Mi Casa No Es Su Casa: Against Amnesty

By J. Stethers White | Friday, May 5, 2006

Lyndon Johnson once remarked, “If you let a bully come in and chase you out of your front yard, tomorrow he’ll be on your porch, and the next day he’ll rape your wife in your own bed.” It was, admittedly, a poor metaphor for his time: Vietnam is not the United States’ front yard, and gang of third-world guerillas on the other side of the world weren’t really in a position to bully America. Today, though, the metaphor might deserve dusting off and examining. California is the United States’ front yard, and a 12 million strong illegal alien population is in quite a position to bully the country. The last few months saw two instances of the bully appearing, the latest on May Day.

On Monday, there were nation-wide protests in support of amnesty for illegal aliens. Select Dartmouth students held their own demonstration, the ill-titled ‘Rally for Immigrant Rights.’ Of course, the title was a dishonest ploy designed to obscure the actual debate. Immigrants, believe it or not, have rights under U.S. law. What the protesters actually demanded were rights for illegal immigrants. By speaking of ‘rights’ the protesters consciously tried to attach their campaign to the struggle for blacks’ civil rights. But the latter was a crusade for practical recognition of pre-established rights, whereas Monday’s marches were a collective demand that the citizens of the United States, and their government, cede their democratically decided preferences to the prerogative of a pack of foreign criminals. It was pure bullying.

Anyone at the rally would not, however, have heard anything about the immigrants in question having arrived here illegally. Instead, the protesters stuck mostly to glib slogans—No human is illegal!; The people united, will never be divided! When the chanting died down, the speakers began; they relied mostly on the sort of boilerplate one has come to expect in the academic echo room, but every so often, they lapsed into some truly interesting drivel.

Professor Padilla used her time at the podium to speak glowingly of the Sandinistas “popular revolution,” while damning the U.S. for opposing it. The gist of her speech was that America had more or less ruined Latin America, and thus had a moral obligation to accept its immigrant refuse. She didn’t give Latin America enough credit though—since independence from Spain, it has more than proven its ability to wreck itself.

Another speaker (a comparative literature major, no less) described his vision of a Brave New America, ushered in by the dominance of “pluralism.” He anticipates the dawn of a new generation of “hyphenated Americans,” for whom being a mere “American,” is no longer sufficient. Multiple identities, you see, are destined to be the new norm. One wonders what will happen to the millions of Americans whose national identity is uniquely rooted in, well, America. Maybe they’ll need to pick up a deviant sexual preference to earn their hyphenation. The speaker accused those self-identifying as Americans of adhering to a “fake” identity and “an outdated and generic notion of a national culture.” Another speaker—a Pakistani—scolded the U.S.: “Your country doesn’t have a history—[immigrants] give you one.”

I’m not sure what they would consider a legitimate national culture if America can’t lay claim to one. From the first Thanksgiving, through the Declaration of Independence, the Revolution and the Civil War, the settlement of the West, repeated triumph over totalitarianism, and baseball, the world’s oldest constitutional republic has a compelling national story. Besides, I doubt Mr. Comp-Lit would really enjoy the effects of waning national identity. When one identity ebbs, another generally fills the vacuum: as Yugoslavs ceased to be Yugoslavs, they defined themselves by religious identity, and slaughter ensued.

One of the more frequent comments made throughout the rally was that “America was founded by immigrants.” Nonsense. Colonists founded America, not immigrants. Immigrants came later, benefiting immensely from the effort of those original colonists, and some gratitude would be appropriate.

Throughout all of this inanity, the speakers scrupulously referred only to “immigrants,” not “undocumented workers,” and certainly not “illegal aliens.” But the rally wouldn’t be taking place if illegals in America weren’t the issue. This newspaper believed that the criminality of ‘undocumented workers’—and regardless of their merits, they are criminals—was a point intentionally ignored by the pro-amnesty side of the debate, and we felt compelled to drive it home. So, the Review arranged for a plane to tow a banner over the Green, during the rally, reading “ILLEGALS ARE CRIMINALS—SEND THEM BACK!”

The crowd’s reaction was amusing. Fingers pointed towards the sky and everyone looked, mouths agape. Initially, the protesters were nonplussed, but they soon began booing and hissing, seemingly unaware that the pilot, hundreds of feet above, was oblivious to their noise.

Some protesters claimed our argument wasn’t “intellectual.” The message was, admittedly, a bit terse. But aerial advertising has a forty-five character limit, so we made do. What follows is a more thorough rationale for our anti-amnesty position.

Wages

Protest organizers spent the days before the rally spreading various ‘informative’ flyers about campus, each with carefully selected facts designed to portray illegal immigration in a positive light. One such flyer noted, “Immigrants create more jobs than they fill.” More jobs created, that’s good for the economy, and good for America, right?

Well, marginally perhaps. Even if immigrants create jobs, they don’t seem to create much wealth for native Americans. Even liberal light Paul Krugman admits that, “Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.” If the effects of a large illegal immigrant presence were merely negligible, then perhaps they could be ignored; but the reality is that the effects are detrimental.

When the President says that illegals take jobs that “Americans won’t do,” he’s being disingenuous. A more accurate statement would be, “illegals take the jobs Americans won’t do for a pittance.” And why do these jobs earn only a pittance? Because when immigrants fill jobs, they exert downward pressure on the wages of native-born Americans. Harvard professors George Borjas and Lawrence Katz recently released a study documenting the effect of immigration on wages between 1980 and 2000. They found that in the short run, immigration brought down overall American wages by 3.3%. But that wasn’t spread evenly across all workers: high-school dropouts, the group most likely destined for the lower class, saw their wages fall by 8%. As Borjas points out, the mass immigration in the last twenty-five years is “just another distribution program. In the short run, it transfers wealth from one group (workers) to another (employers).”

This effect on wages illuminates a left-wing political position that would be risible if it weren’t so excruciating: the Left decries the growing gap between rich and poor in America, while actively campaigning for a policy that shifts wealth from poor to rich. As many commentators have already pointed out, liberals frequently wax demagogic against the evils of globalization and outsourcing jobs overseas, but they’re willing—nay, enthusiastic—to import workers to do American jobs. This position smacks of cynicism, but unfortunately, it’s par for the course in the illegal immigration debate.

I am loath to use any language remotely suggestive of class warfare, but the illegal immigration issue is a clear-cut example of business interests, affluent citizens, and the political elite advocating a policy whose victims will be working class Americans. That these lines define the debate should be obvious to any casual observer. In effect, well-to-do Americans are beggaring their poorer neighbors so they can get their lawns cut on the cheap. It’s embarrassing.

Importing a Race Problem

Academic sociologists and geneticists, if you gathered them together and asked them to define race, would likely reply that there’s no taxonomic difference between so-called races, and therefore race is socially constructed—merely a mirage. Of course, they’d also be quick to clamor for diversity of this so-called non-entity. And so you see, race is at once everything and nothing.

First, the everything. Mexican “rights” advocates frequently talk about la raza, short for la raza cosmica, or ‘the universal race.’ But there’s nothing universal about race in Mexico. Sixty percent of Mexicans are mestizo (of mixed Amerindian and European descent), a further 30% are Amerindians, and only 9% of Mexicans are white. Race might be a mere social construction as far as the professors are concerned, but it has very real effects for Latin America, whose overall demographic structure mirrors Mexico. Whites form a wealthy ruling class, below which are mestizos, with Amerindians at the bottom, mired in poverty. Don’t believe me? Examine the lily-white Latin American Presidents (pictured above); they don’t look much like the average day laborer.

Oligarchy is Latin America’s prevailing social order and accordingly, the vast majority of the population is hopelessly poor, while the rich are very few and very wealthy. For example, the U.S. has 2.7 million millionaires, who together have $9.3 trillion in assets; Latin America, has only 300,000 millionaires, but they have $3.7 trillion in assets. This gives the average wealthy American around $3.3 million, whereas the rich in Latin America have about $12.3 million on average, all despite a markedly less dynamic economy.

Predictably, this has lead to social discord, recently underlined by the triumphs of Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales, in Venezuela and Bolivia, respectively. Both are left-wing and anti-American, and both drew immense support from indigenous rights movements, some of which have shown anti-white tendencies.

Latin America, then, has a race problem. It should not be outside the realm of polite debate to consider that maybe, by importing millions of that region’s underclass, America might also import its problems with race. As John Derbyshire of National Review has pointed out, America already has one race problem, and it would be ludicrous to import a second. I hasten to add, this is not an argument against non-white or non-black immigration, but rather the recognition that today’s Hispanic migration entails the wholesale relocation of millions of the racially polarized poor—a trial that the fabled melting pot has never faced.

Now, the nothing. Though at its founding, the United States was essentially biracial—a country of whites and blacks (Indians were denied citizenship)—immigrants of different races have since come from around the world and thrived. This experience provides an obvious rejoinder to the above concern: America, having more opportunity than the homes of illegal aliens, should be able to embrace them, as it has scores of other immigrants.

I’m sympathetic to this argument because I consider culture vastly more important than race in ensuring a unified society. But, whether or not today’s Hispanic illegal immigrants will accept American culture is uncertain; initial indications aren’t terribly promising. This consideration brings us to assimilation.

Culture and Assimilation

One cannot deny that today’s wave of Hispanics is vastly different from past influxes of immigrants. When America opened its doors to hosts of Europeans over a century ago, they left their homelands to travel thousands of miles, cross an ocean, and they had little prospect of returning. Moreover, older waves of immigration were followed by periods of slow-down, giving the newcomers a chance to assimilate while ties to their homeland weakened. Today’s model of illegal immigration stands in complete opposition to the system that has proven so successful for America. Instead of crossing an ocean, never to return, current illegal immigrants, most of them Mexican, come from relatively nearby, and don’t necessarily intend to stay. A recent Pew Hispanic Center survey revealed that 27% of Mexicans in the U.S. expect to stay for only 5 years or less. That’s not yearning to breath free, that’s yearning to make a buck. Additionally, there is no slowdown in sight, since the utter impoverishment of Mexico makes it an endless wellspring of migrants. A U.S. policy of amnesty only exacerbates the inflows; in 1986, the U.S. government granted amnesty to 2.5 million illegals, and now, 20 years later, some are agitating for another amnesty for 12 million illegals. Like the last go round, politicians will claim it’s a one-time compromise… until two more decades have passed, and the U.S. finds itself strapped with 30 million illegals.

The present immigration wave also differs from past waves in the population structure of the migrants. Today, a third of all immigrants in America are Mexican. By comparison, in 1920, after a decades-long deluge of immigrants, the three largest groups combined (Italians, Russians, and Germans) made up a third of immigrants. Unprecedented numbers of Mexican immigrants is no small hurdle to assimilation, because the scale of the migration allows them to form ethnic enclaves, apart from both larger American society and other immigrant groups.

An added complication is America’s historically tumultuous relationship with Latin America, and Mexico in particular, which engenders further barriers to assimilation. In 2002, 58% of Mexicans believed that the Southwest United States rightfully belongs to Mexico—over 150 years after the Mexican-American War. (What’s next, a revival of “Fifty-Four Forty or Fight?”) Tellingly, to coincide with the American “Day Without an [Illegal] Immigrant,” Mexico held a “Day Without Gringos.” Cute. One of Mexico’s former dictators once remarked, “Poor Mexico! So far from God, and so close to the United States.” Perhaps Americans should stop to consider whether a cultural hostility to the damned Yanquis is consistent with a successful Hispanic migration.

Samuel Huntington has put forward concerns that these factors will lead to the eventual division of America into two societies. One would speak English and adhere to the country’s original Anglo-Protestant values. The other would be speak Spanish and be culturally Hispanic. Such a rupture would mark a U.S. transition from a multiethnic monocultural society, to a multiethnic multicultural society, leaving little glue to hold America together. Whatever tripe academics and administrators like to spout about “diversity” and “pluralism,” they are anything but unifying ideals. Indeed, they are the antithesis of unifying ideals, the celebration of a lack of common cultural. This is nothing less than an existential threat to American culture as we know it.

The Rule of Law

For the sake of argument, one can assume that the current wave of Hispanic immigrants will assimilate, that they will not import any of Latin America’s racial friction, and that they are economically beneficial. Yet all of that notwithstanding, allowing amnesty would still be wrong.

America is a sovereign nation and, as such, has every right to decide its internal policies. Immigration policy is of particular importance because it will very directly shape the future of the country. America’s citizenry and its elected leaders have democratically chosen an immigration policy, and it should be respected. The United States are under no obligation to accept anyone who might want to cross her borders. The May Day protesters, both illegal and native, refused to recognize this, thereby demonstrating a troubling contempt for the law; they did not advocate a mere legal change, but rather denied the validity of American law and demanded citizenship for illegal aliens. Such a demand belied a clear disconnect from mainstream American society. The U.S. is not France—here, policies are decided by elections and civil debate, not through mass marches designed to intimidate.

And intimidation is exactly what May 1st was dedicated to. Millions of foreigners, who have no legal right to be in the country, marched through the streets, waving foreign flags, demanding that America capitulate to their demands. One might reasonably expect a degree of humility from people who, by their very presence, are criminals, but none was on display. It was bullying in its purest form—millions thronging to shout down the nation’s citizens.

All of those voices should fall on deaf American ears. As non-citizens, the marchers have no right whatsoever to join the national discussion on illegal immigration. Some might argue that ignoring the voices of millions of resident aliens won’t lead to a resolution, but that severely underestimates America.

The Solution

Any true settlement of the immigration debate should deal with both law-enforcement and future American immigration policy.

As for the latter, once the illegal immigration problem is resolved, the U.S. should reconsider its overall immigration policies. The nation should look to Australia for the basis of a successful program. In Australia, English-speaking, well-educated immigrants are given top priority. Such immigrants not only assimilate more quickly than others, but are more economically benificial. America’s economy would gain considerably more from Indian computer programmers than it does from uneducated day laborers. Such a policy is best suited to keep America competitive in the global economy.

But before the country should even consider future immigration, it needs to get to fix the current predicament. In 1954, the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service commenced with Operation Wetback. The project joined local, state, and national law enforcement agencies in a comprehensive campaign to remove the illegal alien population from the Southwest U.S.. Although the program’s moniker sounds a bit questionable to today’s sensitive ears, the endeavor was, by any measure, a success. Over the course of one year, a million illegals were deported. Unfortunately, the project engaged in aggressive methods that weren’t well liked then, and certainly wouldn’t be tolerated now. Large-scale deportation isn’t an option.

Fixing the border, though, is very possible. Any new immigration law should include extensive funding for a wall along America’s southern border. To those who say it’s not effective, they should look at the Israeli fence. To those who say it’s not possible to build a 2000-mile wall, I note that mining the border would most certainly be possible. Cost efficient, too. I say we try the wall first.

Additionally, penalizing American businesses for hiring illegals would effectively erode their motivation to come to the U.S.. Nobody would bother paying a coyote to cross the border if employment prospects in the U.S. were dismal. The federal government should require that every commercial employee submit working social security number. Strong sanctions against business that fail to comply would make illegal labor too risky for consideration.

Should both effective border enforcement and diminished job opportunities become realities, the illegal alien problem would largely solve itself through attrition. Mark Krikorian has written extensively on this strategy. He notes that the illegal population decreased by more than 400,000 per year in the late 1990s, variously through deportation, voluntary exit, and death. With the above policies in place, America’s illegal aliens would slowly disappear. Those that managed to stay would effectively be cut off from their native lands, hastening assimilation.

These solutions will not necessarily be pleasant to implement, but they are infinitely preferable to the alternative: capitulation. Right now, America is being bullied by a small group of criminal resident foreigners. The front yard has long been forfeit, and on Monday, the bully seized our porch—now, are we going to open the bedroom door for him, or are we going to stand and fight?

Mi Casa No Es Su Casa: Against Amnesty

Article Tools

Related Articles