outlining his worker-importation plan, January 7, 2004

As Muslim insurgents burn France’s suburban Occupied Territories, Americans can be forgiven for thinking “Thank God we have Mexicans and not Arabs.” Mexicans are Christian and politically passive, and large numbers of them and their children have assimilated thoroughly into the American people. Niall Ferguson made just this point in the Los Angeles Times.

But American supporters of mass immigration might want to postpone the self-congratulation. While it’s true that in this area, as in so many others, America’s problems are less acute than other nations’, the proposals before Congress to massively increase the importation of foreign workers could create two, three, many Clichys-sous-Bois in our future.

There are two reasons for this, one about Mexicans and one not. Regarding Mexicans: If you think we have a lot now, just wait until the president’s plan gets passed. The Mexican-immigrant population has been soaring, and all of the “temporary” worker proposals before Congress would supercharge that growth, both through their legal entry mechanisms as well as through the additional illegal immigration they will inevitably stimulate. The total number of Mexicans in the U.S. has grown from less than 800,000 in 1970, to 2.2 million in 1980, 4.3 million in 1990, 7.9 million in 2000, and 10.8 million this year (that’s 37-percent growth just in the past five years). Despite ludicrous claims by administration operatives that Mexican immigration will disappear on its own, Mexico’s own census agency forecasts between 3.5 and 5 million new immigrants to the U.S. per decade over the next generation, under current U.S. policy. Passage of the president’s plan or the McCain/Kennedy proposal — or even the less-egregious Kyl-Cornyn bill — would result in even more rapid increases in Mexican immigration, perhaps doubling yet again within a decade.

This is important because numbers matter; a Mexican immigrant population of 20 or 25 million is qualitatively different from today’s already-huge 11 million. It would create more of a constituency for the Aztlan irredentism that is already a normal part of political debate on the Left in California; more immediately, it would facilitate the Mexican government’s anti-assimilation initiatives (described in detail here by Heather Mac Donald) designed to create a regime of shared Mexican-U.S. sovereignty over much of our population, with Mexico City serving, in effect, as a second federal government that local and state officials would be answerable to. And when we rouse ourselves to reassert our exclusive sovereignty, as the French state tried to do in the no-go zones of its immigrant suburbs, the pushback might well be as intense.

But, of course, the word “Mexico” never appears in any of the worker-importation plans before Congress. The old Bracero Program (that ran for 20 years until the 1960s and sparked the illegal-immigration wave in the first place) was limited to Mexicans — Mexican men, in fact — but today’s anti-discrimination ethos makes such restrictions impossible. So what happens when American employers eventually realize there are workers abroad willing to accept wages even lower than Mexicans will accept? After all, Mexico is an upper-middle-income country by global standards, with a per-capita GDP in purchasing-power-parity terms of $9,600 — if you want huge amounts of really cheap labor, go to Indonesia (242 million people, 88 percent Muslim, per capita GDP $3,500) or Pakistan (162 million, 97 percent Muslim, GDP $2,200) or Bangladesh (144 million, 83 percent Muslim, GDP $2,000) or Egypt (77 million, 94 percent Muslim, GDP $4,200). We have been fortunate in that our Muslim population is comparatively small (1 percent of our population, compared with 10 percent in France), well-educated, prosperous, ethnically diverse, and geographically dispersed — all factors making radicalism and alienation less likely. But a new foreign-worker scheme could undo these benefits, by importing large numbers of poor, uneducated, ghettoized Muslim peasants, who will be expected to go back, but won’t.

Instead of risking our security with huge, unmanageable foreign-worker programs, the Senate and president would be wise to adopt the House Republicans’ approach of promoting attrition of the illegal population through consistent, across-the-board law enforcement, something we’ve never tried before. This would facilitate the assimilation of legal immigrants already here, enable the immigration bureaucracy to catch its breath, encourage low-wage industries to modernize, and shrink the sea within which foreign radicals — of all kinds — are able to swim.

Neither George Bush nor John McCain — nor even Ted Kennedy — want immigrant uprisings in America’s cities. But their immigration proposals would move us in that direction. We need to choose a different path.

— NRO contributor Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

[RKV]

Mexifornia aborning.

[JLS]

What a dumb article, among the difference between the US and France:

1. France enforces immigration law and these people came as legal residence and France let them stay permanently. That is the opposite of the US situation where we need to beef up our border security including probably having a guest worker program.

2. The immigrants in the case of the US share the same broad religion as the US again the opposite of the French situation.

3. France has not history of integrating immigrants, the US has a long history of integrating immigrants.

[don'tbedenied]

This was a disturbingly dumb article for all the reasons you mention. The racist who wrote this could, in 1890, just as easily named the Irish or Italian immigrants.
What's up at National Review?

[JLS]

Well I would not call this person racist. There is a long history of a segment of the US population that has been anti-immigrant. It has been the Unions in the Dim party, some people in the GOP and of course the Buchannites who I consider Dims.

[RKV]

Not a dumb article at all. The US is absorbing immigrants faster than it can assimilate them. This is "multiculturalism" in practice, and not a good thing. "Shared sovereignty" isn't great either and it is part of Mexico's plan.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

the Senate and president would be wise to adopt the House Republicans’ approach of promoting attrition of the illegal population through consistent

There will be no attritition so long as we keep hiring them. Less Mexicans come in when the economy is slow.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

This was a disturbingly dumb article for all the reasons you mention

The fact that Aztlan was mentioned was a good clue.

[RKV]

There will be less illegal immigration if we spend law enforcement (and other) resources to stop it. Economics does matter, which is why Mexicans (and others) want to come here in the first place. It's our country and we should decide who gets in, not outsiders.

[Travis McGee]

Here is one fictional look at a possible outcome:

Fernando Ortiz was a ‘landscape engineer’ on Long Island who had demanded to be able to vote, on the basis that he had been paying state and federal taxes for ten years. Actually, he had been stopped from casting a ballot by a poll watcher who had suspected his citizenship status, and (illegally, as it turned out) demanded proof of his identity and legal qualification to vote. Ortiz had won a multi-million dollar settlement against the Republican Party of New York in the subsequent “racial profiling and ethnic intimidation” civil suit, but he did not stop there.

Instead, with massive support from the ACLU and various Hispanic “immigrants rights” foundations, he had pressed his demand to be allowed to vote all the way to the Supreme Court…and he won. The Supreme Court, in its famous 5-4 decision, ruled that negligence in securing America’s borders against illegal immigration on the part of the federal government, could not be held against “undocumented workers who played by the rules and paid their taxes,” once they were established in America—legally or not. The federal government had not taken reasonable efforts to secure the border, and had not pursued "undocumented workers" in the USA. Instead, it openly permitted them most of the benefits of citizenship, and it collected their taxes. "No taxation without representation!" was the cry heard all the way to the Supreme Court. The State of New York had then sleep-walked through an aimless and desultory case for denying the vote—and citizenship—to “undocumented workers.”

Following Ortiz v. New York, a stunned America woke up to discover that there were not only an amazing twenty-two million illegal aliens hiding in plain sight across the land, but that eight million of them immediately qualified to vote. In a nation split 50-50 down party and ideological lines, these eight million new voters were recognized to be the certain majority-makers in future elections, and both parties set record lows for cravenness in pandering to their “needs.” Chief among their “needs” were liberal new family reunification laws, and these instant citizens—illegal aliens only a year before—began bringing the remainders of their families to the USA. Legally.

Overnight, wavering Democrat states became locks, and swing states with large Hispanic populations went solidly “blue.” The result was the recent election which had brought Gobernador Deleon to power in Nuevo Mexico, and had also brought radical Democrats to power in the White House and both houses of congress.

Thus had come the political tsunami which swept all before it, a tidal wave triggered by an undocumented lawn maintenance worker named Fernando Ortiz.

[RKV]

Thanks Travis. I enjoyed your book. Looking forward to the next one.

[gubamyster]

ping

[reelfoot]

Thoughtful and disturbing article.

If American is to continue as a 1st world country with western ideals and values we must do two things, immediately:

1) close the borders to all illegals.
2) radically reform our immigration laws to reduce the number of legal immigrants allowed in, and restrict admission to highly intelligent, highly educated people who have job skills actually needed in this country and who come from countries that are western-oriented in their outlook. (And no, thanks, we don't need millions more just to drive the remaining American bricklayers and roofers out of their jobs so we can pay $3 less an hour.)

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

It's our country and we should decide who gets in, not outsiders

I agree but we ARE the ones deciding ... anytime we hire them.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

radically reform our immigration laws to reduce the number of legal immigrants allowed in, and restrict admission to highly intelligent, highly educated people who have job skills actually needed in this country

There's also a great need for farm laborers. No higher education needed.

[RKV]

As you point out its the ideals and values which matter. I have travelled in Mexico, speak Spanish and follow their news on the internet. No question if I were Mexican (and not part of the "ruling class") I would want to come to the US. I don't blame them, I just think we need to keep our own best interests in mind first. Low wage labor isn't cheap (IMO) so I am not of the "open borders" crowd. These guys have written extensively on the subject - http://www.cis.org.

[RKV]

If what you mean is that hiring illegals is wrong - then I agree. Not clear to me that is your intent.

[dennisw]

Brilliant article. Draws all the right parallels. Thanks Mark

[dennisw]

We already have no go zones for illegal immigrants. Called sanctuary cities. Local police are not allowed to detain and implement expulsion of criminal illegal aliens. Most of whom are Mexicans with Central Americans in second place

[Dane]

Blah, blah, blah, a really cheap attempt to compare Latin American Christians, to the muslim jihadis, France is dealing with fire hoses.

[Travis McGee]

You forgot this major difference:

ALL Mexicans are taught from day one in their official history textbooks that the American Southwest was stolen from them, it is their birthright, they have every right to live in all parts of the "stolen" land, and they do not need to obey our immigration laws, period.

Algerians cannot say the same about France.

Thought I'd point out that difference, which you seemed to overlook.

Also BTW, the Mexican state department still has the "Immigrants Guide" up on their official website, advising Mexicans how best to illegally invade the USA, and play the system once they are inside.