After years of open-borders policies, many European countries are beginning to see the effects of uncontrolled immigration and are returning to pro-enforcement agendas. British prime minister David Cameron recently came under criticism for saying that an “influx of immigrants sometimes [leads] to ‘discomfort and disjointedness’.” And earlier this year, he declared that Europe’s multiculturalism experiment had failed.
These are not extremist statements, they simply acknowledge the fact that uncontrolled immigration without assimilation is a recipe for disaster. And the UK is not the only European nation waking up to this reality. French president Nicolas Sarkozy said in a recent interview, “If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France.”
These comments indicate European nations’ growing concern that decades of open-borders policies have destabilized their communities. There is a great deal to be learned from Europe’s mistakes, especially since advocates of the same immigration policies that have failed Europe are trying to influence the American immigration system.
The United States already has the most generous immigration system in the world, admitting 1 million legal immigrants each year. But the open-borders crowd wants more. They want amnesty for the 11 million or more illegal immigrants already in the U.S. They oppose efforts to turn off the jobs magnet that draws millions of illegal immigrants to the U.S. each year. And they criticize calls for immigrants to assimilate to American culture.
If we want to see the long-term effects of open-borders policies, we need only look across the Atlantic.
-
The Arizona Republic recently reported that “Spain embraced immigrants for years, with wave after wave of amnesty programs. Then the economy collapsed. Today, Spain is trying to seal its borders.”
-
In France, President Sarkozy began a crackdown on illegal immigration in an effort to curb crime. According to the Washington Post, the French law “reflects swelling concern in West European countries over large numbers of immigrants pouring in to seek work, political freedom and generous social services.” The Post also reported that in 2010 “the French government introduced tough new immigration legislation that would make it easier to expel illegal residents” and “strip French nationality from citizens naturalized fewer than 10 years who are convicted of attacking a police officer or government official.”
-
Similar problems exist in the east, where recently the European Union rushed to secure a portion of the Greece–Turkey border after an influx of immigrants sneaking into the country brought instability to the region.
-
And according to the Wall Street Journal, Italy recently began working with Libya to “help stem the flow of illegal immigrants from Africa to Europe.” These illegal immigrants account for a “disproportionate amount of crime,” reports The Economist.
Lax enforcement of immigration laws also poses a serious nation-security threat. We know that terrorists exploit weaknesses in our immigration system. In fact, four of the 9/11 hijackers overstayed their visas.
The threat from radical-Islamic terrorists has caused some European nations to crack down on visa applications.
-
Reuters reported last year that “Britain is to tighten the rules on immigrants entering Britain on a student visa … in a clampdown on a system which some security experts say has been exploited by Islamist militants.”
-
A terrorist attack last December in Stockholm prompted Sweden to consider tightening its immigration policies. The BBC reports that “there has been resentment at immigration as the economy has stuttered, and some Muslims have grown more militant.”
-
Neighboring Denmark recently agreed to further restrict immigration, and now has “one of Europe’s toughest stances on immigration,” Reuters reports.
The pro-enforcement shift around the world has not been due to a dislike for immigrants. It has happened out of necessity. Countries must promote policies that help their economy, safeguard their citizens, and confront the terror threat.
European leaders have learned the hard way that assimilation does not mean separate communities simply living side by side. It is about the merging of peoples into one national community.
Open-borders policies misunderstand the purpose, intent, and importance of these immigration principles. America is not the only nation trying to address weaknesses in our immigration system. But to avoid making the same mistakes as Europe, we must do more to enforce our immigration laws and secure our nation.
— Rep. Lamar Smith is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which deals with immigration policy and national security.
