May 3, 2010

Why Do We Need Immigrants? Steyn Misses His Mark

Hatched by Dafydd

Mark Steyn has penned -- phosphored another jeremiad against illegal immigration. I do agree with many of his points; but he misses the most glaringly obvious reason why immigration, and yes, even illegal immigration, can benefit our country.

The first and most counterintuitive point, crashing headlong into conservative orthodoxy like a noisy freight train into a musty museum, is this: When determining whether immigration is on the whole positive or negative for society, in the long run, it's completely irrelevant whether that immigration is legal or illegal. What matters is not the legal status of the immigrant but why he chose to immigrate to America.

Why does some particular foreigner come to reside here? Is it (1) because he wants to assimilate into America and become a real American? Or has he some other reason? For example:

  1. To marry or move in with an American resident or citizen;
  2. To work in a field unavailable in the immigrant's homeland;
  3. To make some money and then go home again;
  4. To suck up American welfare;
  5. Or to engage in violence, terrorism, drug dealing, or some other terrible criminal behavior.

The only noble reason to immigrate here is the first, the intense desire to Americanize.

The next two reasons -- to live with a loved one, or to work in a career that requires a more capitalist environment -- are at least not ignoble; they're potentially valid reasons, depending on other circumstances. But if the immigrant is at least pro-American, immigration for these reasons will still benefit America.

Apart from those three motivations, however, I can think of no valid reason to become a new resident of the United States. (I'm open to other suggestions, if I missed any other good reasons to immigrate.)

Immigrants who come here for Americanization, cohabitation, and career employment can be very beneficial to the United States, and we should encourage them. But immigrants who come here for other reasons -- including as "guest workers" -- cause far more harm to the country than any benefit they bring, and we should bar them. This is the Big Lizards Fundamental Theorem of Immigration.

Here is the crux of my argument: Unless the immigration laws line up with the Fundamental Theorem of Immigration, they're lousy guides to whether specific immigrants are good or bad for America.

Sadly, that is precisely the situation we're in right now: We encourage immigration, both temporary and permanent, from poor people who have no interest in becoming Americans, no real family connections here, and no job prospects; and we discourage potential immigrants who would make the very best naturalized citizens, especially liberty-loving immigrants from former Eastern European countries, persecuted Christians from Africa and the Moslem countries, and capitalist entrepeneurs who want to start businesses here. Thus, an enormous number of legal immigrants are worse for the country than a great many illegal immigrants.

Here's a thought experiment. Suppose that a future administration noodled with the immigration quotas so that we only admitted immigrants from Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Venezuela, Brazil, Peru, Russia, Red China, North Korea, and Vietnam; and suppose we pointedly did not bar those with a history of anti-American activity... members of the Taliban, for example, or former members of Vladimir Putin's secret police. Everybody else was forbidden entry.

My question is this: Who would you rather moved next door: a legal resident recently from Iran, who used to be a low-ranking officer in the Qods Force? Or would you prefer an Ukrainian software designer -- who snuck in illegally because the cockamamie laws wouldn't let him through the gate? Anyone who would rather have the "legal" Iranian storm-trooper than the "illegal" Ukrainian computer geek has let his ideology kidnap his brain, in my opinion.

To me, it's clear that what matters most is the quality of the immigrant, and in particular, why he came here; not whether the immigration laws happen to match up with the Fundamental Theorem so that the good immigrant can also be the legal immigrant. That is why I have stressed from my earliest immigration posts that we should pay far more attention to the legal immigration system, bringing it into conformity with what I'm now calling the Fundamental Theorem, than with the "problem" of X number of illegal immigrants here now (12 million, 20 million, whatever arbitrary number one wants to posit).

We may well have 20 million immigrants we should deport; but that group of deportables will never exactly match the group of all illegals. In fact, the intersection can be woefully small, as the thought experiment demonstrates.

This is where Mark Steyn and many other conservatives go wrong on the immigration issue: They are so caught up in the mythology that every illegal is a "criminal" -- not in the purely technical sense, but as most people use the word -- that they miss the more important distinction between good immigrants and bad immigrants.

All right, but why do we need immigrants at all? Since I oppose "guest workers," labor shortages cannot be a reason I would cite for immigration. What other benefit does the United States gain from accepting good immigrants?

The greatest gift immigrants bring to America is not cheap labor or a larger tax base but cross-cultural fertilization; without a steady influx of immigration from exotic lands, our society will stagnate. Immigrants bring energy, enthusiasm, new perspectives, different ways of solving problems, and quite frequently greater religiosity and (to be blunt) greater fertility. This is true both of good and bad immigrants, by the way; the attributes are neutral.

