Can we honestly deny that most restrictionist arguments vis a vis immigration (i.e., arguments aimed at significantly stronger restrictions on even legal immigration) are based significantly upon fears that immigration will be problematic from a cultural perspective, because the potential immigrants will be of a different culture origin than the currently dominant cultural milieu?

Yes, of course we can deny that contention honestly, primarily because it is absolutely not true. Although this is by no means dispositive evidence one way or the other, a quick perusal of the websites of NumbersUSA, FAIR, and the Center for Immigration Studies would reveal a far larger quantity of material on population, infrastructure, and jobs than on all these “cultural” issues. This pattern, for the most part, also holds true at the grassroots level amongst restrictionists; there’s more anger directed at the sentiment that gives us such bon mots as Bush’s “jobs Americans won’t do” and overcrowded hospital emergency rooms than toward immigrants themselves.

But this is all secondary to the larger meta-issue; namely that partisans of mass immigration are no longer able to argue the issue itself on its merits, so they demonize their opponents as bigots instead of engaging in an actual policy debate (that they would certainly lose).

I carefully phrased and qualified my comment, mainly in the interest of fairness and accuracy, but also partly to head off this particular objection, but oh well.

Can we honestly deny that most restrictionist arguments vis a vis immigration (i.e., arguments aimed at significantly stronger restrictions on even legal immigration) are based significantly upon fears that immigration will be problematic from a cultural perspective, because the potential immigrants will be of a different culture origin than the currently dominant cultural milieu? I mean, even our esteemed host, who has never (to my knowledge) made a racist comment in his life, engages in arguments arguing that large influx of people from other cultures is a bad thing for our nation. And such arguments, while not inherently racist, ARE inherently based upon ethnicity, if not race.

Now, as I said myself, arguments against illegal immigration are a different matter, but even there I think even a casual stop on, say, the Minuteman site, will suggest that such views often go hand in hand.

The fact is that many, perhaps most, restrictionists make their arguments in explicitly ethnic or racial grounds.

Until you can manage to show us some real evidence in favor of this absolutely hideous claim that goes beyond mere ex cathedra assertions I’ll just file this line along with another of my old favorites, that most everyone who’s not reflexively pro-Israel is a closet anti-Semite.

Bu oh well, if you can’t make a proper argument as to why your position is the superior one for the nation’s well being, and it’s getting harder by the year for both the Israel Firsters and the open borders lobby to do so, then win by smearing your opponent as a bigot. It’s not as if you have any other good options, and it’s not as if it doesn’t work.

I don’t demand assent to my sentiments or my perception of the national sentiment. Some people find my sentiments help them understand the national debate. If they don’t do so for you, I take no offense.

You are wrong on the legal matter. Children born of illegal immigrants in this country are Citizens. While confirmed in Statute, it is a result of United States v. Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe, both ruling on the 14th Amendment. ICE legally cannot deport a U.S. Citizen, even if he is a minor child. I’m not even a US Senator, and I have grown weary of explaining what the law is presently.

And you are also wrong about teaching children even if they are illegal immigrants is a violation of the law. That was also decided in Plyler v. Doe.

LMaggitti,
My problem with the Minuteman position is that it continues the problem of treating people who have been here 10 years the same as those who have been here 10 months when under the exceptional cases they are caught. Law applied arbitrarily is not good law.

I think the government policy of ignoring mass illegal immigration for the last 40+ years is incredibly stupid and destructive.

“Send the illegal immigrants home. Send their children home with them. That can’t stay here, clearly. When they are adults perhaps thay can return. Change the statutory law which makes the children of illegals American citizens.”

My thoughts on the matter is that the political will to do this evaporates in about 30 seconds after the first news reports of those children (assuming they were born in the US, are citizens) airs.

My wife is an elementary school teacher (2nd grade) in Columbus, OH. I would say that her student population is 75% hispanic, 15% white/caucasian, maybe 10% Somali.

And what do you think of the government policy (much of it in defiance of the law) which has made this the case?

“The hard-line restrictionist position is seen an not being an ‘adult view.’ I agree with this sentiment. “

Nice of you to agree with your own “sentiments”, but that hardly consittutes any sort of argument. I’d say that it is your sentimental approach to matters which is “not adult”.

“Address the issue of illegal immigrant parents with under age US citizen children.”

Send the illegal immigrants home. Send their children home with them. That can’t stay here, clearly. When they are adults perhaps thay can return. Change the statutory law which makes the children of illegals American citizens.