The problems that Europe has had with assimilation of immigrants should remind us to be thankful that we have an immigrant population that shares a religious background and is not at odds with us culturally. Securing the borders is a necessity - but we must be careful not to suggest that there is a terrorist threat from the overwhelmingly Hispanic immigrant population. There is no history of terrorism in this community and it is unfair to suggest that they are a potential threat. Furthermore, until the US increases birth rates - there will be a continued need for immigration in this country. Why alienate a relatively benign immigrant population at the risk of needing to import less benign populations in the future (as Europe has had to.) Close the borders and focus on assimilation, not enforcement.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusetuppy:
Stopping the flow of illegal immigrants would allow us to greatly increase the number of legal immigrants. So there is no reason to think that there would be a shift to a 'less benign population' in the future.
And I doubt that the victims of any of the various gangs linked to illegal immigration would consider the current group 'benign'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTuppy Glossop, nobody is saying Hispanics are terrorists; however, that "Hispanics are typically not terrorists" does not equal "uncontrolled illegal immigration from Central America and Mexico is good for America."
You need to read George Kennan, who argues that America must not merely avoid war with the Soviet Union but defeat it -- that avoiding war with the Soviet Union will guarantee America safety of a sort, but that acting solely to ensure mere survival is a nihilistic far cry from a prosperous, happy existence.
Similarly, the Mexican narco-barons have yet to make themselves felt in the United States, and most illegal aliens from Central America are not terrorists of any stripe. However, an America that is overwhelmed with unskilled, uneducated people who do not assimilate and over 80% of the time are on US government welfare is a nihilist's dream -- it will survive without subway explosions, sure, but it will be a defeated, societally and culturally riven, poor place that is less skilled, less united and less affluent than we are today, with a raft of new welfare dependents just as our government goes belly up.
Come to think of it, maybe you couldn't even guarantee survival in such an America.
What we need to restore the rule of law via ENFORCEMENT and a secure border, followed by transitioning to a meritocratic, skills-based system that allows us to have robust immigration but actually favors the educated and upwardly mobile (and not likely to need our welfare) from *ALL OVER THE WORLD,* not just the unskilled and immobile from the basket case we're unfortunate enough to be situated next to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseQB - That is a good point and hopefully we would increase the rate of legal immigration. However, a large factor in prospective immigrant population has always been proximity. This (along with misguided policies) has lead Europe to introduce a large immigrant population that has zero chance of assimilating. Why should we alienate our largest and closest source of potential immigrants( that albeit poor) is not a threat ideologically or culturally?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs to gangs and crime related to illegal immigration - I agree - close the borders and shut it down completely. But among immigrants who are here there is no higher rate of gang membership or criminality than other ethnic groups.
>"The problems that Europe has had with assimilation of immigrants should remind us to be thankful that we have an immigrant population that shares a religious background and is not at odds with us culturally."
What color is the sky in your world? Latin Americans are at odds with us culturally. That's why "Latin America" is a short-hand term for corruption, cronyism, and government instability.
>"we must be careful not to suggest that there is a terrorist threat from the overwhelmingly Hispanic immigrant population"
Look up the following words and phrases and then repeat that claim. Atzlan, Republica del Norte, La Raza, reconquista, El plan de Aztlan.
>"Furthermore, until the US increases birth rates - there will be a continued need for immigration in this country"
You'll have to back up that assertion with some actual facts. Why does the US need either increased birth-rates or immigration?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"Why alienate a relatively benign immigrant population at the risk of needing to import less benign populations in the future (as Europe has had to."
Europe did not have to import anybody. They made that foolish choice because they were in the grip of the same delusion which so many Americans suffer from - that people are fungible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTuppy,
Why does "these people are not terrorists" mean they should be given special privileges to enter/work/live in the United States that nobody else gets?
Please explain to me why Central Americans should not be held to the laws that everyone else on earth is? What allows them to be unconstitutionally selected for special immigration "rights" that no Indian, French, Chinese, Filipino, German, Korean, Nigerian or Ukrainian gets?
Isn't that just pure racism?
And why do we allow the Rule of Law -- the bedrock of our society -- to break down in order to give special privileges to someone just because he's not a terorist?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Why does "these people are not terrorists" mean they should be given special privileges to enter/work/live in the United States that nobody else gets?"
Tim - No special privileges - just the simple fact that they are already here and give every indication of being an assimilable population that would benefit this country. Furthermore - we let them in to this country. Can anyone seriously argue that there was an attempt to stop this population from entering the country?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you to Rep. Smith for restoring faith in government; trust that at least one person in Washington actually cares about this country and its citizens; and belief in America's ability to live up to its philosophical underpinnings as a place where law, not man, rules and law is equal for all, regardless of race. We have been especially egregious about the last point -- allowing some (Central Americans) to enter this country illegally, regardless of merit or any objective criterion (such as law-abidingness), while any other immigrant has dozens of hoops to jump through. It is a racialist, wrong practice, and it goes decidedly against our national interests.
Today, the greatest problem -- and the single greatest existential threat to America -- is immigration.
What was once, and should now be, a virtue, has become an Achilles' Heel.
Instead of bringing in the world's best and brightest, we kick them out once they've collected their PhD, and allow the country to fill up with underskilled Latin American illegal aliens, the vast majority of whom (according to the Center for Immigration Studies' latest report) are on US government welfare, and whose children and grandchildren, and so on, perform well below the median educational attainment, income, etc.
Countries like Canada, Australia and NZ have increased their global competitiveness through skills-and-merit-based immigration points systems. They have open, fair and objective standards that let people from *everywhere on earth* (not just relying on a country adjacent to them) in on their skills and merits.
As a result, these countries have large, diverse immigrant populations that are socially mobile, fully assimilated, not a drain on government resources, and more likely to be sitting at the table next to you in the restaurant than washing your dishes.
In large part because we have a high level of immigration based on individuals who are unlikely in their lifetime ever to rise to the education or income standards of native-born Americans or H1-B/professional immigrants to the US, we have growing income inequality, declining test scores, stagnating or declining incomes -- and atrophying economic competitiveness. If we allow in millions of uneducated laborers who aren't ready for the global economy, our country becomes that much less competitive in the global economy.
A fair, geography- and race-agnostic, meritocratic system like Canada's is what the United States must move toward. To continue being economically competitive, we need to start a "smart immigration" policy. We'll never be able to ensure innovation, an ability to produce high-value exports, or any other pillars of a strong player in the global economy if we continue to have an immigration policy aimed at negatively impacting the most important factor in economic competitiveness: human capital.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"You'll have to back up that assertion with some actual facts. Why does the US need either increased birth-rates or immigration?"
Flenser 2009 birth rates show the U.S. just slightly below replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. But for whites the rate was 1.83 and for Hispanics the rate was 2.89. Do you have any facts that indicate this trend shouldn't continue?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"Flenser 2009 birth rates show the U.S. just slightly below replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. But for whites the rate was 1.83 and for Hispanics the rate was 2.89."
That's a response, but a non-responsive one. I already know what the fertility rate is. I asked you why you believe that the fertility rate needs to be higher than it is, or that we need more immigration as a substitute for that higher rate.
Perhaps I'm not being clear in my question. Implicit in what you are saying is that there is some optimal rate of population increase and that you know what it is. I'm asking you what that number is and what calculations you used to arrive at it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"Furthermore - we let them in to this country."
What's this "we" garbage? The process by which they were "let" into the country could not be any more undemocratic if the Politburo ordered it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Implicit in what you are saying is that there is some optimal rate of population increase and that you know what it is."
Replacement level is 2.1 children per woman. As an esteemed writer on this forum Mark Steyn says 'demography is destiny.' If you want the U.S. to remain a force in the world - we have to maintain a population increase as our competition is certainly increasing population. Or we can choose to become a smaller, poorer and less influential nation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"What's this "we" garbage? The process by which they were "let" into the country could not be any more undemocratic if the Politburo ordered it"
We are talking about a process that has been going on predominantly over the last 20 years. If there was not some tacit approval of this process - who is behind it? I am awaiting the conspiracy theory with baited breath.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"Replacement level is 2.1 children per woman. As an esteemed writer on this forum Mark Steyn says 'demography is destiny.' If you want the U.S. to remain a force in the world - we have to maintain a population increase as our competition is certainly increasing population."
