Marcela Sanchez: historical facts, analysis are extremist

Marcela Sanchez apparently writes a weekly column for the Washington Post about Latin America. Unfortunately, she seems to be going for that small number of WaPo readers who aren't able to use search engines and who think that trying to learn a lesson from history is extremist. (Is it any surprise that she's employed by the WaPo?)

In her latest column ("The Right Immigration Reform") she discusses the Cornyn-Kyl mass amnesty, saying:
The bill and especially its "report to deport" strategy is meant to satisfy those who desire a punitive solution to the dysfunctional U.S. immigration system. The problem is that those groups in favor of harsh measures may never be satisfied. They see immigrants as a threat and don't feel safe even among the immigrants' newborn.
Childish commentary from a WaPo columnist? How surprising. Of course, she also means "illegal immigrants" when she says "immigrants", and, last time I looked, children tend to grow up and millions of people do tend to occasionally have an impact on other people through their actions.
The Center for Immigration Studies, one such group, suggests that there is some kind of imminent danger posed by children born to immigrants. In the conclusion to a report issued this month, the center indicates that it was the children of European immigrants that caused "the labor unrest of the Great Depression." And it was the children of black migrants from the South "who rioted in northern cities during the 1960s." The White House and Republican Party leaders know that such extreme views -- held by some Republicans in Congress -- are politically untenable.
Let's take a look at the report:
Historical Comparison. The findings of this report show that America is headed into uncharted territory when it comes to births to immigrants... With over 900,000 children now born to immigrant mothers each year, the stakes for the country are clearly enormous. Political scientist Peter Skerry has pointed out that, "A virtual truism of the immigration literature is that the real challenges to the receiving society arise not with the relatively content first generation, who compare their situation with what was left behind, but with the second and third generations, whose much higher expectations reflect their upbringing in their parents' adopted home." In his 1979 book Birds of Passage, Michael Piore traces the labor unrest of the great depression to the children of European immigrants. He also points out that it was the children of blacks migrants from the south who rioted in northern cities during the 1960s, not the immigrants themselves. This study does not directly answer the question of whether the children of immigrants are assimilating at a satisfactory pace. What we can say is that America has never attempted to assimilate so many second-generation children.
There's absolutely nothing in there that's "extreme", unless one thinks ignoring historical fact and failing to perform an analysis based on that is desirable. Apparently Sanchez is going for those readers who don't use search engines and are unable to understand what they read.

Then, she turns to what to her is apparently a favorable development:
To distance themselves, ["White House and Republican Party leaders"] are creating a coalition of business leaders and immigrant advocates that, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times this week, would attempt to "marginalize those voices" that could scare away Latino voters and perhaps jeopardize the Republican majority in Congress.
Let me be very frank: I don't know whether she's just an idiot, or whether she thinks everyone else is. In any case, she's supporting Bush's plan to join with large corrupt corporations to spread what will most likely propaganda in favor of the massive immigration that the vast majority of Americans don't want. Further, she goes on to support the McCain-Kennedy mass amnesty scheme.

As for that threat that she says doesn't exist, in her piece she twice says that millions of illegal aliens are here to stay:
Any proposal that would require these immigrants to give up their homes and sever their roots in this country will not likely achieve compliance...

...Today, families like this are buying homes and settling down. These immigrant families are managing to make a life in this country, just as I did, and I know they appreciate it to such a degree that they won't give it up easily.
So, in other words, if we tried to deport them we wouldn't have much luck. In fact, they might even put up a fight. Which, in the historical context, is often referred to as an invasion, correct? I guess we do need to worry about this issue.

Please take a few minutes and send an email to letters *at* washpost.com. If you want it to be printed, include your name, address, and phone number. They also have forums but you can only reply to threads they start, and I didn't see a thread on their less-than-steller opinion columnists.

Comments

"how is being concerned about it 'paranoid'?"
Being concerned is not paranoid.

However, suggesting that immigration has caused plagued the US with poverty, deteriorating schools, gang violence, and social division is pretty doggone paranoid.

"Answer: it is not an advantage for a country, and it is not a plus for the US."

You seem to concede that it is the truth, then -- that this is what is happening. So how is being concerned about it "paranoid"?

"Explain how it can be an advantage for a country to submit to uncontrolled immigration by people who 1) are on average less intelligent and do markedly less well in school, and 2) are more likely to be criminals than the native population? In a competitive world economy, how can this possibly be a plus for the US?"
Answer: it is not an advantage for a country, and it is not a plus for the US.

"This is an excellent example of what I was talking about."

For an "excellent example" of what I'm talking about, visit East Los Angeles. Ever been there? People simply don't want more of the US to end up looking and being like that.

BTW, why not answer the simple question I put up before: Explain how it can be an advantage for a country to submit to uncontrolled immigration by people who 1) are on average less intelligent and do markedly less well in school, and 2) are more likely to be criminals than the native population? In a competitive world economy, how can this possibly be a plus for the US? Here's a perfect opportunity for you to provide some FACTS to bolster your opinion. Often in the past I've posted links to back up what I say, and can do so again; never seen anything close to a fact from you. And since the US is nominally still a democracry, and since this mass immigration, legal and illegal, is undeniably changing America, why not give Americans the chance to decide for themselves if they want these changes. A good start on this would be to enforce current immigration law, until and unless we agree to change it.

Foreigners buying property does not create citizenship; if it could, then one could buy houses in a dozen countries and have citizenshio in all of them, but that is a contradiction. German soldiers and officers would have bought houses in, and brought children into, the overrun countries. Would this have proven that they could not be ejected? If antirestrictionism has only the capacity to use ad hominem methods, such as ignorantly trying to diagnose restrictionists as paranoid, doesn't this tell us that rational arguments for their cause are nowhere to be found?

Another necessarily hidden premiss of this sort of propaganda, is that immigrants, even illegals, are incapable of being a danger that is to be feared. They are incapable of doing wrong somehow. This ignores Hitler's immigration status, and that of any number of mass murderers. It ignores the existence of the wastrel welfare society of today, ever so conveniently, since by definition, foreigners children are not to be feared. If we define the entire class of immigrants as incapable of doing evil, this defines them outside of moral significance, and into a subhuman category. The quota writer's loyalty to truth is clearly defective; otherwise why say that above mentioned claims are 'politically untenable' rather than untrue? Since when is truth discovered by what ordinary politicians are emboldened to say about some group which could take offense?

"Poverty, deteriorating schools, gang violence, social division -- all of these are undeniable results of out-of-control immigration which many communities have already experienced. So undeniable that people flee to escape it."

This is an excellent example of what I was talking about. Paranoid. In deed.

Let's look at the thoroughly unoriginal buried premisses in this affirmative action cases's propaganda. All fear is wrong, or all fear of foreigners, or all fear of illegal aliens, is wrong. Those premisses are obviously false; after all Hitler was an illegal alien. Another would be that we have nothing to fear from foreigners, as if 9 11 didn't happen. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself", said FDR as Hitler was on the move. It is a contradiction in terms as well, we can't have nothing to fear and something to fear at the same time. Palestinian predators probably say that Israel is afraid of the future; well they should be afraid of that sort of future, and of the palestinian children of today, and should build walls against the subhuman. We're not going to become so fearless as to not have prison walls aginst the subhuman; such fearlessness is irrational.

Most of the mainstream media is pro-illegal immigration. To them, the only problem with our current immigration system is that we do not let in enough legal immigrants to stymie the flow of illegal ones.

There is really no hope of changing the point of view of the mainstream media. They are, for whatever reason, always going to favor mass immigration (legal or not).

"paranoid"

A normal definition of paranoia is an irrational fear:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paranoia

Poverty, deteriorating schools, gang violence, social division -- all of these are undeniable results of out-of-control immigration which many communities have already experienced. So undeniable that people flee to escape it.

So there is nothing irrational or "paranoid" about people's concern over non-enforcement of immigration law.

"dysfunctional immigration system"

This is a hoot; I guess it's "dysfunctional" because every foreigner who wants to cannot come here legally. We have laws -- we just need to enforce them. Personally, Ithink there are too many legal immigrants coming as well, but for now I'll settle for getting control of the illegals.

It was refreshing to read a column by someone who is well educated, experienced, insightful and above all not paranoid. I've been reading Sanchez's columns for years, and her level-headed practical approach to issues are much needed in an era so many columnists use unfounded fear and hate to influence their readers.