There, that was easy enough.

“The random enforcement and they’ll leave by attrition view is seen as arbitrary, meaning unfair. “

I notice you have the liberal habit of describing your own feelings as if they were immutable law. You mean “seen by me”.

What is the Catholic obesssion with open borders?

Amen. Even with the best of intentions and for the best of reasons, a nationwide ‘deportation by attrition” campaign is going to have a severely inimical impact on liberty, for the reasons you described.

I oppose the more draconian suggestions vis a vis current illegal immigrants myself. But I don’t think you are really addressing why such positions are not merely unpopular, but are considered not “adult.” And I think the reason, rightly or wrongly, is that the same people who favor such draconian measures tend to also hold racial/ethic views that are not considered socially acceptable. Which is a point that Ross Douthat has made on other occasions, to bring us back to where this post started. Again, all this is true independently of what one thinks of such views, and independent of the fact that it is perfectly consistent to favor a culturally heterogeneous society and still want to enforce immigration laws.

And is your statement of the position of the Minutemen a fair one? My understanding is that they do, in fact, support a very strict application of current law that might well result in most illegal immigrants leaving (albeit for the most part not voluntarily). Now I personally have many problems with such a solution, starting with the fact that it would IMO lead to far greater social disruption than (arguably) is caused by current lax enforcement of immigration laws. That being said, it IS rather odd that enforcement of current immigration laws is considered beyond the pale of polite opinion.

What I mean when I say adult position is fully accepting the practical, political, and logistical complications of ridding the country of 12 million illegal immigrants and preventing new ones from arriving. Take the position of stopping illegal immigrants from being able to receive work, generally at the top of the list. Preventing that requires significant cooperation and coercion of employers. It means more investigations into cash transactions, possibly lowing the threshold from $10K to $5K. It means probably upgrading the driver’s license to basically an internal passport. This is just one facet of improved enforcement. Some may not find any of these things offensive. I think as you go down the line, the number of people who say this is too much grows. When you have Minutemen on TV saying if you just enforce our present laws, they’ll all go bck on their own, this is what I mean by it not being an adult view, because they won’t all just go home; they’ll find new ways to support themselves.

Onto the substance of the post. Let me quote:

Naturally, feeling that the nation is in deep trouble for ethnic reasons, I disagree with your sentiment profoundly, but you do accurately describe the attitude.

Now, I’m going to stay away from loaded language, but I think this quote gets to the heart of the real issue. The fact is that many, perhaps most, restrictionists make their arguments in explicitly ethnic or racial grounds. Set aside whether these views are “racist.” That definitional argument doesn’t really matter in terms of what I’m talking about. The fact is this: there is a constellation of opinions regarding the racial/ethnic makeup of the United States that are considered (for good reason IMO, but set that aside for the moment) beyond the pale. Those opinions are pretty tightly bound with the restrictionist position on immigration.

Now, one can construct other justifications for restrictionism, and not everyone who is a restrictionist has opinions on race and ethnicity which are considered beyond the pale of polite opinion in the United States. But empirically they are bound together, and that’s why the restrictionist view will likely always be considered not “adult.”

Of course, in a sense that just shifts the argument – people holding those racial/ethnic views would like such views to be considered a legitimate part of the national conversation. Rightly or wrongly (rightly IMO) I think that such hope is going to be disappointed.

addendum: I am perfectly aware that it is possible to argue that cultural/ethnic (and perhaps even racial) homogeneity (sp?) is a desirable national characteristic even absent any arguments about racial inferiority. Our host has made those arguments more effectively than I’ve seen elsewhere. But (1) many, many restrictionists (not all) do make explicitly racist arguments in support of their position, IMO poisoning the debate, and (2) such arguments run against 240 years of American history (though I realize this is at least somewhat contested ground), and perhaps more to the point, a powerful and widely accepted national image, “give us your tired, your poor,” etc., which, like it or not, makes it very hard to make those kinds of arguments.

Addendum 2: of course, this applies to the restrictionist position; it doesn’t apply to the anti-illegal immigration position. That position tends to be seen as tainted by the restrictionist position. I agree that that is unfair, though one can certainly understand how it came to pass.

How many parents are seriously going to a) pawn their kids off on relatives (assuming that there are any) as they go off to another country or b) give their kids up to total strangers? Again, I’m only talking about the political salience such images and stories would have.