I'm almost entirely uninterested in whether or not the US remains "a force in the world". That being said, "force" and population are not connected. The US has been the dominant force in the world while lacking the most population.
I asked you why you think the US needs an increasing population, not for your potted synopsis of what you imagine Steyn believes.
Lastly, our competition is not increasing in population.
>"If there was not some tacit approval of this process - who is behind it?"
The ruling class. There have been many surveys showing that the ruling class is disconnect from the country on many issues, but most of all on immigration. The result is that we have laws against the thing which you claim we have "let" happen, but those laws are not enforced.
>"I am awaiting the conspiracy theory with baited breath."
I'm afraid you'll have to be content with mundane reality.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusetuppy, a larger population is only a good thing if the individuals constituting that population are "good" (in the sense of being able to improve median income and education level in order to maintain/improve living standards).
You are correct that moving Mexico into America -- or allowing the 11% of Mexico illegally in the United States to remain here and gain citizenship -- will increase the population of the United States.
However, this will be adding tens of millions of poor, uneducated people; the result will be a less-educated, less-affluent America. Throw on top of that the welfare needs that unskilled people whose only attraction to employers are their illegally low wages (an attraction that will be lost post-amnesty), and you'll see a plunge in living standards.
Now, you say "our competition" is benefiting from a growing population. Let's take a look at that statement. The only potential competitors to the United States are Europe (where the population is decreasing, and which is more of a partner anyway); China (decreasing population); and India (increasing, but decelerating, population).
So the populations of "competitor" geographies really aren't increasing.
But having lots of people doesn't make you economically competitive or improve your living standards. Africa has the fastest-growing population and is the second most-populated continent. Somehow, it's not exactly a competitor geography. China and India are extremely poor at the per-capita level, as they have been for hundreds of years, and despite their large populations have been militarily and diplomatically weak. Germany (80 million people) is a bigger economy than India (1.3 billion).
China and India have growing economies today, however, because they have improved the education of their people and learned how to answer global demand for goods (China) and services (India). They are historically highly educated nations, and have leveraged that to their advantage. What has been crucial is not the population (China and India were large for years, but basket cases), but the ability to understand how to meet global market needs through cultural traits including education and discipline in China's case, and education and creative/resourceful thinking in India's case.
Continuing not only to let illegal aliens remain in this country but to grant them citizenship (and thereby encourage many more) will give the United States a larger -- but less educated, less disciplined, and less innovative -- population. This at the same time that China and India see population growth taper off but productivity -- thanks to rising worker discipline, education, and innovation -- skyrocket.
If we want to think about global "competition," we need to focus on productivity and quality, not numbers. I agree we need a robust immigration system, but let's let in people who will improve, not harm, living standards.
Bottom line: Enforce the law and restore the rule of law, then move to an immigration points system.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I'm almost entirely uninterested in whether or not the US remains "a force in the world". That being said, "force" and population are not connected."
Well if the US doesn't remain a force in the world - we will have to start getting used to what other nations dictate. And as we turn ever more into a big old-folks home how do you think we will maintain our wealth and standing in the world?
"The ruling class. There have been many surveys showing that the ruling class is disconnect from the country on many issues, but most of all on immigration."
What studies? Who is this ruling class - how did they get elected? This is pure conspiracy theory - there is some secret cabal behind our democratically elected government. The reality is that people in a democracy get the exact government they want and deserve.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"tuppy, a larger population is only a good thing if the individuals constituting that population are "good" (in the sense of being able to improve median income and education level in order to maintain/improve living standards)."
We need high-skilled but we need low-skilled people too(and lots of them.) That is what is great about this country - there is room for all types. It has happened before in the history of this country that a poorer immigrant population has come in to this country to fulfill labor needs and with right work ethic actually improve their own lives in the process. When did this narrative become a problem? I believe it is what makes this country great.
