Finally...

Some activity! I'll grant that Baddboy has a good excuse for not posting... but he's the only one. Ryan and Jambo are just lazy. The "candy-ass" label still applies.

Both Baddboy and Ryan commented on my "integration vs assimilation" post, and neither seemed to think I was correct in my initial query: Which should be the national priority for the US? At least, neither seemed to address my point directly.

Ryan is correct in stating that it isn't a "zero-sum" formula... because it isn't. Not even the furthest left Liberal is acting as if this were the case (where they might be in the question of taxes or government welfare hand-outs). I wasn't suggesting that the query was purely a theoretical issue... much of what plagues the nation now in the area of immigration and cultural assimilation is hype that has no actual historical precedent as a cultural concern. I was simply asking where should the primary focus of our government's efforts in relation to the immigration issue be?

My use of the English-only example was just that... an example. Even if we assumed that such a law was passed and enacted across these United States, the number of legal immigrants entering the country with no English skills would require a certain level of compromise in terms of official and legal communication between the government and the immigrant. This negates the process, in my eyes... even if the intent of the original law was accommodate the immigrant rather than limit them (which is what Ryan described... I understand that).

I don't want to get side-tracked here, though. The question isn't "Should English be the official language of the US?" but "What should the primary goal of the US be in terms of addressing the questions associated with large numbers of immigrants... integration or assimilation?"

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?

I'm afraid I'm not being clear... so I'll sum up with my personal opinion on where the nation (as a whole) needs to be going, in regards to integration.

By 1850, one out of every ten people walking the streets of America were immigrants... and 1 out of every 19 (or just more than 5%) didn't speak a word of English. America didn't have "Press ONE for English..." back then, so immigrants were forced to either learn English or deal only with fellow immigrants on a daily basis. This contributed (greatly) to problems of racism and prejudice in the country, but history shows that integration alone leads to assimilation in every case, given only the passing of one or two generations.

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.

Another example is the "integration" movement in the 50's and 60's within out education system. Once blacks were allowed to attend the same schools as whites, it wasn't enough to leave the choice of schools (or even of transportation to and from school) to the parents. Instead, districts were redrawn so that a "proportionate" number of blacks to whites was present in EVERY school. If a community didn't have enough blacks (or whites) to meet the proportionate average, then they were bussed in from other areas. This, too, is a denial of the individual rights and freedoms of the people being forced to conform to "cultural" norms rather than personal choice and ability.

How is greater restrictions and more legislation in today's world going to solve the problems associated with immigration, especially when promoted by the very "conservatives" that routinely call for less government and greater individual freedom?

I want to give one more example of why I think that immigrants in the past have an advantage over immigrants today...

In the period I discussed above (the 1850's), we saw political parties, local "bosses" and even businesses promising work and benefits to immigrants walking off the boats for nothing more than the promise of "your vote". This gave the party hacks the short-term benefit of additional votes and more political power, but it also taught the immigrant populations (and their immediate descendants) the "POWER" of their vote, and the effect that a united ethnic community can have on local politics. Germans, Italians, Irish, Cubans, Mexicans, Chinese... and even Muslims and Jews, quickly learned the value of a united "front" when it came to politics, and we are still living with that legacy today in the pandering that goes on to the Latino vote, or the Catholic vote, or how much influence a name can have on a campaign in a specific community.

Today, we are seeing almost the same thing happening within the very large community of illegal immigrants already in the US, and it is coming from the Liberal left. I think they understand that America, as a whole, is fairly conservative in its make-up and values. Thus, they "promise" all that the Government will "give" them as newly-made citizens (through amnesty or whatever means meets their agenda at the time), rather than selling citizenship (and all that comes with) as the reward itself. The selling point 160 years ago (and even 50 years ago) was the OPPORTUNITY that America offered. Today, the selling point is what you get for free without having to do anything. What they aren't telling you is that much of what is wrong with the places they are leaving is exactly what they are promising here.

Yes, in the past, America promised land to immigrants simply for coming and living on it... but that had a price all its own, and a reward for society as a whole. Today, the focus is almost solely on the reward itself, as long as it is immediate, tangible and free of cost.

Thoughts?