Immigration is on the front burner in the Republican primary election. But immigration is an issue that can burn the Democrats.
Frequent guest blogger Thad Guyer warns about an attitude toward immigration of Muslims that is an ominous dark cloud for the progressive left. Lots of people are concerned about immigration, not just Republicans. A great many Americans--are hiding under the surface, silenced by fear of being called xenophobic or racist. They feel immigration of Muslims to America is risky, but feel Democrats aren't listening to them. They may recognize that assimilation of new immigrants has has always caused tensions, but consider the gulf in attitudes, religion, culture and customs between new Middle East Muslim immigrants and the America they are coming to be so profound that the normal process of American assimilation is difficult or impossible. In any case, it is not happening.
And they fear--worse, they observe--some immigrants come here to kill us. And others come here, live a while, become radicalized while here, and then want to kill us.
Guyer warns: there are a lot of people who feel that way and they have evidence to support their belief--the Boston Marathon bombers, the San Bernardino couple, the Fort Hood shooter.
Here is a link to a long New York Times Magazine article on a Syrian family that has immigrated to America and has been settled in Aurora, Illinois. http://nyti.ms/1PgyuuH
They found safety in America, but are unhappy. Things are hard for them here, they are financially struggling, and customs are strange. The author's tone was generally sympathetic to the family, and the title is "Why is it so Difficult for Syrian Refugees to Get into the U.S.?", but possibly unintentionally the article contradicted its own premise. Or, rather, it answered its own question. It described a family that is making minimal efforts for assimilation. Their minds are still back in Syria. I will let Thad describe his reaction to the article in his own words.
Thad Guyer: 'When I read the comments which overwhelmingly reject the NYT perspective, I see why the Republicans are probably going to win with a lot of Democratic votes, even liberal votes. These aren't raging conservative comments, these are thoughtful and analytical comments. That the NYT expected sympathy from this story is mind-boggling, a Syrian refugee family that shows literally zero interest in assimilation, already bargained their 19 year old daughter into an arranged marriage with an older man, let their two teens stream Arabic video of ISIS war while they are failing English classes, and lamenting they have to work for low pay because the US won't give family unification to their adult children still in the Middle East. I assume the NYT just could not find a Muslim refugee family trying to assimilate. The NYT just keeps fueling the Trump and Cruz campaigns."
Republican candidates are arguing around the margins whether to stop immigration, to allow small amounts of Christian immigrants, whether to allow citizenship and in what amounts. The Republican campaigns are highlighting the small differences into great points of conflict but the overall tone is that Republicans are generally oriented toward limiting immigration.
And the two remaining Democratic candidates, Hillary and Bernie, are generally open to immigration. They denounce discussion of immigration limits as xenophobic, racist, and contrary to American tradition. They do not advocate open borders or un-vetted immigration but their general tone is opposite to the Republicans.
But by shaming people who express reservations and fears about whether immigration is working for America right now they create a silent underground of people who are progressive, but who have concerns they feel cannot be aired within their party.
This creates a gigantic political problem for the progressive left; an issue that cannot be discussed cannot be politicked-out or accommodations be reached. Given globalization of manufacturing, and now thanks to high speed internet, the globalization of lots of back office administration, workers can serve the American market while living in China, Indonesia, Mexico, or anywhere. Many American workers are badly squeezed by globalism in a way that was not true 100 years ago when Americans accepted the "tired, the poor, the huddled masses."
The progressive left wants a $15 minimum wage and simultaneously wants low skilled immigrants who come to America and find jobs promptly, in competition with low skilled American workers. This is a contradiction that needs functioning politicking.
Plus something dear to the progressive left is a new consciousness about the appropriate relation of men to women and the integration of homosexuals into society. Immigrants from traditional cultures don't share these attitudes--at all. Progressives are put in the position of advocating the immigration of people who consider women inferior and whose behavior fluctuates between boorish and criminal. Plus they abhor homosexuality. This, too, needs politicking.
And politicking needs discussion that cannot happen.
As Hillary and Bernie fight over who is the more pure and effective progressive they make it harder and harder for the progressive left to deal with a concern that is out there in the public mind: immigration of foreign workers--particularly from the Middle East--is a worry for many.
Meanwhile, the Republican candidates fight within easier political terrain: nasty anti-immigrant attitudes. A great many Republican voters know exactly what they don't like.
Here is a letter I was sent by a Medford area Republican, Robert Casebier, who has been explaining Christian conservatism to me. He is a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church locally. He says Jesus Christ actively approves of dishonesty (false witness) so long as the person being lied about is Hillary or Obama or some other stigmatized group. Lies are parables, told to communicate a greater truth, he explained to me. The letter below has circulated among his friends, and it reflects an attitude toward Mexican immigration--that Mexicans come illegally, commit crimes, live off welfare, have large families, remain unassimilated, and consider themselves entitled to unearned benefits--an attitude I found endemic within Tea Party circles.
Casebier sent a mock news article:
"Illegal immigrants are boycotting Arizona by the thousands, showing their outrage with Donald Trump’s proposed law of sending illegal immigrants back to Mexico by moving elsewhere. In the small town of Guadalupe , AZ, south of Phoenix , Manuel Renaldo is one of those who is punishing Arizona by leaving.
As he loaded his stolen car with his stolen belongings and family of ten, Renaldo told this reporter through an interpreter "It's a matter of principle; I refuse to be supported by a state that treats me like a criminal!"
The effects of the exodus are being felt by Arizona retailers, who are reporting dwindling sales of beer, spray paint, and ammunition. Also hit hard are the state hospitals, which have reported a dramatic decline in births and emergency room visits. Tattoo parlors are in a state of panic.
