ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION + MULTICULTURISM = THE DESTRUCTION OF A NATIONAL IDENTITY
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION + MULTICULTURISM =
THE DESTRUCTION OF A NATIONAL IDENTITY
by
Ken Eliasberg
A problem one encounters with immigration in general, and illegal immigration in particular, is the ability of the host country to absorb the immigrant into its mainstream, i.e. that the immigrant transfer his loyalty from the country of origin to the country of destination and residence. This is not to say that the immigrant surrenders feelings of attachment to the land from which he came; it is to say that he (or she) now regards himself as a citizen (or citizen-in-training) of the land to which he has come to secure his future. It is the simple, but essential, process of assimilation. It is essential for without it the whole will never be greater than the sum of its parts, and, eventually, it will be so fragmented as to no longer have a clear national identity. It requires two(2) elements: A willingness on the part of the host country to absorb the immigrants, and a willingness on the part of the immigrant to become an integral part of the host country, i.e. a citizen.
You need only look to what is happening in France to see what can go wrong if these elements are not present. In France you have a situation where the host country has been inundated with migration from North Africa, and neither element appears to be present, i.e. France has apparently not been sufficiently welcoming to its recent arrivals, and the recent arrivals seem ill-disposed to be absorbed by the host country; rather they appear to want to absorb France into the philosophy of their country or countries of origin. It is for this reason that many writers are now referring to “old Europe” as Eurabia. Our problem is not entirely dissimilar. While many Mexican immigrants (and the great preponderance of our immigrants, particularly our illegal immigrants, are Mexican) want to become loyal citizens of this country, many others regard themselves as citizens of Mexico who are here only to earn a living. Still others—admittedly, a minority—regard the American Southwest as land that was wrongly confiscated from Mexico by the U.S., and see their role as having to reclaim it for their country of origin. Even those Mexican immigrants who are here legally, seek nationalization in smaller numbers than any other group of immigrants. This is not a healthy situation, and it is due to a number of factors that are the subject of this column.
1. U.S. Contribution: Multiculturism—An Ideological and Philosophical
Doctrine that Creates an Environment That Is Not Conducive to Assimilation.-
I have briefly dealt with multiculturism in a previous column; simply put, it is the antithesis of the “melting pot” approach to America, accentuating and exalting our cultural differences. Instead of the melting pot approach, which nurtures the notion of e pluribus unum (from many one, except in the hands of Al Gore, who managed to confuse its meaning), this turns the concept upside down and gives us unum e pluribus (from one many). It, in effect, balkanizes us, hyphenates our American status, and caters to us as groups rather than as individuals. Consequently, it is a very divisive doctrine which stresses our differences rather than values our similarities. I have always been against the hyphenated American—i.e. African-american, Mexican-american—for it divides us, producing no tangible benefit in the process. With the exception of the American Indian, we are all from some other place, and, while we should value and respect (where appropriate) our country of origin, it should not be at the expense of the country of which we are citizens. To do otherwise is to exalt culture over country and community and, in effect, make culture the tail that wags the citizenship dog.
2. U.S. Contribution: Organizational and Institutional Support for Continued Allegiance to Mexico—The Take Back the Southwest Group.-
There is, as noted, the feeling among many members of the Mexican community that reside here—legally and illegally—that the area from Texas to California was unlawfully taken from Mexico and should be returned to its original owner. While one might make this argument—not very well, I might add—it puzzles me why one would want to. As I pointed out last week, if Mexico was so great, why did you come here. The answer is obvious: Mexico is not so great, providing little opportunity for any but the very wealthy. And that’s why so many Mexicans understandably flock to this country. Logic would seem to make the case for Californiaizing Mexico, not vice versa. This notion of a Mexican proprietary interest in our Southwestern states, is given considerable support from organizations such as La Raza, MALDEF, and Mecha. It is most unfortunate that these organizations seek to make second rate citizens out of first rate Mexicans.
Another group that has stood in the way of assimilating Mexicans into this country is the bi-lingual education industry, which is responsible for setting back a generation of Mexican immigrants. Mexicans residing in this country have had the highest teen-age pregnancy rate and the highest high school drop-out rate, thanks mainly to the efforts of this group of administrators and teachers, who have placed their personal self interest above that of the people whom they are supposed to serve. If you want to succeed in a country to which you migrate, speaking that country’s language is certainly a big first step. It is fairly well established that bi-lingual education has been an enormous failure—to everyone except those in the bi-lingual education industry.
And, by the way, these thoughts are not merely mine. Nor are they Republican in nature. Some leading Democrats are on the front lines of opposition to all of the above. For example, I refer the reader to The Disuniting America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (super liberal); Mexifornia: A State of Becoming by Victor Davis Hanson (Democrat—but an incredibly bright and reasonable one); and an article by Professor David M. Kennedy, The Price of Immigration: Can We Still Afford to Be a Nation of Immigrants, Atlantic Montly magazine, November, 1996. Professor Kennedy, a historian on the faculty of Stanford University at the time of the publication of this article, (and a suspected liberal), points out an even more disturbing possibility—that from Texas to California, as the demographics change to reflect a Hispanic majority, we may have in the U.S. something akin to what Canada has with Quebec, i.e. a province that wishes to secede from the host nation—a scary, but a not out-of-the question prospect given the approach which we appear to have taken with respect to immigration matters.
Another book worthy of attention is Pat Buchanan’s The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilizaiton, the thinking of which, in light of what has transpired in France, seems almost prescient. I also recommend Tony Blankley’s recent book, The West’s Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?—a scary look at what could be our future.
3. Mexican Contribution: Do Whatever You Can To Make Certain That Emigres To U.S. Retain Their Loyalty To Mexico (And Not Transfer It To The U.S.).- The Mexican government has done as much as possible to prevent their illegal émigrés from assimilating into their new country. Again, I refer the reader to Ms. MacDonald’s piece, Mexico’s Undiplomatic Diplomats. Ms. McDonald observes that, in addition to pressing the illegals on their need for continued loyalty to Mexico, as well as their interference with, and obstruction of, our laws “Mexican politicians are even starting to allege that American responses to illegal immigration in the U.S. are a violation of Mexico’s sovereignty. This August, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson [himself an Hispanic] declared a state of emergency in four counties bordering Mexico, because of violence and devastation wrought by trafficking in aliens and drugs. City Council members from the Mexican city of Ciudad Juarez branded Richardson’s declaration an interference in Mexico’s domestic affairs.” How about that for chutzpah?
By the way, I am not suggesting that one’s culture should be sacrificed in the name of citizenship. Not hardly! My wife comes from Taiwan, and she and her family converse in that language. Her brother, while ferociously pro-American, is equally intense about his Taiwanese origin. The two—culture and country—are not only not incompatible, they are quite capable of being easily harmonized to produce a very pleasing result. Our divergent cultural backgrounds form links in the chain that is America; one need not sacrifice one to participate in the other.
The point of the foregoing is not to inject an element of theatre into our consideration of illegal immigration—when it comes to American security I am deadly serious. At stake here is nothing less than the future of America. If we don’t take dramatic steps to assimilate our migratory friends from South of the border, then we may indeed be in the twilight of America, in which case I would advise the reader to become proficient in 2 languages—first, Spanish, then Arabic.