Is anyone continuing the work of Thomas Sowell on immigration? I'm thinking in general of his "trilogy" of Race and Culture, Migrations and Cultures, and Conquest and Cultures, and in particular of an update of his Ethnic America. Ethnic America discusses the Irish, Mexicans, and Puerto Ricans, in American history, but it ends at 1980.
"It's different this time" is easy to mock in hindsight. But sometimes it really is different. The U.S. has proven a great ability to assimilate people from all over the world, perhaps better than any other country. But it is worrisome to see failures of assimilation in Western Europe after the flood of Muslim refugees and immigrants particularly in the last decade; will America escape that if we continue to keep the doors open? If there's a problem, will we be able to respond in time? While I want to be welcoming, I don't want to be naïve. I'm honestly not sure what the best course of action is.
In 100 years, America may forget how over half of US Muslims supporters the Oct 7 massacres. But that's reason enough to stop all Islamic immigration to the US. And yes, I don't love in the US, so feel free to ignore me, if you think having Hamas supporters in the US enriches the country.
One thing I have had time comprehending is the opposition to "birth-right citizenship". A baby that has not known any other society than American would be ideal candidate for US citizenship no ?
The question is whether it is appropriate to grant citizenship to someone whose mother has no legal right at time of the child's birth to be in the United States. The argument is that this provides an incentive for illegal immigration, and makes it more difficult to deport the mother (and father) who have no right to be here. I think it's a legitimate argument at a policy level (not that I necessarily agree, but it's not racist or unreasonable), but the fact is that birthright citizenship is clearly established by the 14th Amendment ("subject to the jurisdiction" is intended to carve out ambassadors, not illegal aliens); given the challenging path to amending the Constitution, I think the chances of it changing are virtually nil.
This is perhaps a policy argument. The people opposed to birthright citizenship such as myself argue that the 14th amenities only grants citizenship to people born in the US and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", therefore, the court cases granting citizenship to so called anchor babies are wrongly decided.
Among the arguments I have heard that is by far the dumbest argument and the simplest to be discarded. It is also not a "policy" argument but rather "text interpretation" argument which is often the last resort of the people who have run out of reasonable logic that appeals to people.
Thank you Alex for sharing this. Xenophobes and racists repeat the same arguments over and over again. Somehow, it is always the “new immigrants” that are a problem while the old ones were just fine. One or two generations later, the “new immigrants” trade places with the “old,” and another “new” group becomes the target of anti-immigration rhetoric.
Most of the arguments against immigration is not in good faith. In my writings, I examined how most such arguments are thinly veiled xenophobia or racism.
Thomas Sowell does peddle some nonsense from time to time. I remember him saying TSA is the reason why air travel is safe.
Is anyone continuing the work of Thomas Sowell on immigration? I'm thinking in general of his "trilogy" of Race and Culture, Migrations and Cultures, and Conquest and Cultures, and in particular of an update of his Ethnic America. Ethnic America discusses the Irish, Mexicans, and Puerto Ricans, in American history, but it ends at 1980.
"It's different this time" is easy to mock in hindsight. But sometimes it really is different. The U.S. has proven a great ability to assimilate people from all over the world, perhaps better than any other country. But it is worrisome to see failures of assimilation in Western Europe after the flood of Muslim refugees and immigrants particularly in the last decade; will America escape that if we continue to keep the doors open? If there's a problem, will we be able to respond in time? While I want to be welcoming, I don't want to be naïve. I'm honestly not sure what the best course of action is.
In 100 years, America may forget how over half of US Muslims supporters the Oct 7 massacres. But that's reason enough to stop all Islamic immigration to the US. And yes, I don't love in the US, so feel free to ignore me, if you think having Hamas supporters in the US enriches the country.
Live not love. I can't edit comments for some reason
One thing I have had time comprehending is the opposition to "birth-right citizenship". A baby that has not known any other society than American would be ideal candidate for US citizenship no ?
The question is whether it is appropriate to grant citizenship to someone whose mother has no legal right at time of the child's birth to be in the United States. The argument is that this provides an incentive for illegal immigration, and makes it more difficult to deport the mother (and father) who have no right to be here. I think it's a legitimate argument at a policy level (not that I necessarily agree, but it's not racist or unreasonable), but the fact is that birthright citizenship is clearly established by the 14th Amendment ("subject to the jurisdiction" is intended to carve out ambassadors, not illegal aliens); given the challenging path to amending the Constitution, I think the chances of it changing are virtually nil.
This is perhaps a policy argument. The people opposed to birthright citizenship such as myself argue that the 14th amenities only grants citizenship to people born in the US and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", therefore, the court cases granting citizenship to so called anchor babies are wrongly decided.
Among the arguments I have heard that is by far the dumbest argument and the simplest to be discarded. It is also not a "policy" argument but rather "text interpretation" argument which is often the last resort of the people who have run out of reasonable logic that appeals to people.
Thank you Alex for sharing this. Xenophobes and racists repeat the same arguments over and over again. Somehow, it is always the “new immigrants” that are a problem while the old ones were just fine. One or two generations later, the “new immigrants” trade places with the “old,” and another “new” group becomes the target of anti-immigration rhetoric.
Most of the arguments against immigration is not in good faith. In my writings, I examined how most such arguments are thinly veiled xenophobia or racism.