Renaldo told a reporter through an interpreter that he and his family are moving to Canada , with a Liberal government and high taxes, where hard working people will support him and his family with dignity! "
The New York Times Magazine article--probably unintentionally--provides evidence to support the attitudes underlying the above mock news report. In the case of the story the immigrants were Syrian. But they weren't becoming Americans anytime soon.
 |
| Slow Assimilation |
And they fear--worse, they observe--some immigrants come here to kill us. And others come here, live a while, become radicalized while here, and then want to kill us.
Guyer warns: there are a lot of people who feel that way and they have evidence to support their belief--the Boston Marathon bombers, the San Bernardino couple, the Fort Hood shooter.
Here is a link to a long New York Times Magazine article on a Syrian family that has immigrated to America and has been settled in Aurora, Illinois. http://nyti.ms/1PgyuuH
They found safety in America, but are unhappy. Things are hard for them here, they are financially struggling, and customs are strange. The author's tone was generally sympathetic to the family, and the title is "Why is it so Difficult for Syrian Refugees to Get into the U.S.?", but possibly unintentionally the article contradicted its own premise. Or, rather, it answered its own question. It described a family that is making minimal efforts for assimilation. Their minds are still back in Syria. I will let Thad describe his reaction to the article in his own words.
Thad Guyer: 'When I read the comments which overwhelmingly reject the NYT perspective, I see why the Republicans are probably going to win with a lot of Democratic votes, even liberal votes. These aren't raging conservative comments, these are thoughtful and analytical comments. That the NYT expected sympathy from this story is mind-boggling, a Syrian refugee family that shows literally zero interest in assimilation, already bargained their 19 year old daughter into an arranged marriage with an older man, let their two teens stream Arabic video of ISIS war while they are failing English classes, and lamenting they have to work for low pay because the US won't give family unification to their adult children still in the Middle East. I assume the NYT just could not find a Muslim refugee family trying to assimilate. The NYT just keeps fueling the Trump and Cruz campaigns."
 |
| Guyer |
Republican candidates are arguing around the margins whether to stop immigration, to allow small amounts of Christian immigrants, whether to allow citizenship and in what amounts. The Republican campaigns are highlighting the small differences into great points of conflict but the overall tone is that Republicans are generally oriented toward limiting immigration.
And the two remaining Democratic candidates, Hillary and Bernie, are generally open to immigration. They denounce discussion of immigration limits as xenophobic, racist, and contrary to American tradition. They do not advocate open borders or un-vetted immigration but their general tone is opposite to the Republicans.
But by shaming people who express reservations and fears about whether immigration is working for America right now they create a silent underground of people who are progressive, but who have concerns they feel cannot be aired within their party.
This creates a gigantic political problem for the progressive left; an issue that cannot be discussed cannot be politicked-out or accommodations be reached. Given globalization of manufacturing, and now thanks to high speed internet, the globalization of lots of back office administration, workers can serve the American market while living in China, Indonesia, Mexico, or anywhere. Many American workers are badly squeezed by globalism in a way that was not true 100 years ago when Americans accepted the "tired, the poor, the huddled masses."
The progressive left wants a $15 minimum wage and simultaneously wants low skilled immigrants who come to America and find jobs promptly, in competition with low skilled American workers. This is a contradiction that needs functioning politicking.
Plus something dear to the progressive left is a new consciousness about the appropriate relation of men to women and the integration of homosexuals into society. Immigrants from traditional cultures don't share these attitudes--at all. Progressives are put in the position of advocating the immigration of people who consider women inferior and whose behavior fluctuates between boorish and criminal. Plus they abhor homosexuality. This, too, needs politicking.
And politicking needs discussion that cannot happen.
As Hillary and Bernie fight over who is the more pure and effective progressive they make it harder and harder for the progressive left to deal with a concern that is out there in the public mind: immigration of foreign workers--particularly from the Middle East--is a worry for many.
Meanwhile, the Republican candidates fight within easier political terrain: nasty anti-immigrant attitudes. A great many Republican voters know exactly what they don't like.
Here is a letter I was sent by a Medford area Republican, Robert Casebier, who has been explaining Christian conservatism to me. He is a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church locally. He says Jesus Christ actively approves of dishonesty (false witness) so long as the person being lied about is Hillary or Obama or some other stigmatized group. Lies are parables, told to communicate a greater truth, he explained to me. The letter below has circulated among his friends, and it reflects an attitude toward Mexican immigration--that Mexicans come illegally, commit crimes, live off welfare, have large families, remain unassimilated, and consider themselves entitled to unearned benefits--an attitude I found endemic within Tea Party circles.
Casebier sent a mock news article:
"Illegal immigrants are boycotting Arizona by the thousands, showing their outrage with Donald Trump’s proposed law of sending illegal immigrants back to Mexico by moving elsewhere. In the small town of Guadalupe , AZ, south of Phoenix , Manuel Renaldo is one of those who is punishing Arizona by leaving.
As he loaded his stolen car with his stolen belongings and family of ten, Renaldo told this reporter through an interpreter "It's a matter of principle; I refuse to be supported by a state that treats me like a criminal!"
The effects of the exodus are being felt by Arizona retailers, who are reporting dwindling sales of beer, spray paint, and ammunition. Also hit hard are the state hospitals, which have reported a dramatic decline in births and emergency room visits. Tattoo parlors are in a state of panic.
Renaldo told a reporter through an interpreter that he and his family are moving to Canada , with a Liberal government and high taxes, where hard working people will support him and his family with dignity! "
The New York Times Magazine article--probably unintentionally--provides evidence to support the attitudes underlying the above mock news report. In the case of the story the immigrants were Syrian. But they weren't becoming Americans anytime soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment