Hey, what happened to the Reconquista?

Here's a little factoid gleaned from Marginal Revolution which should give anti-immigrationists pause for thought:

The study revealed that Latin American immigration to the US roughly doubled over the 1990s, while the total number of Latin American migrants remained stable, as the end of military conflicts in Central America allowed many migrants to return home

Seems that those "hordes" aren't "invading" so much as "just visiting".

Comments

[Abiola Lapite]

This is precisely why Bush's proposal to institute a formal worker program makes so much sense; if Latin American workers know that they'll be able to legally come and go without fear of being shut out once they leave, the incentive for them to cross illegally and then spend several years hiding out in America will be severely diminished.

The Germans saw this same effect work in exactly the opposite direction when they clamped down on Turkish labor in the 1970s; what had once been a phenomenon of temporary workers looking to send a few DM back home suddenly altered character once the German government clamped down; the Turks (rationally) decided that it was too risky to leave the country, as they might never be let back in, and so most decided to bring their families to Germany instead ...

Of course, it would be foolish to expect people who are driven by mostly irrational emotional fears of being "swamped" by dark-skinned "hordes" of "culture destroyers" who multiply like "rabbits" to take any of the above into account; it's far more satisfying to such souls to fantasize about constructing a new Berlin Wall along the Rio Grande, complete with machine gun turrets to gun down uppity Mexicans entertaining thoughts of crossing the border.

[Frank McGahon]

Indeed! It would be interesting to see whether this enthusiasm for lethal methods of enforcing immigration law extends to the enforcement of other laws. Laws they might themselves break. Would they adopt a Socratic stance, welcoming the fusillade from the traffic cop who guns them down for going 55 mph?

[lurker]

Sure, many immigrants go back. But the fact is that the Latino population in the U.S. is increasing at a very fast rate. Also, Latinos, on average, aren't going much of anywhere economically in the U.S. They are still, on average, not very successufl educationally and economically--even in the second and later generations. Low-skill immigration is still enlarging many social problems in the U.S.--poverty, dependency on govt programs, crime, and strain on infrastructure (education, health, transportation, etc). Look at all the emergency rooms that are closing in Los Angeles County, California because they are overwhelmed with illegal and unskilled immigrants. For that matter, look at all the new poor neighborhoods in California. Do you *really* want those kinds of places to proliferate in the U.S.?

I think people might have a very different opinion on mass unskilled and illegal immigration if they lived in Southern California and had to deal with the poor neighborhoods, the crime, the overcrowded schools, closing emergenc rooms, etc.

[Frank McGahon]

By your logic, Irish, Polish and Italian immigrants a hundred years or so ago should have been sent back - complaints identical to yours were aired back then.

[lurker]

First of all I didn't say anyone should be sent back.

But to address your other point, "a hundred or so years ago" was a *very* different time. There were few government services. There were no racial preferences in favor of immigrant groups. The economy c. 1900 was far more dependent on unskilled labor to grow than our tech-based economy of today. There were much more open spaces, and in places where people actually would want to live. Sure there's space in North Dakota, but people are still moving into southern coastal California and making it even more overcrowded.

Mass unskilled immigration into the U.S. today is simply enlarging the underclass--and there's nothing showing that the children or even grandchildren of unskilled Latinos are doing anywhere near as well as natives economically or academically. When comparing today's immigrants to those of the past, you also have to keep in mind that by today's standards, the average *native* in the U.S. circa 1900 was rather poor, unskilled, and uneducated.

[skdjfakj]

a new Berlin Wall along the Rio Grande

the berlin wall kept people in, not out

it was a prison, not a fence

[Abiola Lapite]

"There were much more open spaces, and in places where people actually would want to live. Sure there's space in North Dakota, but people are still moving into southern coastal California and making it even more overcrowded."

You obviously don't have the slightest clue about what demographic conditions were like 100 years ago in immigrant-heavy centres like New York and Boston. As for "overcrowded", maybe you ought to go take a look at population densities in Europe or Asia sometime, and try comparing them to that of Southern California. What you're saying is nonsense, no more than a reflection of your psychological discomfort at being "swamped" by strange-looking and sounding foreigners.

"the berlin wall kept people in, not out"

Learn some topology: if there's an "out", there has to be an "in." Fencing off Mexico is designed to keep would-be migrants in Mexico.

"it was a prison, not a fence"

And why exactly do you think your fantasies of fencing off the Rio Grande would amount to anything different?

Typical self-deluding, vacuous defenses of the indefensible from the anti-immigrant crowd.

[Peter Nolan]

"By your logic, Irish, Polish and Italian immigrants a hundred years or so ago should have been sent back - complaints identical to yours were aired back then."

No, but a combination of restricted entry - owing to WW1 and then immigration restrictions - and a very determined effort at Americanising immigrants preceeded the successful assimilation of all these people.

Whatever you want to call the peoples from south of the Rio Grande, their proximity to their homelands and the fact that such a large proportion share the Spanish language makes absorbtion a great deal more difficult.

[Peter Nolan]

You're just concerned about replenishing the supply of Mongolian lapdancers in Dundalk.

[lurker]

You obviously don't have the slightest clue about what demographic conditions were like 100 years ago in immigrant-heavy centres like New York and Boston. As for "overcrowded", maybe you ought to go take a look at population densities in Europe or Asia sometime, and try comparing them to that of Southern California. What you're saying is nonsense, no more than a reflection of your psychological discomfort at being "swamped" by strange-looking and sounding foreigners.

Oh, so there are places that are/were more crowded than Southern California, so everyone living here should be willing to tolerate that level of crowding. That's a non-argument. It's like saying that I should be happy living on $10K a year in the U.S., because people living in other parts of the world make far less. You also have to remember that there are substantial population density limiting features of Southern California, at least if you look at the region as a whole. Many areas in SoCal that aren't populated right now have very hot summers and/or rugged terrain and/or cold winters. Not exactly places most people are in a rush to live in.

Also, to dismiss fears of strained infrastructure, a drain on tax dollars, and higher crime as simple fear of dark-skinned "furriners" is silly. There's a big difference between say Irvine, which is populated heavily by successful immigrants and their children, and crime-ridden hellholes like East Los Angeles. Like I said before, mass unskilled immigrantion is simply enlarging the underclass.

If unskilled Latinos were as successful as most Asian groups are, I'd be mostly on your side, with my position much like that of the loose borders neocons (i.e. immigration is OK, as long as illegal immigration is controlled to keep out terrorists and criminals and legal immigration doesn't reach ridiculous numbers--say over 1-1.5 million yearly). But the fact is that unskilled Latinos and their children are *not* very successful and are heavily joining the underclass. I just fail to see how one could see a larger underclass as a good thing, even with the belief that in some distant future these people could be on par with current natives.

[slappy]

Seems that those "hordes" aren't "invading" so much as "just visiting".

The total number of migrants remained stable during the 1990s because of a one-time event, the ending of wars in Central America. I think that this is a reflection of the fact that as economic and security conditions improve in a place, less people want to leave it. It will be VERY LONG time though, before all third world hellholes are improved to the point of negligable out-migration. In the mean-time, the West will get enriched in many ways, but the U.S. gets a brand spanking new Quebec as well. I realize that immigrants are usefull and enriching to a country, but why does the U.S. need a spanish speaking quebec all of it's own? No other country is letting so many people speaking one foriegn language in. The news in this report does not hide the elephant in U.S living room.

[Jon Ihle]

Um, Spanish isn't a foreign language in the US. It was spoken throughout the southwest long before English was, and there has been no break in language continuity since the Mexican-American war, so this idea of cultural imbalance or invasion or separatism or whatever people are anxious about is a myth.

Also, has anyone done the math comparing the cost of patrolling the southern border with the amount "saved" from keeping some of the immigrants out? It would seem any economic argument against immigration would have to consider this issue, especially considering immigration has historically produced net economic benefits in the US.

[Peter Nolan]

Jon, the population of California was roughly a thousand at the time of the Mexican-American war, not much of a base for an historical claim of cultural continuity.

And yes, Spanish is a foreign language. You might get a job digging roads without English, but you'll be shut out of any hope of upward mobility through institutions such as higher education, the military and especially the law. The hassidim and the Amish preserve their languages, but it hardly allows them to take everything America has to offer.

