The Center for Immigration Studies report offers a long report, written by Stanley Renshon, about the core debate of the looming immigration issue with several recommendations:
SummaryThe long-delayed and much-needed national debate regarding immigration is in danger of missing an essential point. The most important question to be asked and answered is not how much new immigrants contribute financially or what they cost. It is not even whether enforcement of our laws should precede schemes for a guestworker program.
The central question of American immigration policy is how this country can help facilitate the emotional attachments of immigrants and citizens alike to the American national community. Given the centrifugal pulls of multiculturalism and international cosmopolitans this is easier said than done. Multiculturalists want to substitute racial and ethnic identities for an American identity, while cosmopolitans think that emotional connections to this country are too parochial and nationalistic and urge our citizens to look abroad for their primary attachments.
This paper argues that our current laissez faire policy regarding the incorporation of citizens and immigrants alike, our failures to enforce immigration laws, and the doublespeak that characterizes our responses to illegal immigration are deeply corrosive to the fabric of the American national community.
This country faces catastrophic dangers from abroad and major policy issues at home. In such circumstances, pervasive public feelings that reflect instrumental, shallow, or ambivalent emotional national attachments are not only undesirable, but also dangerous. But what can be done? Feelings of attachment cannot be mandated by legislation or instilled by clarion calls to patriotism.
This paper spells out a set of proposals to help facilitate and deepen the attachment of immigrants and Americans alike to our national community.
The center offers these recommendations:
"RECOMMENDATION 1 Federal, state, and local governments, in partnership with business, education, and civic leaders, should develop and help maintain welcome centers throughout the United States whose sole purpose would be to help immigrants and their families adjust to the culture of this country and its institutional practices. The additional possibility of setting up such centers abroad for immigrants whose applications for a permanent visa have been approved should also be examined."
"RECOMMENDTION 2 Federal, state, and local governments should take steps to ensure that any immigrant who wishes to acquire or improve his or her English skills can do so without charge. English study centers should be set up abroad to aid those who are awaiting permanent visas."
"RECOMMENDATION 3 To the extent possible, English should be facilitated as the language of professional and public affairs in the United States. Other languages should be welcomed in those areas on a temporary basis with a view toward encouraging persons to make the transition to fuller English facility."
"RECOMMENDATION 4 Schools remain the most critical institution for helping young people to develop knowledge, a realistic appreciation of their country, and an understanding of the common cords that link each of us to each other as well as to those who have gone befor us. Affection for one's country and a commitment to grow out of realistic knowledge -- pride in what has been accomplished as well as an acknowledgement of what remains to be done. Support of this country, its way of life, its institutions, and its people relies on realistic knowledge about all these things. It means attention to the things that have united us, as well as those that have divided us. It mans attention to the ways in which our institutions have developed, along with their growing pains. And it means attention to the many things America provides, as well as those it still needs to. All of these matters will provide a fuller, more balanced appreciation of the United States and hence the basis for an attachment that may both honor it, do it justice, and improve it. This is a central responsibility of public education."
"RECOMMENDATION 5 Non-citizens should not be allowed to vote in national, state, or local elections. Consideration should be given to allowing legal residents, with children, to vote in local school board elections. Immigrants should be encouraged to work withing the poltical and civic organizations of their choice as soon as they wish to do so. This includes campaigning, contributing money, and other general features outside of voting that inform American civic life."
"RECOMMENDATION 6 Every effort should be made to discourage illegal immigration, including but not limited to: placing pressure on foreign governments to help stem the flow of such immigrantss, making business and other institutions responsible for correct information about persons working for them to ensure they are doing so legally, exacting substantial penalties for non-compliance, and taking steps to expedite removal of illegal immigrants. It is also absolutely essential to remove the many incentives for illegal immigrantion, including, but not limited to: drivers licenses, in-state tuition rates, government disbursements of any kind, access to bank loans, etc. We must make a real commitment to "no amenities" and enforce national immigration policy -- with limited exceptions for specialized circumstances such as national disasters or personal tragedies."
On Being an American Americans don’t often think about what it means to be an American. Lawrence Fuchs, whose magisterial work, The American Kaleidoscope, 74 is a landmark in immigration research, writes in another context, “I recently read an essay written by a Massachusetts woman, who said: ‘I was well into adulthood before I realized that I was an American. Of course, I had been born in America and had lived here all my life, but somehow it never occurred to me that just being an American citizen meant that I was an American. Americans were people who ate peanut butter and jelly on mushy white bread that came out of plastic bags. Me, I was an Italian.’”75“This woman came to her realization late in life,” Fuchs wrote. “She had first confused acculturation to products with her identity. She then substituted for that mistake another, that being an American was ‘just being an American citizen.’”
Americans live in a time when there is conflict between cultural and national identifications and attachments. Yet, it has always been an important matter for the health and well being of the United States to integrate ethnic and other national cultural affinities with the psychology, attachment, and cultural affinities of the American national community. National attachments do not happen primarily by accident. Nor are the best results achieved by a lassez-faire approach. This is especially true given the variety of powerful incentives both within and from outside the United States that all pull in the direction of weakening that attachment and those connections.
The United States faces determined enemies both at home and abroad. It will do so for the foreseeable future. In that truly dangerous climate, it is increasingly important that citizens become aware of their county — what it is, how it works, and most importantly, their relationship to it. Doing so will not be easy. Citizens will be swimming against the tide domestically, where many argue that multiculturalism and the primacy of ethnic group attachment is the preferred identification. And they also will be swimming against the tide internationally, where liberal cosmopolitans of all types encourage them to look beyond their “parochial” national attachments. Along the way, they will have to endure the view that they are insufficiently sensitive or tolerant to “the other.” They will be told they are not skeptical enough about America’s professed ideals or sufficiently cynical about their realization. And they will be reassured that as long as they affirm their general belief in democracy, nothing further is needed.
Immigrants and their families, not understanding that these views are recent developments and having little relationship with the country’s real history and development, will surely be perplexed. Their former counties will entice them. Their new country will generally stand mute rather than helping and guiding them toward becoming more integrated and attached in their new home. If that happens it will be hard, if not impossible, for new, or even older Americans, to connect their personal histories with the now centuries-old tradition of freedom and opportunity. They will, as a result, be cut off from an important source of attachment and connection to their new country.
Most Americans long to be united, to have a sense of community and attachment that transcends political, ethnic, racial, gender, and other differences that have been the primary feature of American public life since the 1960s. Americans want a president who will lead the charge to protect them in a world they now understand to be very dangerous. But they also want one who will reunite the long frayed strands of the American national community. Mr. Bush has proven he can provide the first. But he must understand that the most fundamental vision that unites is not a new policy paradigm but our sense of ourselves, all of us, as Americans. Attachment to the American national community is not just an “immigrant problem.” A lack of knowledge, understanding, and heart-felt attachment affects all of us, no matter how long we have lived here.
The question of American national identity and the strength of our attachments to the American national community is, given our diversity, perhaps the most important domestic national question facing this country. Some dismiss these concerns as being based on “outdated theories.”76 Others urge Americans to accept other possible platforms for solidarity like “new diasporas, transnational civil society, and other identity groups” and the “thinning out of national ties” and argue that “it is time to accept an America . . . whose bonds are secondary to other forms of association.” 77
For the sake of the viability of this republic and its people and institutions, let us hope not.
The above recommendations are interspersed within the original.
Note: The UK is also grappling with with devising ways to creating a sense of Britishness in immigrants as they seem to having similar problems with lack of English skills, knowledge of an application of British culture and history, and so on.
In the latest in a series of speeches on Britishness – a key element of Mr Brown's drive to present himself as a Prime Minister-in-waiting – he said the community work requirement should sit alongside the need to learn English and have a good understanding of Britain's history and culture.[...]
But he [Gordon Brown] added: "Being a British citizen is about more than a test, more than a ceremony; it's a kind of contract between the citizen and the country involving rights but also involving responsibilities that will protect and enhance the British way of life. Citizenship means there are common rules and accepted standards. There is now agreement with the proposition I made some time ago that for new citizens, learning English should be a requirement. New citizens should have an understanding of our history and our culture.
[...]
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "This is a headline-grabbing initiative of very little substance. The problem is not with those applying for citizenship but with the number of illegal immigrants coming into the country."
Immigration also is becoming a problem in faraway New Zealand where indigenous Maoris are demanding a halt to new immigrats from Britain that are fleeing problems caused by the influx of migrants from North Africa and Southeast Asia:
WELLINGTON, New Zealand -- Britons considering making a fresh start in New Zealand might find a less than warm welcome awaiting them after Maori politicians demanded curbs on immigration to the islands.Lured by the attractive climate, majestic scenery, a high standard of living and the English language, thousands leave Britain each year to make new lives on the other side of the globe.
But Maori nationalists called on the government in Wellington last week to limit the number of migrants from Britain.
They accused the government of running a secret campaign to prevent the "browning of New Zealand" by encouraging large numbers of white immigrants so that they outnumber those of Pacific and Asian origin who would align themselves with the Maori minority.
The proportion of Maori in the population, currently 13 percent, is expected to grow rapidly over the next few decades because their birthrate is more than twice that of white New Zealanders.
[...]
Tariana Turia, the founder and co-leader of the Maori Party, which holds four seats in Parliament, said: "What we are talking about is the number of people coming into this country and what that means for Maori political representation. The prediction is that we are going to see a considerable browning of New Zealand with Maori, Pacific islanders and Asians, and maybe this is the way the government combats it.
"We aren't playing the race card because we are not talking about Asian immigration."
Prime Minister Helen Clark dismissed the Maori Party's demands as "ridiculous."
"Our country has been built on migration. You're part of it; I'm part of it," she said.
The demand by the Maori Party is significant because it could hold the balance of power in the proportionally elected Parliament after the general election due next year.
The number of Britons moving to New Zealand has soared since the "Lord of the Rings" films gave the country's majestic scenery a high profile, boosted by the government introducing a minimum English language requirement that effectively cut arrivals from Asia. Britain represents by far the biggest source of migrants, with 22,400 entering the country last year to take up permanent residence.
Hmmmmm. "We aren't playing the race card because we are not talking about Asian immigration." I'm not so sure about that. The problem isn't so much about race as it is about the distinct cultural values which British immigrants bring, values that the Maori obviously would like to obliterate through demographics. This should sound familiar to any native population that is facing a huge influx of migrants in a short period of time as is Europe, the UK, and the United States.
Immigrantion should be more than movement from one place to another. Everyone understands that immigration plays a huge part in power politics.
Comments