Dear Washington Post: Appeal to Tradition is a logical fallacy
The Washington Post prints (washingtonpost . com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/07/AR2006050700721.htm) "U.S. Immigration Debate Is a Road Well Traveled" by staff writer Michael Powell. Apparently he's unfamiliar with logical fallacies, because the whole article is one long example of "Appeal to Tradition" (en . wikipedia . org / wiki / Appeal_to_tradition).
His slice o' propaganda posits that because the U.S. has admitted millions of immigrants in the past there's no difference between then and now. The same arguments were made a hundred years ago as are made today (or so he claims).
What he fails to recognize is the significant differences between today's immigration and that of yesteryear. If the underlying situation changes, then the fact that past immigration worked out doesn't imply that the current immigration will.
But these accounts are flawed, historians say. Until 1918, the United States did not require passports; the term "illegal immigrant" had no meaning. New arrivals were required only to prove their identity and find a relative or friend who could vouch for them.
And, of course, many "new arrivals" today simply sneak over the border. There's no proof of identity required, because there's no one on our side asking them for it. And, with current illegal immigration there isn't any kind of sponsor involved.
Perhaps in a future attempt to promote illegal immigration the WaPo could outline some of the differences between then and now:
1. They're from a neighboring country, meaning those "immigrants" don't have to make a clean break, they can go back and forth.
2. Related to that, past immigrants came here on ships; current immigrants can walk over.
3. Italy, Poland, Germany, and Ireland never held territory in the U.S. On the other hand, the Southwest U.S. briefly was Mexican territory. And, in a poll conducted in Mexico, 58% said that the U.S. Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.
4. There wasn't a far-left, Gramscian "multiculturalism" movement a century ago.
5. There were ethnic newspapers, but nothing like today's ethnic media.
6. Immigrants who came through Ellis Island were checked for disease and suitability. And, they were pre-screened by the cruiseship companies, who were charged if someone was rejected. Nowadays, anyone can overstay their visa or just walk across.
Comments
Fred Dawes (not verified)
Mon, 05/08/2006 - 19:33
Permalink
eh is right, what's the point? its over, this nation will become a third world hell.
eh (not verified)
Mon, 05/08/2006 - 05:27
Permalink
It's like a broadbrush, combination PIIPP/PIPP, full of the usual crap -- i.e. a generally preachy homily implying there is no such thing as an American, therefore why worry about all these newcomers -- and so really not all that interesting, except for a few parts:
["I don't see any reasons the Mexicans can't catch up, too, but three or four generations is a long time."]
I do see reaons; in fact, common sense says it is not very likely that the kids, grandkids, etc of people who can not unfairly be described as Hispanic peasants will compete well with existing Americans -- this is a b
jackbenimble (not verified)
Mon, 05/08/2006 - 03:57
Permalink
A couple of more differences.
1. We did not have a vast social welfare state. Many tens of thousands (up to 30%) of immigrants returned home when they found out the could not cut it in America. There were no foodstamps, free (to them) healthcare, or even in many cases, free public schools. Middleclass taxpayers were not stuck with picking up the tab for subsidizing the difference between real poverty wages and deluxe American style poverty.
2. America was empty. Some people say we are still realitively underpopulated but I don't see the government handing out free land like they were 100 years ago.
Something else that people frequently forget to mention was that back at the turn of the last Century, during the last great waves of immigration, America was a relatively miserable place. The modern American middleclass as we know and love it today arose since WWII. Back during the last period of high immigration, the lot of the working man was pretty awful. The Era was called the Guilded Age and a few Americans were fabulously beyond belief wealthy and everyone else had a hardscrabble life: no weekends off, no paid vacations, no health insurance, no cheap college tuition, and very little else of anything we associate with the Middleclass. It was a lot like modern Mexico.
By flooding our labor markets with cheap labor it seems like there is a concerted effort by our elites to return us to that era where Americans generally had much lower standards of living.