"However, this will be adding tens of millions of poor, uneducated people; the result will be a less-educated, less-affluent America. Throw on top of that the welfare needs that unskilled people whose only attraction to employers are their illegally low wages (an attraction that will be lost post-amnesty), and you'll see a plunge in living standards."
Well functioning economies are pyramids - and they work best with a lot of wage earners at the bottom. Immigrants are actually occupying these jobs right now. Just a few generations back - most people in this country came from a blue-collar background; that is not the case anymore - there are as Bush said 'jobs Americans won't do.'
Whatever welfare concerns there are - they are far offset by the introduction of a legal tax-paying workforce that pays into our failing benefit programs. Immigrants are probably the most realistic chance of saving some of these programs as the populace does not seem to react well to the idea of cuts in Social Security or Medicare.
It is a free-market solution and it will increase the standard of living.
"Now, you say "our competition" is benefiting from a growing population."
You are correct China is an exception. But in general the BRICS, and more menacingly, an increasingly united and politically active Islam are growing in population. I am not saying there is a one-to-one correspondence between population and influence. However the type of population decline and aging we see in Europe and Japan definitely will lead to a decline in influence.
"If we want to think about global "competition," we need to focus on productivity and quality, not numbers...Bottom line: Enforce the law and restore the rule of law, then move to an immigration points system."
It's both. The border needs to be closed shut for any future numbers to be controlled. However, I see no harm in legalizing the immigrants who are currently here. An infusion of new blood does a nation good every now and then. But more importantly - I don't think we should risk alienating what is a benign source of immigrants. The alternative is for the US to increase birth rates internally which would be a welcome - but not forseeable change.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"Well if the US doesn't remain a force in the world - we will have to start getting used to what other nations dictate."
Oh? You see the US as being a dictator now? You think that somebody was dictating to the US prior to 1945?
I'm afraid I have trouble believing that you mean what you say.
>"as we turn ever more into a big old-folks home how do you think we will maintain our wealth and standing in the world?"
As I already explained to you, I have no interest in America's wealth and standing in the world. It's not the sort of thing the founding fathers would have expected to weigh on the minds of the citizenry. And it's peculiar that you obsess about it, assuming that you're actually saying what you think here.
>"there is some secret cabal behind our democratically elected government"
Those are your words, Mr Strawman. There is nothing remotely secret or cabalish about it. Both parties cater to minority interests. The GOP caters to the rather brainless and corrupt business class, while the Democrats cater the same people plus the ethnic grievance industry. If I'm the first person to enlighten you on this, then you really need to get out more.
>"people in a democracy get the exact government they want and deserve."
"Deserve", perhaps. But if the people in this country wanted your open-borders wonderland, you'd be able to get it without violating the laws which the people have had passed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"it has happened before in the history of this country that a poorer immigrant population has come in to this country to fulfill labor needs and with right work ethic actually improve their own lives in the process. When did this narrative become a problem?"
It became a problem, you sad excuse for Adam Smith, when the poor in this country stopped being net tax payers and became net tax consumers. The people you want us to populate the country with will bankrupt us. In fact they are bankrupting us now.
Back when those poor immigrants came to America in the 19th and early 20th century, there was no social safety net. Go back a bit further and people actually sold themselves into indentured servitude in order to come here. Today we bribe the worlds poor to come here and live off the dole.
>"Whatever welfare concerns there are - they are far offset by the introduction of a legal tax-paying workforce that pays into our failing benefit programs. Immigrants are probably the most realistic chance of saving some of these programs as the populace does not seem to react well to the idea of cuts in Social Security or Medicare."
It's an sad excuse for a conservative or libertarian who regards saving the failing social welfare state as the great challenge of our time! Which is why I suspect you are a garden variety liberal trying to appropriate some conservative sounding argument to support your own distinctly non-conservative and non-libertarian ends.
That's the philosophical problem with your priorities. The mathematical problem is that the numbers don't add up. Hispanics are net consumers of government resources, just as all poor people are.
What you want to get via Hispanic immigration are more voters for the Democratic Party. Everything else fits into place around that central goal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse