Posted on 08/15/2002 11:23:35 AM PDT by gubamyster
August 15, 2002
As more information from the 2000 Census is released, it's increasingly clear that this is not our parents' country. Ethically, it stopped being their country in the 1960s. Ethnically, it now resembles not a united nation, but a United Nations, with divisions along class, racial, religious, language and ideological lines. Our national motto, E pluribus unum ("out of many, one,") no longer applies.
Census figures show that one out of every nine residents is now foreign-born. The response from politicians? Many are signing up for Spanish lessons. They should be telling immigrants to sign up for English lessons.
Yes, we are a nation of immigrants. There is a difference, however, between the way immigrants were treated a century ago during the Great Wave, and how they are treated today.
Then, they were expected to become part of America, which included speaking our language, knowing our history and respecting our traditions. Now, they are allowed -- indeed, encouraged -- to remain who they are and not bother to learn English or care about American history. Then, we sought to make Americans of immigrants. Today, we hyphenate their citizenship and tell them they may continue to bear allegiance to other countries and causes.
Here are only a few examples of how bad the situation has become: The safety video on the Delta Shuttle between Washington and New York is delivered in both Spanish and English; this November, Denver and several other Colorado counties designated as bilingual counties must print election ballots in English and Spanish; the Department of Justice has ordered Harris County, Texas (which encompasses Houston) to start providing ballots and voting materials in Vietnamese.
Part of the reason for this forming of a less perfect union is that we are no longer sure of ourselves. Embarrassed by our success and riches, we think we're doing the world a favor by engaging in self-flagellation, refusing to repeat for the next generation what was handed to us by the previous one.
A Texas schoolteacher wrote to express his frustration:
"We were raised with 'ultimate consequences' which would dictate punishment when there was no discipline ('When your father gets home...,' 'Your mother wouldn't approve of this...')," he noted. "Now, it's a question of how people can beat the law, rather than uphold it." This especially applies to those immigrants who have seen that if they can get to America illegally, their chances are good of winning amnesty and remaining in this country.
King Solomon warned: "Where there is no vision, the people cast off restraint" (Proverbs 29:18). The casting off of restraint is what characterizes us now, from corporate boardrooms to private bedrooms. If immigrants know only how to get here and do not learn what made America so attractive to them, they will live by their own standards, just as we who were born here are doing in increasing numbers, further undermining our strength and cohesiveness.
In his 1992 book, "The Tyranny of Change: America in the Progressive Era: 1890-1920," John Whiteclay Chambers wrote of the great immigration wave of a century ago, noting that a majority of arrivals in this country never intended to stay. Many hoped that "after a few years of work, they could save enough money to return home to an improved position for themselves and their families."
"Although the majority of new immigrants permanently settled in America, a significant number left (with a departure rate of 35 percent for Croatians, Poles, Serbs and Slovenes; 40 percent for Greeks; and more than 50 percent for Hungarians, Slovaks and Italians; the rate among Asian immigrants was much higher, more than two-thirds)," Chambers wrote. Today the departure rate is only about 15 percent and anyone who gets here, even illegally, can now expect his or relatives to legally follow.
Many of those who stayed a century ago had poor skills and became part of large ghettos in major urban areas, where poverty continues to drain human and financial resources. The 1990 Census indicated that ethnic enclaves were huge and growing. In the city of Miami today, about half of the population speaks English poorly or not at all, new census figures show, and 74 percent of residents speak a language other than English at home.
A source for additional facts about how we have failed to assimilate immigrants can be found on the Web page of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (www.fairus.org/).
It would help if we would re-discover what once was considered "self-evident" truths about America, disdaining relativity. If we can't do that for those already here, we will be of no use to current and future immigrants and cannot sustain ourselves as the United States.
As far as blacks go, Atlanta has always had a large black population. Blacks account for 29% of the metro population. However, what do blacks have to do with Mexicans? They're Americans, not illegals, speak English, and have American ancestories that go back at least one hundred and fifty years.
However, even with blacks being here for over a century, they predominately live in their sections of town, as whites live in their sections, etc., etc.. Again, this is the human condition that effects many people of which they wish and favor to live among people who look, think, and act like them. This is the same with whites, asians, "Hispanics", etc. This is why I have stated that immigration should be limited and that at least eighty percent should come from the countries of Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Doing so will help to eliminate the break-down in the social cohesion of the country. That is, it will force immigrants not of the dominant ethnic and cultural stock to assimilate, and it will help keep a sense of stability in the social affairs of the nation. As it now stands, social politics are a way of life when large numbers of different groups are intertwined. That is, people represent others as the group when they become large enough to have a following. They also get a great deal of attention.
Consider blacks and how social politics have played a large role in policy. Blacks vote 90% of the time for Democrats. Why? Social political strategy. The difference in politics between the white metro Atlanta population and the black metro Atlanta population are complete opposites.
In Dekalb county, a suburban area just east and northeast of the city of Atlanta, a Republican hasn't a chance to win an entirety of the county. Why? Well, in this county that is sixty percent black, a conservative candidate has a very small constituency. This is the county that has elected Cynthia McKinney, one of the most liberal democrats in all of the south.
However, in Cobb County, a suburban area in the northwest and western suburbs, a county with a black population of roughly eighteen percent, democrats aren't likely to win elections. This is the county that has brough us Bob Barr.
Compare Barr with McKinney. They're polar opposites.
Yet, I do believe that relations among black and white Americans have improved significantly, and that they're likely to improve a lot more in the future. The only problem I see is that with the influx of newcomers, social politics will grow, resulting in more competing groups and social interests. As a consequence, instead of solidifying relationships with the rest of the population, black "leaders" will likely continue to play their people against all others in the new "multicultural empire". As a result, the message of inclusiveness will be blurred out by the message of doing what's best for the black man. The same can be said of other groups as continued friction ensues. Again, this is why I think that it is best to support a policy of limited immigration, of which the vast majority are of the same ethnic and cultural stock. That is, it will help solidify immigration among those groups who may be less likely to assimilate in large numbers. Furthermore, relations among the lesser number of non-western newcomers will flourish and balkanized America can be averted. Why? With the rate of current immigration, along with the majority of "immigrants" coming from non-western countries, of whom are not of the dominant cultural stock, and given the human condition many have, it is not unlikely that there will be a break-down in the social cohesion of the country.
And, yes, Spain and Portugal are both "successful" by most accepted standards. That's why they are officially, by the United Nations, labeled "First World".
Does that really work for you?
I didn't say that the foreigners didn't have the skills, but I did say that many are of lesser skill than their American counterparts. It is these Americans who are being displaced by H1B high tech workers. It is these Americans who are out of work. It is these Americans who should have these jobs.
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.