[Frank McGahon]

But the freedom to choose whichever language you want ought not be jettisoned so blithely. The fact is that English is a much more useful language to learn, both in California and in Ireland. Left alone, people will tend to choose the useful language. The most that the state should do is resist the pressure to artificially maintain minority languages against the revealed wishes of users. Beyond this, it really shouldn't be in the business of telling people what language to use - the "market" will pretty much sort this out by itself. If parents want to raise their children speaking Irish or Spanish, even if this isn't an optimum decision, it is not a proper sphere of interest of the government to either assist or hinder them in doing so.

[Peter Nolan]

Frank, states create peoples more than peoples creates states, no more so than in America. What are they to do to offer a competitive market in languages? The basic institutions can't function without a common language.

[Frank McGahon]

Peter, you have this the wrong way around. If the basic institutions can't function without a common language (a dubious assumption given many bilingual countries including purportedly our own) this stark fact would create an incentive for a common language. In any case the slippery slope you are headed towards is the public-good-overrides-the-individual-interest notion. The "costs" of using a minority language are borne mainly by those users and not "the public". Thus, if they wish to "pay" that cost, there should be no reason why the government should prevent them (or in the Irish case encouraging them to do so), just as if somebody wants to "pay" the cost of working in a smokey bar, the government has no business preventing them from doing so in the aim of some spurious public good.

[Jon Ihle]

OK, Peter, what was the population of Texas at the time? Or New Mexico? You do know that Santa Fe, established by the Spanish in the 16th century, is the oldest state capital in the US, don't you? And that St. Augustine, the oldest city in the US, was also founded by the Spanish. American cultural continuity isn't as monolinguistic as you make it out to be. In any case, I spent a week in New Mexico a few years ago and Spanish and English seem to co-exist quite easily on a day to day basis.

[Jon Ihle]

Correction: Santa Fe was founded in 1610.

[eoin]

So what is your point John? That these areas should be handed back to Mexico? The original argument was that there was no real re-conquista happening because Latinos were visitors in the States and tended to go home. You argument is that there was a Spanish presence there first, and thus the place was culturally Spanish first, and the evil Americans shouldn't assume they have a cultural continuity. A different argument entirely. A negation of the first argument, in fact.

I doubt a prior cultural presence would be needed to advance your argument, however, since it wouldn't work with most migration into Ireland which I have no doubt you are totally in favor of, despite it's effects on the less fortunate in Irish society, and it's homogenization of Irish culture into the mish mash of cultureless "multiculturalism" . ( That said, it does benefit Trinners types enormously , to be fair, cos Mamski and Dadski's house increases in price so much due to the demand on housing caused my mass migration). So why the "pre-existant" Spanish culture in the US up in this case?

And Abiola. There is nothing indefensible in the rights of nations to defend their borders. In fact all countries do so, including whatever failed state you come from. Mexico would no doubt ban migration that threatened to turn it into America, were America's surplus population to threaten it culturally, if America had a surplus population for export.

That is why countries require passports to get in. All countries. Everywhere. You may have noticed. Jump on a plane if you haven't. See the world, but bring a passport.

This is a universal requirement. If it did not exist then there would, in fact, be no countries, and no nations, and we may as well abandon the idea of democracy, or the State, since the flow of people across the world is opposed by massive majorities of sane non-fundamentalists in all free nations. And wisely too, since in most cases it would destroy culturally all minority cultures, and all countries are minorities in the world's cultural pie.

By the way, can we have a figure from you Fundie pro-immigration fruitcakes as to what level of migration into Ireland you would begin to feel uncomfortable with? 100,000 a year? A million a year? Ten million a year? Is there any number, at all which could be a cut off point. I think given the present infrastructural deficit we should look to keep net migration down to about 40K max ( where we can). What's the fundamentalist number? Is there one?

[lurker]

By the way, can we have a figure from you Fundie pro-immigration fruitcakes as to what level of migration into Ireland you would begin to feel uncomfortable with? 100,000 a year? A million a year? Ten million a year? Is there any number, at all which could be a cut off point. I think given the present infrastructural deficit we should look to keep net migration down to about 40K max ( where we can). What's the fundamentalist number? Is there one?

Well, probably ideological libertarians would say "whatever the market will bear." The mistake here is to view the U.S. and Europe as pure 'free markets.' They are not, except to libertarian triumphalists, and on the other side, leftists who see anything short of full redistribution of wealth as a hyper-capitalism.

The U.S. is *not* a free market--it has 21st century infrastructure and a 21st century welfare state. A bigger underclass simply means more strain on the taxpayers and a lower quality of life.

It is also a mistake to see language as some sort of a free-market choice. It is not. The EEOC has filed lawsuits based on "language discrimination." The feds require precincts to provide ballots in many foreign languages, often at considerable cost. The government also gives perverse incentives to keep one's native language by subsidizing the who are poor because of that choice.

Note that bringing in a larger underclass will simply make the welfare state harder to cut as it puts a greater strain on infrastructure. The poor, especially the immigrant poor and their children, disproportionately support socialism.

As to the "X group was here first--nah nah nah nah!"-type arguments, I see them as little more than trolling. Razib at Gene Expression rightly dismissed someone making a similar (though admittedly somewhat more vociferous) argument on a GNXP thread as nothing more than a troll. I mean, what area of land *didn't* belong to some other group before it belonged to the group currently occupying it? History is full of conquest...the big difference between the West and others is the innovations the West has made and the freedom and comfort it provides.

[Peter Nolan]

"OK, Peter, what was the population of Texas at the time? Or New Mexico? You do know that Santa Fe, established by the Spanish in the 16th century, is the oldest state capital in the US, don't you?"

No, I don't but Texas was already part of the Union by the time of the war. Remember that the war of independence involved both American settlers and local Tejanos fighting a civil war with the central government forces under Santa Ana, as other provinces in Mexico were also doing.

"American cultural continuity isn't as monolinguistic as you make it out to be."
I'd strongly disagree. America has from the beginning defined itself through its laws, political debates and public rhetoric in English. Can you think of a memorable phrase any US president has ever uttered in another language? JFK's "Ich bin ein Berliner" wasn't directed at the Pennsylvania Germans.

[Frank McGahon]

Well, probably ideological libertarians would say "whatever the market will bear." The mistake here is to view the U.S. and Europe as pure 'free markets.' They are not, except to libertarian triumphalists,

You know: this is a nonsense argument really, even if it is trotted out quite regularly. No free-marketeer claims that any specific circumstance either represents a "perfect" free market or claims that the benefits of freer trade only manifest under such a perfect system. You claim is tantamount to saying that ordinary market forces don't apply in this specific case, that some sort of exemption from the laws of supply and demand apply. The onus is on you to demonstrate how this particular exemption is achieved. Simply declaring that market forces don't apply in this case won't suffice any more than would a similar declaration of an exemption from the force of gravity.

[Peter Nolan]

I'd also add to my last comment that there is nothing racist or nativist about insisting on monolingual education and English as the only official language. Such policies do seem, in my opinion, as justified and valid responses to a multi-culturalism supported only by academics and a few ethnic activists.

[Peter Nolan]

"In any case the slippery slope you are headed towards is the public-good-overrides-the-individual-interest notion. ...the government has no business preventing them from doing so in the aim of some spurious public good."

Frank, I think that a philosophical disagreement on the role of the state and of collective identities, as in our extended discussion on Gilbraltar, underlies some differences in opinion.

Two things are relevant here. First, that immigration is in many senses an elite social engineering project. Universities gain from expanding their customer base to cover the globe - all those Chinese language students in Dublin. Traditionally heavy users of cheap labour in agriculture, construction and services, especially in California and Texas feel dependent on immigration too. This can leave some significant externalities for other people, though - more competition for public services, introducing populations of impoverished migrant workers, increased fear of crime - that overwhelmingly affect the working class. Opinion surveys now show that African-Americans notably hostile to further immigration, and even Hispanics as a whole (55%+) favour further restrictions.

[Peter Nolan]

Second, immigration does have costs that go beyond these factors. I've noticed this a lot in east London in way invisible in more affluent parts of the city, where you get a kaleidoscope of the manifestations of many different culture, which I think many people find overwhelming and leaves society very atomised.