I am in complete agreement with the closing paragraphs of your posts regarding political attitudes towards illegal immigrants. I have query with a few points though. You noted that immigrants of the past had an advantage over those today. Yet far less accommodations were made for integration then - for example, in terms of English it was sink or swim, no "press 1."
So which is it - should the focus be assimilation or integration? Let me address it another way with the assumption that you are pro-integration at the expense of any "forced" assimilation. I still think you are presenting a false choice, an unnecessary either or, but NOT in the original question of what the government focus should be, but rather in your answer.
"Insisting that a level of proficiency in English be a requirement for legal immigration seems to fly in the face of the very principles that Ryan was delineating in his post... primarily, personal and individual freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution to all Americans. We are asking immigrants to embrace the Constitution, but we (as a society) place limits and standards on citizenship that the Constitution prohibits for naturally-born sons and daughters... how is that not a contradiction?"
My problem with this is we have always put a special burden on those seeking to become a citizen. You mentioned natural-born citizens aren't required to learn English - well neither are they "required" to learn about the founding fathers, nor the Constitution, nor take a "citizenship test" on American history in order to maintain their citizenship. The personal liberty I speak of does not extend to making "any" allowance for cultural differences. Would we accommodate a Sudanese national to maintain his Christian slaves, or preform Biblical style stonings upon arrival in the US? Both of which still occur in parts of Sudan I might add. There must be SOME standard that allows a base level of assimilation so that all of our disparate cultures, races and tongues can share a basic level of unity. Insisting the citizenship test and a base level of English proficiency is no more an infringement of personal liberty then asking a new immigrant to respect our equal rights among the sexes laws, or child labor laws, or any other long abandoned practice that remains part of their native cultural norm. Becoming an American does in fact require various levels of assimilation, they just aren't as controversial as "language." But I would submit that once you agree that we can not allow the continuation of immigrant cultural customs that violate US law, then you have already conceded assimilation is a must, and we are thus discussing degrees.
"Forced assimilation has less historical examples, but they are there none the less. After 1890, Indians (Native Americans) were "forced" into schools where they spoke only English and learned only American subjects, and they were punished for wearing, speaking or practicing their native culture. This experiment in assimilation is one of our greatest failings as a society... because it denies the very rights and freedoms of the individual that Ryan defined in his post."
Again, while these historical examples are accurately described they are not warranted examples as a part of this discussion. I am not advocating such assimilation. This also falls into the zero sum scenario. The choice you presented isn't a wiping clean of all ethnic culture OR integration. My point is when you take into account "press 1"; newspapers that offer the immigrant Spanish or Chinese only print; and the 5 or 6 Spanish only tv stations on local cable, that it is incumbent upon the government to encourage a base level of assimilation when it comes to English proficiency, US history, the oath, recitation of the pledge in schools, etc. Now please understand that point - not shut down these papers and tv stations, nor make illegal "press 1", but rather upon citizenship have required the afore mentioned standards so that when people recede or immerse into lifestyles involving "only" their own language or ethnic culture we will be able to maintain a base level of unity as a nation.
Bussing, the Native American example, no intelligent person whom is even mildly familiar with history would advocate such disastrous paths. However, English proficiency, a familiarization with US history, an oath, the pledge, all such things are to the immigrants benefit and the nation as a whole. Such standards are neither racist nor an imposition on personal liberty, no more then requiring the newly arrived respect any other US law that isn't native to their land of origin.
Base requirements on assimilation are necessary. Not at the expense of ethnic cultural identity, but rather to preserve what makes us all similar, to provide a baseline of unity. That should be the focus of government, that base line assimilation. The preservation of an immigrants original culture, and its integration into American society as a whole I do believe in 2009 will take care of itself within the private sector, minus any special emphasis from government ... the fantastic array of cuisine, carnivals, events, and celebrations occurring within virtually any medium to large city in the US is clear evidence of this ... in other words I will order Chinese food without government prompting. But unless a base level of assimilation is required, the proprietor is much less likely to succeed.
Just my opinion ...
No comments:
Post a Comment