The demonizing of immigrants

America was always an experiment in many ways, but one of the primary ways was as a country not defined by blood and soil. But like with everything else, it's formation by people that maintained racist ideals and were imperfect in their distaste for social hierarchies established by blood has always infected the ideal vision of America.

It dates back as a popular movement to the Know Nothings and their objections to the Irish. Then, there was the banning of Chinese and the essential banning of Japanese immigrants. Then, it was the Klan and their objections to the Italians and Catholics in general and Jewish immigrants. The first generalized quota system that passed was introduced in the House by Albert Johnson, a rumored member of the Klan and open racist/Anti-Semite, and, upon passage, the Senate sponsor (David Reed) proclaimed, “The racial composition of America at the present time thus is made permanent.”). The follow up laws (in the 50s and 60s) simply softened the racial aspects of the quota system, with Republicans currently speaking out against even just the softened aspects (e.g., allowing family members of current migrants into the country while not counting them against the quotas, which is derided as "chain migration" by the modern Republican Party).

The immigration quota system is antithetical to free markets and is legitimately one of the most racially-driven laws in the country. But, the people harmed by it are out-group members, so most Americans simply accept the system as it is.

 

They often don't make that distinction. Look at the current issue of the Venezuelan migrants being shipped to Martha's Vineyard like cargo. The press releases from DeSantis' people kept calling them "illegals" despite the fact that they are currently legally allowed to reside in the US under current US law. That language has been mirrored here.

 

The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrant sounds more significant than it is in practicality. First of all, the trump administration tried to limit legal immigration two. And did so in a racist way. Trump famously asked why we couldn't have more Norwegians as our immigrants. Stephen Miller, the architect of his immigration policy, was quite explicit. Even now, when he is out of power, he writes only thinly disguised emails about how the intermarrying of the royal family in England is degrading its difference from the commoners, a not so thinly veiled swipe at Meghan Markle.


But when we talk about the so-called “crisis” on immigration, were not talking about excess European immigrants pouring in through the Canadian border. We’re talking about Latinos coming to the southern border. Most mistakenly believe that if they just choose to, they could immigrate legally. But that's impossible under our current legal system. The quotas are far too small, racially based, and are not realizable within their lifetime.


Now one may counter that means they should to stay where they are. But that would mean significant danger and/or deprivation that most moral systems would never require. We should remember that these individuals have Artie prescreened themselves. The ones coming of the ones that have endured heavy investments and physical risk and endurance that most of us never could and that they would only pursue if they intended to participate economically in our nation. We are much better for having them.


And we do demonize them. From the internet, quoting Huntington’s infamous 2004 piece:


In the current issue of Foreign Policy, Samuel Huntington argues that

“The persistent inflow of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the United States into two peoples, two cultures, and two languages. Unlike past immigrant groups, Mexicans and other Latinos have not assimilated into mainstream U.S. culture, forming instead their own political and linguistic enclaves—from Los Angeles to Miami—and rejecting the Anglo-Protestant values that built the American dream. The United States ignores this challenge at its peril.”

(complete article at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2495 1)

From the Guardian


A decade on, and Professor Huntington has another theory. In May his new book, Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity, is published. It is clear who the "We" of the title are: Americans, principally white Americans, the dominant majority, glorying in Old Glory, basking in the heritage of the Founding Fathers and the superiority of white, Protestant culture.

But Huntington has a shock for them: the Latinos are coming. In fact, the Latinos are already here, "washing your dishes, looking after your children" and denuding a once proud, unified country of everything that held it together. "Will the US remain a country with a single national language and a core Anglo-Protestant culture?" he asks in an essay entitled The Hispanic Challenge, published in the journal Foreign Policy. "By ignoring this question, Americans acquiesce to their eventual transformation into two peoples with two cultures and two languages." Welcome to Amexica.

"The single most immediate and most serious challenge to America's traditional identity comes from the immense and continuing immigration from Latin America, especially from Mexico, and the fertility rates of these immigrants compared to black and white natives," he writes. "The assimilation successes of the past are unlikely to be duplicated with the contemporary flood of immigrants from Latin America." The Latinos, to borrow a phrase, are over here, oversexed and will soon be overpaid as well.


Samuel Huntington's new scare story


Huntington's theory that Latinos don't assimilate have not held up by the data. We are now two decades out and it's simply not true. And Latinos have become more Protestant – Axios last month - Aug 25, 2022 - World

Why many Latinos are choosing Protestantism over Catholicism
So Huntington's fear that they will be lazy Catholics that cannot assimilate looks even more absurd every day.

And these are not immigrants that have a legal route available to them. So while the distinction may seem significant, it isn't really in practice

 

Dear Leader usually has an example of divisiveness…..

 

My daughters are scared to go outside? My gas bill and venmo payments for Starbucks beg to differ there Tuckster

 

Excellent post - astute history! Not widely understood today! Again, excellent post

 

Oh I think demonizing the administration for the open border is right on par. It invites human smuggling, trafficking of women and children and lets drugs pour into the country. It's evil. The people who are coming should not be demonized. They are making a rational decision for what is best for their family. They are willing to risk their lives, get raped and give their last dollar to the cartels to get here.

Why has the administration let 2 million illegal immigrants in our country since Biden? Why are they now starting to build the wall after almost 2 years? I'm not worried whatsoever demonizing these decisions and the people that support them.

 

on immigration (like most everything) pubs = dems. same policy, diff package.

 

Watching Ep. 1 of Ken Burns,' multipart doc on the US and the Holocaust on PBS. Relevant

 

A wall is useless unless you want to burn money. It doesn't stop or slow anyone down, as walls are easy to cut through, go over, or tunnel under. Not to mention, the weather that wreaks havoc on any wall on our Southern border.

As for drugs, 90% or more come in through legal ports. Stuff carried by mules walking over represent barely a drop in the bucket.

As for apprehensions, the numbers are are seeing aren't unprecedented. Especially if you amortize the COVID years, which understandably saw a reduction in the number of immigrants coming. This problem isn't new. And the only, rational solution remains the same. We need the labor, and those coming here are looking for work. Why stop supply from legally meeting demand?



And his, we also have a long history of demonizing immigrants. From NINA signs, to the Chinese Exclusion Act, to Operation Wetback, the stories are all similar. Those who look different aren't good enough to be in this country. But the truth is, our country was built on the backs of the labor these and others provided. And the story isn't much different today. Over 50% of all crops were picked by immigrants, with over 1/3 likely by someone undocumented. This is just one industry. Plenty of immigrants working in hospitality, construction, senior care, and others.

 

Republican pols and judges could care less if immigration ever gets solved.

Look at their poll numbers when the dog finally caught its tail and Roe fell. They need it as an issue to pump up their non-white-hating voters, not something to ever solve.

 

These polls come immediately to mind.

 

Yep. The politics were overwhelming. Doc really covers that

 

You do realize that there are LEGAL ways to immigrate to this country right? With the 2.1 MILLION so far this year they are ALL HERE ILLEGALLY, that doesn't include another 1 MILLION "getaways.".

 

Scared to go outside, and putting yourself in harms way, are NOT the same thing.

Witness to LSU student's death: "Still somewhat in shock realizing what happened" | Unfiltered with Kiran | Baton Rouge News

 

The migrants been shipped away like cargo? They entered the country illegally and yes, they are being sent to different places throughout the US but that was always the plan. Were you expecting over 2M immigrants to settle in south Texas?

These immigrants being “demonized” have it better than where they came from thanks to hand outs from the US Government. A simple solution…if an immigrant has a problem being sent to a certain part of this country, then don’t come. Again, life is all about choices.

 

Again, entering the country, surrendering to ICE, and requesting asylum is a LEGAL way to immigrate to this country! As for other avenues for legal immigration, the chances of these immigrants being picked for the lottery is very low. And the reason they are leaving countries of origin like Venezuela and El Salvador are living conditions that are unfit. Why else would they risk leaving and walk thousands of miles to get to the US?

Asylum seekers are UNDOCUMENTED, not ILLEGAL.

 

They are legal residents regardless of their entry method. So thank you for proving my point. And yes, you are treating them as cargo by saying that they were going to be "sent to different places" rather than the more accurate they were going to go multiple places. One has agency and the other doesn't.

No, they are going to mostly pick where they end up, largely based on labor needs and family locations. That is what legal residents do.

No, they get very limited "hand outs from the US Government." Another common trope based on nothing other than treating them as somehow less than adults. They have it better in the US because of the lower violence rates, higher degrees of democratic governance, and the higher standards of living. None of which depends on your preference for them not to have agency as to where they live.

 

I see that happen constantly, usually from people who are too ignorant to appreciate the difference between the two. It happens on this board often with people who don't understand that it's legal to show up to a U.S. port of entry, request asylum, and be released into the country while the case is pending.

 

But do they really want reform?

30 years both sides in power and nothing gets done…
I think they like having it this way.