El-Sayed’s papers often argued that “acculturation,” an academic term for adopting a nation’s values and ways of life, causes the health of Arabs in America to decline. [More]
What were you guys saying about “trust in assimilation” again…?
That’s not the plan, you dopes. It’s never been the plan ever since Hart-Celler.
And now, a “Democrat” who’s a contender for the Senate is saying it out loud.
The intent is for them to assimilate us.
That sounds like an excuse to justify desired behavior; people like El-Sayed don’t want them to “acculturate,” so they come up with the claim that it’s bad for their health.
Kind of like when your friends told you as kids, if you step on a crack, you’ll break your mother’s back. “Everybody knew it,” but that didn’t make it true.
The Mark Krikorian article to which you linked makes a jarring statement: “It’s long past time to combine the best element of the 1965 law — non-discrimination based on origin — with the best element of the 1920s laws: reducing the level of new immigration.”
It is far from self-evident that “non-discrimination based on origin” immigration is somehow a vaunted, high minded principle to which we are bound to adhere. Of course in the Current Year almost everybody agrees that in daily interactions we should treat all people, whatever their background, with respect and dignity. HOWEVER, such good manners do not, and should not obligate us to accept persons from any and every other culture. It has been said, correctly in my view, that when importing people, we are not importing individuals, we are importing their whole societies.
It is perfectly legitimate for Americans to decide whom they do and do not want to join our society. Some societies are more compatible with ours than others. Moreover, it is perfectly natural for people to prefer other people who are more like them. While our morality requires that we treat every fellow citizen or visitor respectfully regardless of origin, that does not mean we are obligated to allow more people from one or another society join our country. If for some unexplained reason there MUST be immigration, then “preserving the blessings of liberty for our posterity” is much better accomplished by admitting people who share more in common with us and our culture, and by denying those who are far more different with radically different cultural values. Thus, the national origins criteria in the 1924 immigration laws were totally legitimate, defensible, and a real safeguard against the balkanization that is occurring now.