Immigration: Does Culture Matter?
Over here in Ireland we have two offical languages Irish (Gaelic) and English and it works fine (Although not that many fluent Irish speakers). Even though about 10-20% of the workforce is not from Ireland (mainly Poland and other eastern block countries and China) the fact that English is the main language causes no tension. In fact many of the new irish are learning Irish.
So an offical language is ok but I am not sure it will have the effect you think it will have. Canada (French and English) and Switerland (French,German,Italian) have multiple languages and the countries still works.
Also there was a time in america where signs said no Dogs, Blacks or Irish. That the Irish were incapable of fitting in due to cultural, religious and sometimes language reasons.
Now look Reagan, Clinton, Kennedy, Nixon, Bush all with some Irish backgrounds and fitted in. History tells a lot but is never black and white. But one thing it has thought Immigration has never resulted in doom for the US
Comment by simon — June 8, 2006 @ 3:30 pm
(Responding to this post)
The argument put forth by author Thomas Brewton goes far beyond just the problems of not speaking English. The notable difference between immigration of the past and that of today is one thing: assimilation.
In the beginning, coming to America was seen as the greatest priviledge, the chance to carve out a new existence for oneself and one’s family. Immigrants kissed the ground, and “Americanized” themselves. Giusseppe became “Joe,” not because he was forced to do so, but because he wanted to.
Today, there’s a profound sense of entitlement, promoted largely by the DNC that signs them outside the swearing-in ceremonies. Immigrants now feel that not only are they entitled to immigration, but they demand immediate rights, all the benefits that come at taxpayers’ expense. No longer the idea of sink or swim. And worst of all, many immigrants today come without the desire to assimilate. In fact, quite to the contrary. The peddlers of P.C., the “diversity” merchants, are advancing the practice that immigrants should not only keep their cultural heritage, but also demand America to recognize and support it.* Whether it be language, traditions or religion, the United States is having problems living up to its name. And we’re talking about special rights.
In California, the fact that our voting materials are published in 6 differents langauges, from Spanish to Cantonese, simply underscores that assimilation is no longer a mandate — but still everybody is a voter. Everyone demands their “rights.” And with that comes the cultural balkanization. With that comes the special interests. With that comes the emergence of candidates to represent their ethnic “caucus.”
Diversity divides. Unity unites. Immigration must require assimilation and, until we return to that concept, America cannot allow 100 million new immigrants* to enter under any other circumstances. It will be, effectively, turning our nation into a flea market, selling it off in pieces across the map.
We’ve heard some good comments from you often before, Simon, and we can respect your charitable perspective. But please note: Ireland, blessed be the emerald isle, is quite a different place. A beautiful land that is largely homogenous. Hence, it’s not a good example. For the same reason, those who actively promote the “need for diversity” never point to Japan as an example; they’re doing quite well without it.
Instead, let’s look to France or Germany, nations where the unchecked inflow of non-western foreigners has lead to disastrous consequences. Remember the riots? Lack of assimilation combined with cultural and religious incompabatability, supported by the idea that immigrants should proudly live in their “own (ethnic) communities,” has created major internal problems for each state and compromised each nation’s culture and heritage. And then what happens? Liberals blame the state for not doing enough to help. Translation: Throwing money at immigrants.
Finally, as for Canada, we’ve been reading about them recently. Shocking news. Seems they’ll be rethinking their immigration policies, too.
Assimilation should not be optional.
June 9th, 2006 at 7:08 am
Canada has had its share of sociopolitical unsteadiness due in part to their having two main populations that speak different languages. In the 1980 referendum, about 40% of Quebec voted for secession from Canada. In the 1995 referendum, the number was about 50%. Eventually, we could well see Quebec secede.
Secondly, although I’m not really familiar with Switzerland’s history, I would expect that the country formed *around* the different linguistic groups, as opposed to the country *becoming* multilingual by immigration after its establishment.
