Immigration

As the issue of co-operation becomes ever more pressing, the quality of intellectual discourse on the topic declines—as Putnam’s self-censorship revealed—precisely because of a lack of trust due to the mounting political power of “the diverse” to punish frank discussion.

I’m relatively optimistic about immigration; perhaps, as some have noted, Texas assimilates people differently than does California. In Nebraska I saw the fruits of what had once been diverse cultures settling into relatively homogeneous ethnic communities, becoming assimilated, and blending within two or three generations. Perhaps this is also because I married into a relatively homogeneous ethnic group, coming from a family that was more diverse (having been in the country a good deal longer), and I see these strands working out in relatively useful and even lovely ways. Of course, this may partially be true because his ethnic group makes much use of the American flag, always precedes any “doings” with pledges of allegiance, singing of the national anthem and other displays that would seem cheesey to any ethnic rights group.

The neo-isolationism position of demagogues like Buchanan and Dobbs bothers me not only because it often seems unpleasant but also because it seems to me deadly to our health as a nation. (Sure we need to do something about the southern border and refusals to notice some of the really bad stuff that is going down there is not unlike our attitude after the Beirut bombing. But solutions need to recognize the vitality and love of work and even traditional family values that are pushing many of those across the border.)

So, Steve Sailer’s essay, “Fragmented Future: Multiculturalism doesn’t make vibrant communities but defensive ones”, which discusses the trust issues many Chicagoboyz analyze, is interesting (if pretty much intuitive in its discussion of human nature). The most disturbing part of the essay has less to do with diversity than with Robert Putnam’s self-censorship. Our unwillingness to look at human history and human nature without blinking is not serving us well.(In The American Conservative, and thanks to A&L.)

Great op-ed by Tamar Jacoby on our unworkable, unsustainable immigration system. The current system penalizes well-meaning employers while doing little to facilitate legal immigration. “Tougher enforcement” without major reform of our 19th-Century immigration bureaucracy would serve mainly to encourage even greater disrespect for the law and drive labor-intensive industries that rely on immigrants overseas. Anti-illegal enforcement alone is also a political nonstarter. Too many Americans, including me, do not want to see productive people who came here years ago, and in many cases have families, deported, but would prefer policy alternatives that provided some route to citizenship for such people. But blanket amnesties and business-as-usual are not solutions either. Major political compromise by the various interests will be necessary to get anything significant done on this issue, and I actually think that President Bush has been pretty good in this regard. At least he has a politically competitive plan, however flawed, for addressing the concerns of the interested groups. The people who think that vigorous enforcement of anti-illegal immigration rules is enough, and those whose ideological or business interests favor mass immigration and tacit tolerance of a large population of illegals, are not likely to get very far with their respective agendas because too many Americans disagree with each group.

Discuss this post at the Chicago Boyz Forum.

Riffing on U.S. to unveil new citizenship questions — and, just maybe, James McCormick’s phenomenal review immediately below — here’s some ideas:

1. What portion of US GDP is taken by government, at all levels, each year?

(Acceptable answer: at least 30% or $3.3 trillion.)

2. What portion of law enforcement resources in the US is devoted to nonviolent narcotics offenders, versus violent offenders of all types?

(Acceptable answer: they are approximately equal, as a percentage of arrests.)

3. What is the proposed penalty in Federal law for scientists engaging in somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT)?

(Acceptable answer: ten years in prison and a $1 million fine [Human Cloning Prohibition Act].)

4. Sen Ted Stevens (R-AK) described the internet as “a series of …”?

(Acceptable answer: anything with the word “tubes.” Extra points for speculating how long the nation can survive with technologically illiterate leadership.)

5. How much money has been spent on welfare since the inception of the Great Society programs?

(Acceptable answer: at least $18 trillion in 2006 dollars. This figure includes all transfer payments carried out at the Federal level, but none by state and local governments.)

6. Still sure you want to go through with this?

Discuss this post at the Chicago Boyz Forum.

Let’s say you’ve been keeping cats for a while, and you’ve been feeding them outside in the yard. Every time the bowl gets low, someone pours in more cat food.

One day you notice that you’ve been going through multiple bags of cat food per day. Then you look outside and notice that there are entirely too many stray cats in the yard. You’ve successfully deduced that the stray cats coming in your yard from all over the neighborhood are eating all of the extra cat food you’ve been buying. Now how do you solve this problem? Do you:

a) Keep putting cat food in the yard. Round up as many stray cats as you can find and drop them off next door. Repeat as necessary.

b) Keep putting cat food in the yard. Build a large wall around your property to keep the stray cats out.

c) Keep putting cat food in the yard. Patrol the perimeter of your property with a gun to keep the stray cats out.

d) Keep putting cat food in the yard. Adopt the stray cats that are currently in your yard, but this is it! After this you aren’t taking in any more, and that’s final. Repeat as necessary.

e) Stop putting cat food in the yard. Feed your cats and only your cats in a place where the strays can’t get access to the food.

Let’s say you go with (e).

Result? There’s fewer cats in the yard, and the ones that do show up aren’t eating any of your cat food. You’re buying significantly less cat food than before. There’s also a distinct shortage of mice on the premises. Life is good.

Of course if this decision is made by committee, especially if that committee features heavy representation from the ones that originally advocated adopting several cats and feeding them outside, this solution might meet with some resistance…