Comment Rescue: Immigration Motivations
In Gabriel Conroy’s “Thoughts on Immigration“, Patrick Duffy tells us:
I agree with most of what you say, Gabriel. I would go even farther to say that government does not have the moral right to tell people where they can live. The United States did a little of that with Native Americans in the 19th century. Russia and China have done significant amounts of that. India and Pakistan, explicitly or implicitly, moved millions between their new born countries. ISIS is expelling (or killing) any Christians living in the areas they have conquered recently. And on and on. I hear few defending such forced mass movements.
I see no more moral argument to justify the converse, i.e. “you can’t move,” instead of “you must move.”
Yes, having people of different nationalities come here, or to any other country, will change the country. Koreans in Los Angeles running taco trucks. Who’d a thunk it? What gives anyone the right to decide that the country can not be/should not be changed in the future? That’s the kind of attitude that leads to hardening of the arteries in a country, an inflexibility that will eventually break a country. Cf. Japan’s struggles with a shrinking population and a stagnant economy. ditto Europe. Adapt or die!
And “them” being here will change them, too. It is interesting to watch the evolution of immigrant peoples over the generations. Grandchildren who don’t speak the same language as their grandparents, despite the best efforts of their parents to make them learn the old country’s language. Parents tut-tutting their third generation children marrying people who aren’t of their ethnic group. The Mexican women’s national soccer team has players with Hispanic last names and first names like Emily because the players grew up in the United States. (They actually had to institute a rule that you have to pass a test on Spanish in order to play for Mexico!) I have a relative, by marriage, who is a Haitian-American, a MD who is married to a Japanese-American. He actually made the statement recently, “What I like about being Japanese is…..” In America, ethnic identity begins to wane significantly with the third generation.
One of my friends is half Greek and half Mexican, a second generation American. He quotes his Greek father as saying that “the reason Europeans all hate Americans is that they know that all of us came from over there and that means that their families didn’t have the guts to get up off their ass and come over here, to make a life in a new country.” A second generation Irish-American spoke about how his father worked in the mines of Montana. “When I was 11, I asked him, “why do you do it? Why do you go down in that hole every day?” He looked at me and said, “Making a better life for the likes of you.” I never asked him about it again.” Why would you not want people like that to be here?
(Picture is “Statue de la Liberté / Statue of Liberty” by Yann Gar, used under a creative commons license.)
modamix produces a big dash towards plus date week 2014
gay porn Tips on picking a new bag
cartoon pornWho not Ready for High Fashion
The “nunya” attitude towards immigrants. I love it.
However, I do have a handful of trepidations. While I am 100% in support of the Epcot version of any given culture coming here (bring your outfits, your recipes, your music, your festivals, and your drinking games!), I also know that there are cultures out there that are less than 100% down with certain things that we have come to terms with (or are seriously hammering out the terms for) such as gay marriage, female empowerment, abortion rights, inter-racial romance, etc.
I’m pretty sure that I’d like some weak naturalization to go on for any given immigrant group to get them to see such things as, at worst, shrugworthy.
I suppose we could argue that immigrants are entitled to hate homosexuals if they want because, after all, Matthew Shepard was killed but I’m not sure that that moves us in the direction we want to go on the vector we want to be on.Report
Every liberal democracy struggles with what I call the illiberal problem. That is, what do you do with the people that don’t accept the precepts of liberal democracy. We have plenty of people born in the United States that are cery illiberal, I don’t see why illiberal immigrants would be worse.Report
Seems to me we do weakly nationalize those who naturalize. They must pass a test demonstrating knowledge of our civics and history.Report
I took such a test when I was naturalized as a 6-year-old. I can’t really remember much about it, though, except being really nervous in front of a judge and being in a courtroom for the first time. I can remember the judge asking me a few basic civics and history questions, and I have a distinct recollection of some kids’ study materials that I poured over, but that’s about it.
All in all, it was scary, and I do remember wondering, ‘what if they say I have to leave?’Report
It’s not just guts or the refusal to be lazy. It’s also resources and the “chains” of migration that get established. Now, resources gets caught up in the host country’s policy, so that the policy conditions who gets favored and who doesn’t. My point is that the immigrants are not always at the very bottom of the society they’re leaving from. Sometimes they are (such as the Jews from Russia in the early 1900s), but not always. I’m not sure if that means much of anything when it comes to policy, but it does challenge a certain narrative that only the dregs come over.Report
*nods* you can look at our racial IQ tests if you want to see who came over from where.
Looking at America as a “which race is smartest” is a sucker’s game.Report
I find this quite interesting.
Most people would agree that gov’t has the ability (not right, as gov’ts dont have rights) to tell people where they can live (immigration restrictions) and that’s consistent with their agreement that gov’t has the ability direct people’s lives in may other instances: healthcare, seat belts, speed limits, licenses for various things, drugs, etc.Report
And yet we consider governments with emmigration restrictions to be harsh and worthy of condemnation.Report
I hate my own opinion about immigration.
The US has built an energy-intense society. Immigrants have little choice but to participate in that. Over the next 35 years, the US is looking at, in all probability: (a) having to replace its aging nuclear generators and (b) replacing or retrofitting its aging coal-fired generators. There’s not a chance of replacing all that with natural gas-fired generation. There’s no other technology in hand that’s suitable and that can be scaled to meet the needs of the country as a whole. It’s an enormous problem and immigration simply makes it worse.Report
The phrase “There’s no other technology in hand that’s suitable and that can be scaled…” should be qualified with “and is politically palatable.”Report
Yes, that’s an important qualification. I’m hoping, if only tentatively, that SMRs located underground csn gain political acceptance.Report
But controlled fusion is only 25 years away, as it has been for the past 60.Report
I’ll be curious to see if the Republicans try very hard to restart Yucca Mountain next year. And whether such efforts will include the nuclear industry’s desire to vastly expand the capacity there, since the industry pretty much acknowledges that it’s unlikely a second repository will ever by approved.Report
If not in the next two years (if for no other reason than to piss on Harry Reid), then I’d say certainly after that, particularly if they get a GOP prez.
The question is what Obama would do if they try to re-open it next year, since he’s got not great need for Reid anymore. Would he show loyalty to him anyway?
Does Obama actually have strong personal beliefs on the issue? (I suspect not.)Report
(if for no other reason than to piss on Harry Reid)
They’ve got to piss on some of their own, as well. The junior Senator from Nevada (R) opposes the opening. Of the current and incoming Congressional delegation from Nevada, only the new Rep whose district includes Nye County favors opening. We’ll have to wait and see what some of the Republicans from the major transit states think — I know that Nebraska started to have a bunch of second thoughts when they discovered that the transport plan includes offloading ~200 barges full of spent fuel casks in Omaha every year, loading them on UP trains, and sending them the length of the state. They’ll pick up a bunch of Dem votes, though. Washington State really wants Yucca Mountain open because they think they can get the rules bent enough so that the Hanford Reservation mess can go there. And there’s a bunch of East Coast Dems who really, really want the stuff out of their states.Report
Does Obama actually have strong personal beliefs on the issue? (I suspect not.)
As a Senator, Obama pledged to keep Yucca Mountain from opening, despite the fact that Illinois has 11 operating power reactors (more than 10% of the total US fleet) and his position meant all that spent fuel would stay in Illinois. That actually seems like a coherent position to me: if putting all of the spent fuel in the country 80 miles upwind from Las Vegas (who doesn’t want it) is safe, then keeping it at the reactor sites for a decade or three while we find a long-term storage site in a state that’s willing to take it seems equally safe.Report