The question could also be turned around the other way: why are the vast majority of developed countries more or less monolingual? There is probably a very good reason for it - otherwise you would have more than just a couple of examples of multilingual countries to talk about. You can train a dog to walk on two legs, but there are very good reasons why they naturally walk on four.
June 9th, 2006 at 10:25 am
I work at a public university, and I see the vague term “diversity” constantly tossed around. My major problem with it is that it often starts with a somewhat applaudable goal of understanding different cultures, but is then used as an umbrella to push all sorts of left-wing agendas and policies. Then, if you disagree with any specific policy, you become branded a “racist.” They never seem to understand one can respect other cultures without giving members of these cultures special privileges based on their skin-color. There is rarely any respect for true equal treatment, respect for whites or respect for a diversity of opinion, belief or thought.
The worse thing about the gradual replace of “affirmative action” with “diversity” has been the lack of any real clear-cut defintion of “diversity.” As a result, I’ve seen people promoting all kinds of silliness with simply “it promotes diversity” as a justification.
June 9th, 2006 at 11:01 am
I work in the social services in California. We operate in five languages in this county. The other day I ran a count of how many cases we have by language. Our Russian case load is 80 cases, out of 5,000. But I am unable to remove Russian from our “required” languages because it would be seen as “unwelcoming” to the “Russian community”. Did anyone ask the “Russian community” about this? No. “Diversity” has devolved from an appreciation of varied backgrounds into a religion of skin color and ethnicity. We have mandatory “Diversity Conferences” here. Last year’s main speaker gave a long presentation titled “Post Slavery Stress Syndrome”. This was supposed to explain why American blacks have social problems and why so many fail at American life. It’s all due to slavery! Yes, 150 years after it ended, we are to believe that slavery is responsible for the poor things’ inability to avoid crack, carjacking, AK-47’s and drug gangs. In this county, our black population is 6% of the total population, but some 65% of the welfare clients. According to the “black community leaders” here, the fact that 65% of our staff is not black shows that we don’t respect “diversity”. The fact that our staff speak over 20 languages and come from some 40 countries means nothing. We need to end this nonsense. When I went to Berkeley, the campus had students and staff from nearly 100 countries. But because we didn’t have exactly the percentage of American black students as the American black percentage of the state’s population, we were not “diverse”. “Diversity” means nothing if your ancestry is Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or Indian. You are considered “white” if you are Swedish, Icelandic, Greek, Italian, Hungarian, Algerian, Egyptian, or white South African. But, if your parents immigrated from Spain to Argentina, you are “Hispanic”. Go figure.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Interesting reply. I think if you define Homogenous as skin colour then Ireland is fairly homogenous most of our immergrants are white catholics from Poland. But if you define it as nationality then we would not be with large sections of the population not being born Irish. If it is based on christianity then surely christian Mexico would fit into America without much hassle.
So I am not sure the culture really matters that much. But I think you hit the nail on the head. With “entitlement” there is a large sense of that and that is what needs to be challanged.
A few weeks ago here a group of Afgani refugees (Some ex-taliban) took over a cathedral in Dublin and went on Hunger and water strike threatning to kill themselves if they were not given asylum. Now these men had not even compleated the asylum process in Ireland and gone through all the channels but they felt entitled to asylum. Now what ever the merits of their case they had in my mind no entitlement to be treated separtly then everyone else in the system. If they were geniune they would get asylum.
Luckly the Minister for Justice Michael McDowell said No they had to go through the process and the government would no tolerate Blackmail. After a week they gave in and the minors were put in care and the adults in custody pending trial for illegal entry.
The system has to be respected so basically to sum up after my rant. I think Mexicans can fit into America and if there is work for them that is needed they should be allowed to do it. But also the pressure is on them not Americans to make the effort to fit in and not feel they are owed anything but that they can contribute to their new home.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
1150
Everybody is looking for Free Sex.
Find your free sex Porn Downloads here.