Good (assimilable) immigrants bring energy and enthusiasm to re-Americanizing America -- and boy, do we need it! They bring new ways of solving the problems we've brought on ourselves by the steady leftward tug of an ever-expanding government. Good immigrants bring a zeal for the kind of religion that Dennis Prager calls "ethical monotheism," which we surely will need to fight off the bloodthirsty death-cult of Islamist jihadism. And of course, we are chronically short of people, the one indispensible resource necessary for expanding wealth; good immigrants will increase our fertility rate without increasing the ranks of the enemy within.

But won't the new immigrants radically change America?

I certainly hope they will! If we're impervious to change, that means we're living in zombieland. Life is change; it has always been and always will be.

But they might take over the country! What then?

Worries that new immigrants will "take over" miss the point: American society is the concatenation of immigrants who "took over," or at least introduced a powerful enough "meme" that it worked its way into the mosaic of "Americanism." That's why I refer to our society as American Borg culture: Every distinct cultural idiosyncrasy in the melting pot will be assimilated; resistance is futile.

America has changed repeatedly over the last 400 years, by and large because of immigration. Consider those illegal immigrants who arrived in Jamestown from England in 1607; I think they changed the North American continent for the better, anti-European Indian activists notwithstanding.

The problem we see is not immigration, nor even illegal immigration; the real problem is the wrong kind of immigration, by people determined not to assimilate into America, not to add their own memetic culture to America... but instead to remake America in the image of the failed societies whence they arrived. And that restatement of the Fundamental Theorem is true whether the anti-American immigrants have green cards or swam the Rio Grande.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, May 3, 2010, at the time of 9:15 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/4381

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

When determining whether immigration is on the whole positive or negative for society, in the long runit's completely irrelevant whether that immigration is legal or illegal. What matters is not the legal status of the immigrant but why he chose to immigrate to America.

I myself include in the tally the little known fact that the Illegal Alien Count in the Census adds about 20 to 30 Seats in the House and Electoral Votes into the hands of the Democrats.

I find that a highly negative outcome

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 3, 2010 9:22 PM

The following hissed in response by: Bart Johnson

Is starvation a good reason? The Irish potato famine caused thousands to come here, just to stay alive. Most of them are still in Boston.

Regardless of why they came, there is still a genuine need to control the numbers coming at any one time.

To do otherwise is to risk changing the nature of our culture.

If you think it is time to make the Cinco de Mayo a national holiday, just let the flood continue.

No matter what the immigrants' intentions or needs are, there are, pardon my xenophobia, valid reasons of cultural defense to limit the flow.

Their needs do not create a valid demand on my resources.

The above hissed in response by: Bart Johnson [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 3, 2010 10:39 PM

The following hissed in response by: Bart Johnson

In reviewing your last paragraph, that is why the people of Colorado do not welcome the Californicators who think that we need more programs and taxes.

The above hissed in response by: Bart Johnson [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 3, 2010 10:45 PM

The following hissed in response by: DK

When the Irish arrived due to the potato famine, there was no immigration law, or quota's, but there were rules to observe. If you survived, and wished to stay, you probably applied for citizenship. If you didn't like it here, and many found it too dificult, you could always book passage back to wherever you came from, or where you thought you might like it better.
Just remember, our current system was written by Edward Moore Kennedy back in the mid-sixties, so it must be next to perfect.

The above hissed in response by: DK [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 4, 2010 12:22 AM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

(I'm open to other suggestions, if I missed any other good reasons to immigrate.)
Another good reason, and one we actively cultivate is temporary/emergency shelter. In the past it was indeed things like the Irish Potato(e) famine, today it's political or survival. Castro take over your Country? Escaping Iranian Dictatorship? Venezuelan persecution? Christian Convert from Saudi Arabia? Then the United States offers you Sanctuary. Not all of these people wish to stay here and assimilate, marry, or make money. But they are usually a positive force for our Nation while they are here. Certainly we are a better people for having taken them in rather than throw them back to near-certain horror.

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 4, 2010 1:24 AM

The following hissed in response by: levi from queens

Most immigrants to America have done well from the get-go. The only groups who did poorly were the Irish and the great African-American migration north in the 20th Century who each took about three generations to assimilate. They both spoke English but had lived through horrifying experiences and were generally poorly educated. The Mexicans and PR's today are similarly poorly educated.

I like Daffyd's point that illegals can make great contributions. In Queens and NYC generally, the great immigration of the last 25 years (both legal and il) has conferred an unmixed blessing upon us. But immigrants to NYC are not generally coming for a handout, and I appreciate the difficulties such an influx can have in Arizona and CA.

The above hissed in response by: levi from queens [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 4, 2010 10:49 AM

The following hissed in response by: Karl

I disagree that reason #4 ("To make some money and then go home again") is all that unfavorable. Whatever that immigrant earns has to be spent, and just as is the case with foreign trade, eventually has to circulate back to the US.

Think of it as a way to "oursource" foreign trade.

In one case, legal resident A buys some goods from outside the country, and trades them to immigrant B for some service or services.

In the other case, legal resident A buys some service or services from immigrant B, who buys some goods from outside the country.

In both cases, A has the benefit of B's service, and B gains the goods purchased from outside the US.

The only difference would seem to lie in who pays taxes and where.

The above hissed in response by: Karl [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 4, 2010 11:26 AM

The following hissed in response by: Karl

I'm not sure how badly Steyn misses his mark. I'd say he at least made it inside the seven ring.

This is where Mark Steyn and many other conservatives go wrong on the immigration issue: They are so caught up in the mythology that every illegal is a "criminal" -- not in the purely technical sense, but as most people use the word -- that they miss the more important distinction between good immigrants and bad immigrants.

I can agree with that on what Dennis Prager calls the micro level. On the macro level, however, where laws can and do operate, the presence of illegal immigrants means the system is broken. If we can't keep immigrants out of the country, it doesn't matter if the set of "legal" immigrants corresponds with "good" ones -- we forfeit the ability to select.

I agree that we need to let in "good" immigrants, but first we need to demonstrate the ability to keep out immigrants who haven't gone through legal channels. Once we have a functional wall, then we can discuss when and for whom we open the door.

The above hissed in response by: Karl [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 4, 2010 11:29 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dan Kauffman:

I myself include in the tally the little known fact that the Illegal Alien Count in the Census adds about 20 to 30 Seats in the House and Electoral Votes into the hands of the Democrats.

Illegals add some number of people, hence seats in Congress, to California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida. I'm not sure, but I don't think all of those states are reliably Democratic.

Bart Johnson:

Is starvation a good reason? The Irish potato famine caused thousands to come here, just to stay alive. Most of them are still in Boston.

Covered by reason 3.

DK:

Just remember, our current system was written by Edward Moore Kennedy back in the mid-sixties, so it must be next to perfect.

I'm not sure if this was meant to be an argument against my thesis; but just to clarify, I call for major reform of the Kennedy system to one that favors assimilable, pro-America, capitalist, civilized immigrants, instead of favoring whichever racial group is the current darling of the Democrats.

Mr. Michael:

Another good reason, and one we actively cultivate is temporary/emergency shelter.

How temporary is temporary? I don't want us to end up with a bunch of resentful "refugees" in permanent "camps" or ghettos, like the Algerians in France or the "Lebanese" (Palestinians) in Australia. Or the Palestinians in Arab lands, for that matter. That is in fact exactly what I hope to avoid, as that sets up the next generation to be full of hatred and rage against the host country.

If by temporary we mean only a year or two for most of them, that's fine... but it has nothing to do with this post, since I'm talking about who should be offered permanent residency in the U.S.

Of course, if some of those refugees meet the normal criteria for being "good immigrants" -- (3), (2), or particularly (1) -- it would be convenient to let them just stay on, instead of making them take the dangerous hegira back to the violent, repressive homeland, turn around, and come back.

Again, the general standard should be, Whoever will make a good American, abiding by the core American creed. If an immigrant meets that standard, I don't care where he's from or what color or religion he is.

Levi from Queens:

I think you meant to write that the great immigration of the last quarter century has conferred a mixed blessing upon us, didn't you? If so, let me know and I'll correct the comment. (If you did mean to write "unmixed blessing," I will of course leave it alone.)

Everyone:

This is the most important point to bear in mind: The many, many immigrants today who cause terrible problems, from leeching off our prosperity and contributing nothing in return to actively robbing, raping, looting, and murdering people, are exactly those I describe as "bad immigrants" who should never have been let in the door.

In general, I believe most of them can be weeded out with a properly oriented immigration system. The resources are already there, as are the agents; it's more a case of redirecting the focus than making the system bigger or more bureaucratic.

The problem is that one of the two major parties wants to use the immigration system to pack the United States with helpless, lawless scum for political reasons: to increase the power of unions, especially public-sector unions, and racist groups like La Raza and ACORN... while the other major party is obsessed, not with making sure the rules are pro-America, rational, predictable, reasonably speedy, and consistent, but rather making sure the current irrational rules are nevertheless obeyed to the last jot and tittle.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 4, 2010 11:32 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

Dan Kauffman:

I myself include in the tally the little known fact that the Illegal Alien Count in the Census adds about 20 to 30 Seats in the House and Electoral Votes into the hands of the Democrats.


Illegals add some number of people, hence seats in Congress, to California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida. I'm not sure, but I don't think all of those states are reliably Democratic.
Dafydd



Daffyd I did not say ALL of the States were reliably Democratic and that does not have to be true for the Democratic Party to reap the benefit of the Alien Census Count.

I did a post on this subject about 4 years ago

Should Illegal Aliens Determine the Presidency of the United States

included are two maps, one the political alignment of the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections, the other the Distribution of Non Citizens over the United States.

To me the coorelation, while not one to one shows that for the most part the Non-citizen population is concentrated in Centers of preeminent Democratic Party Control. They don't need the votes those are solid Democratic Party controlled areas, the just need to decide who gets the Seat in the House.

I think Cook county for instance gets an entire extra Seat and Electoral vote

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 4, 2010 6:40 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Karl:

I disagree that reason #4 ("To make some money and then go home again") is all that unfavorable. Whatever that immigrant earns has to be spent, and just as is the case with foreign trade, eventually has to circulate back to the US.

I'm not arguing that it's bad because of economics; I'm arguing that it's bad for sociological reasons: With such "guest workers," as Steyn noted so effectively in an earlier column, we have, living within our country, a segregated class of non-Americans who have no interest in Americanizing or even assimilating... treated as inferior beings, kept in ghetto conditions, and without the normal rights of Americans and with no prospect of gaining them.

This is a prescription for disaster -- as France, Australia, and many other countries have discovered to their chagrin.

I don't mind real immigrants getting a break from the minimum-wage laws and other job killers; they can do the migrant-type jobs while working toward their green cards. But I think it's a very, very dangerous scheme to have hundreds of thousands of resentful imported laborers living here with no ties to this country.

I agree that we need to let in "good" immigrants, but first we need to demonstrate the ability to keep out immigrants who haven't gone through legal channels. Once we have a functional wall, then we can discuss when and for whom we open the door.

The problem with this plan is that Republicans cannot implement the wall all by themselves, not even if they control the House, the Senate, and the presidency; unless we have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (very unlikely anytime soon), Democrats will stop a unilateral wall any way they can. (The easiest way to do so is simply not to support, or even to filibuster, the appropriations necessary to pay for building it. That is, they can do to the wall what we plan to do to ObamaCare.)

We must make a multilateral deal between the border-security conservatives, the legalization liberals, and the legal-immigration reformers:

  • Border security, including a wall all along the border;
  • A path to legalization for illegal immigrants;
  • And reform of the legal immigration system to make it consistent, just, predictable, and American.

If we legalize all the illegals first, then the Dems have no incentive to continue voting appropriations for the wall. But by the same token, if we build the wall before anything else, what guarantee do the Democrats have that we'll subsequently support any form of legalization?

And in either case, which party, conservatives or liberals, will necessarily support reform of the legal immigration system, after it's already gotten what it wants?

It all has to happen simultaneously; nobody can demand that he get everything he wants first, then we'll talk about whether the other parties get what they want. The unalterable truth is that no faction trusts any of the others.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 4, 2010 7:06 PM

The following hissed in response by: levi from queens

Daffyd -- I meant as I wrote -- Immigrants have in the last quarter century conferred an unmixed blessing upon us. By "us", I was then referring to New York City. I understand that others have had other experiences.

The above hissed in response by: levi from queens [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 5, 2010 10:15 AM

The following hissed in response by: DWMF


4. To make some money and then go home again;

This is how I do my job. I have a particular technical niche which is in demand in many different countries. Over the past 25 years, I have worked in about 10 different countries on short or long term contracts.

In appearance and attitudes, I would fit right in any red state. Only when I spoke would you know that I'm UK English.

I find it very strange that anyone would consider me sociologically undesirable. Besides, I think that it perfectly possible to participate without assimilating.

The above hissed in response by: DWMF [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 11, 2010 9:00 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved