United States Senate has been debating a measure on how to handle illegals already here, and the people supporting it seem to be blatantly ignoring the matter of assimilation.
It was back in 1982 when Joe Fuhrig ran for the US Senate out of California for the Libertarian Party. Joe was an economics professor, teaching at a number of colleges around the San Francisco Bay Area. He was a rabid Libertarian, sometimes even described as an anarchist. He was, all things considered, a great guy and it was with sorrow that I recently learned of his untimely death, at the age of 56, in March of 2003.
It was while working as Prof. Fuhrig’s campaign treasurer that I got into a discussion of the issue of illegal immigration. The discussion centered on why illegals were coming into the US, and a major part of the blame became focused on their ability to obtain government assistance. The Libertarian answer was to eliminate the welfare state altogether, and that would cut way down on illegal border crossings. Of course, libertarians are anti-welfare in any event, and this only provided them with another reason for removing it.
Libertarians have also traditionally favored open borders on the theory that voting with your feet and your wallet are good ideas. Thus, people entering the US did so because they wanted to become part of the American success story, or because they could get social welfare benefits that were not available in their home country. Both of these positions are essentially correct. We still see these attractions operating today because the average illegal entrant is able to live better here on public assistance then they can by working back home
The difference between the Libertarian view on open borders and the modern Democrat view lies in the expectations once people arrive. Today’s Democrats are all too willing to turn on the spigot of government benefits as well as allowing the border crossers to take advantage of private institutions such as hospitals, to their detriment not to mention the detriment of the other people who must pay for the cost of free medical care, etc. Under a Libertarian system, they might be able to come here, but once here they would have to survive on their own. With no job they they would have to rely on friends, relatives or perhaps a charity to supply them with food and a roof. While some social liberals may find this a violation of human rights, it makes more sense than what we are doing now; attracting people not only for the right reasons, but for the wrong ones as well.
While this column was being written the United States Senate was debating a compromise measure on how to handle illegals already here, as part of the pending border control and immigration reform legislation. While this measure apparently did not fly in the halls of government, the people supporting it seem to be blatantly ignoring the matter of assimilation. It was recently brought to my attention that one of the reasons why public schools were instituted was to make certain that the children of legal immigrants during the Ellis Island years were made aware of our history, how our government and society work, and equally importantly, that they could speak English. Today this is no longer the rule.
Assimilation had been the American way ever since broad based immigration began. It was necessary because a society cannot exist unless it establishes for itself one overarching cultural identity. Certainly it is possible for subgroups to exist within the totality; I spent Thanksgiving 2005 with a group of people who had come here legally, from Cuba. Some of the food wasn’t traditional American, and salsa music dominated the entertainment, but the people were celebrating Thanksgiving because it was the American thing to do, and they were glad to be here.
But when I see government documents in a multiplicity of languages; when the radio dial contains as much foreign language programming as English; when I see our educators saying that America is a land of evil, and is the source of all the world’s problems, I wonder how we will ever get newcomers to become part of our society, and identify it as their own. I have this problem with some of the people I know from Vietnam. Many of them still refer to Vietnam as their country, even though they are naturalized American citizens. To me that is wrong, even though I can rationalize it by the fact that many still dream of returning to their homeland, liberating it from the Hanoi government, and restoring to Saigon its rightful name.
It is even worse when the American government promotes multilingualism, the schools teach our children and the children of immigrants, legal and illegal that America is a cancer on the face of the earth, and when our colleges become training grounds for people who seek to destroy our traditional way of life in the name of anything and everything else, so long as it is not American tradition. In August 2000, when President Clinton signed Executive Order 13166, requiring all programs using federal funds to "assure" that "language barriers" do not "exclude" non-English speakers from "participation" in all "benefits and services he did more to destroy America by that one act than probably anyone understood. He was telling anyone and everyone that they did not have to become Americans in order to participate in the benefits others had worked for, and in some cased died for.
If America is to survive it must understand that survival is possible only through a dedication to the principles and beliefs that made it a success in the first place, and they must be will in to defend those principles. When we start granting rights and privileges to people who are not citizens, who have no loyalty to this nation, and have no intention of defending it when and if the need arises we sow the seeds of our own demise. Similarly, we cannot allow our citizens to grow to maturity with no loyalty to the defense of this nation and its heritage. We must educate them to understand exactly what a privilege they enjoy. We are fortunate that so many people still understand this, despite the attempts to wipe it out.
Right now we are on the edge of cliff and a step in the wrong direction will take us into a suicidal leap eventually leading to the end of our nation, and as a result, the likely end of the hopes, dreams and aspirations of another generation of people who deserve better. In so doing we may also lose the history and culture that America has brought to the world improving it as a whole. To entrust this issue to the hands of a few politicians is a travesty. It is time for the public to make its voice heard, and it appears that with the defeat of the proposed compromise, they may be already doing that.
slaib@intellectualconservative.com
http://intellectualconservative.com
Read more articles by Steven D. Laib
Hey! here's an idea for the lawyers and law aware. My insurance company: USAA which insures miltary members like myself for vehicle insurance is raising rates on uninsured motorists rates because poor me and my wife and kids were forced to live in Nevada and drive among the state with the worst uninsured motorist record in the west. Sadly USAA states that my rates will have to climb and the overall coverage will decline. Whats a poor military guy to do? I'll sue! I will either do it myself or get a lawyer. Interesting this case may be. Think about the ramification in court and in the press that because of the overwhelming numbers illegal alien drivers not carry the requisite insurance with them from the insurace companies are now forced to raise rate on average americans who are only obeying a law the insurace companies forced on the rest of by lobbying. Any lawyers wonder how this little suit would go? The government has been busted letting the Mexicans in and allowing them to drive without required liability, etc. Now we the average driver has to pay more. The government lets them in after extensive lobbying by Insurance giants like USAA and others. Could work but I am not a lawyer. Thank God
Comment by Dean | April 8, 2006
The primary battle in this round of anti-immigration vs. pro-immigration is what the immigrant wants. The politics of immagration has been around this country from its conception. The Know Nothings (later split between Dems and Republicans based on Slavery) was a major political party that ran almost soley on an anit-immigration policy during the 1840's. The difference in this battle is three-fold
1. Safety- I believe it was 6 of the highjackers came here from the Canadian border. It is only a matter of time before it happens from our Southern border.
2. Culture- the goal of previous immigrants was to become Americans. The goal of many of our neighbors to the South is to change pockets of America to Mexican States. The politcally correct guilt driven anarchist of the liberal elite would enjoy the transformation.
3. Financial- We are now a welfare state. The illegals of the past knew no one was going to be there to support them. We were a hard country where only the strong survived and prospered. We are now a soft country hell bent on succumbing to socialism and our eventually demise as the economic powerhouse of the world. These illegals represent one more chip in our armour of economic dominance. As long as these illegals do not pay taxes, the business that hire them do not pay taxes, and illegals are allowed welfare and healthcare, those peole and companies that DO play by the rules will continue to resent those who do not. Our tax dollars pay the bill. Legitimate companies can't compete with those breaking the rules. Our government, once with the purpose of protecting its citizens, refuses to look at the immigration issue as a threat. Both parties are trying to win the Hispanic vote. What the GOP doesn't realize is that they are losing their base. Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you really need him??? We need a politician who tells the truth and faces issues head on.
Comment by honker | April 10, 2006
The problem with the libertarian position is that they get open borders (and free trade), but there is no corresponding decline in taxes and govt. largess. So I, as a citizen, get to compete with the Third World, both abroad and in my own backyard, all the while with my hands tied behind my back.
The number one responsibility of a govt is to protect the private property of its citizens. With every new Third World immigrant, my taxes go up. Thus, my private property is more at risk.
The libertarians are paving the road of less liberty for citizens.
If I could vote with my feet, I would. But where would I go? At the moment, the U.S. is still the country that offers the greatest liberty and opportunity. I'll keep my eye on Eastern Europe.
Comment by The Plumber | April 10, 2006
"With no job they they would have to rely on friends, relatives or perhaps a charity to supply them with food and a roof. While some social liberals may find this a violation of human rights, it makes more sense than what we are doing now; attracting people not only for the right reasons, but for the wrong ones as well."
Is this a receipe for festering slums?
Comment by Bill White | April 10, 2006