Great opinion piece on immigration - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives

Mrs. M · #1 (**permalink**) 07-09-2006, 08:36 PM

I received this in an email today and was very impressed with what Mrs. Labonte wrote so I thought I'd share it.

Quote:

My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register
which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to "print" it myself by
sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined.
Dave LaBonte
(signed)

Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County
Register:

Dear Editor:
So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up
of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statute
of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as
those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.
Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr.
Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant
any longer.

Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the
United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New
York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and
kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new
country in good and bad times.

They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and
some even changed their names to blend in with their new home. They had waved
good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did
everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture.
Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to
protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought
with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father
fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany,
Italy, France and Japan. None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any
thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans
fighting Hilter, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the
United States of America as one people. When we liberated France, no one in
those villages were looking for the French-American or the German American or
the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried
one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would
have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to
represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who
had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant
to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue
bowl.

And here we are in 2006 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same
rights and privileges, Only they want to achieve it by playing with a
different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee
of being faithful to their mother country.

I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the
immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900s deserve better than
that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations
to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a
better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an
example by those waving foreign country flags. And for that suggestion about
taking down the Statute of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens
who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about
dismantling the United States just yet.
(signed)
Rosemary LaBonte

I searched Mrs. LaBonte's name and found that she has another opinion piece at http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister...le_1086834.php

W.E.B. Du Bois · #2 (**permalink**) 07-09-2006, 09:57 PM

This is incorrect.

There is a major difference between the immigrants of old and those of today. The difference is simply that massive amounts of unskilled labor were allowed into the United States with little checks up until World War One, and nowadays we don't allow in that same unskilled labor. That is the essence of the difference between them, in so far as can be seen anyway.

It has yet to be proven that the immigrants from Central and South America have no desire to learn English or to wave the American flag. We do not know this, because even though many do not speak English and many waved flags of Mexico and other countries of their origin, they did so because they are not legally allowed in here, while others were. So the blame of the author is misplaced. It makes as much sense to blame an illegal for speaking Spanish as it does to blame a homeowner whose house has been broken into for keeping a gun.

If we had the same policy now as we did for most of our nation's history vis-a-vis immigrants than they would bring their families and they might try to assimilate as the Irish, Italians, Germans and Europeans presumably did. However, since we do not give these new immigrants the same privileges as the old ones, we have eliminated their incentive to assimilate. So therefore, the cause is our changed policy and not on the new immigrant.

The speaking of Spanish and waving of foreign flags is due to a different US policy towards these immigrants, rather than the character of these new immigrants themselves.

WEB

emptypepsi · #3 (**permalink**) 07-10-2006, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

We do not know this, because even though many do not speak English and many waved flags of Mexico and other countries of their origin, they did so because they are not legally allowed in here, while others were. So the blame of the author is misplaced. It makes as much sense to blame an illegal for speaking Spanish as it does to blame a homeowner whose house has been broken into for keeping a gun.

However, since we do not give these new immigrants the same privileges as the old ones, we have eliminated their incentive to assimilate. So therefore, the cause is our changed policy and not on the new immigrant.

The speaking of Spanish and waving of foreign flags is due to a different US policy towards these immigrants, rather than the character of these new immigrants themselves.

WEB

Could clarify your comparison to the homeowner and illegal inside the United States?

Which priveleges do you feel that new legal immigrants in the U.S. are not privy to in comparison to older generation ones? How much do you feel the policy has shifted, in which ways? I'm interested to hear your opinion.

W.E.B. Du Bois · #4 (**permalink**) 07-10-2006, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

Could clarify your comparison to the homeowner and illegal inside the United States?

Well basically the homeowner whose house has been broken into has an incentive to buy a gun. A person who is allowed to come to the United States legally has an incentive to learn English, and migrate lawfully.

The point is that immigrants migrate lawfully when you allow them to migrate lawfully, and they learn English and keep their dollars in the United States when you allow them to immigrate lawfully. They bring their families over, learn English and thus have no incentive to send dollars to Mexico, since their family now resides in the United States.

I think this is how it goes for most immigrants. It could be possible that immigrants from Central or South America WILL NOT assimilate. It's entirely possible, but the key caveat is that they haven't been given a chance, so until they are you cannot know if they are willing to assimilate or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

Which priveleges do you feel that new legal immigrants in the U.S. are not privy to in comparison to older generation ones? How much do you feel the policy has shifted, in which ways? I'm interested to hear your opinion.

They are simply not allowed to come here legally. Before WWI anyone and their mother could come over. Based upon some statistics I've seen, enough Irish came over here that is equivalent to the present day population of Ireland. There was unlimited amount of immigration and all legal too, prior to World War One. Then for whatever reason, of course the war and warfare was part of it, the US turned off the valve for immigration until recently, in about the 70's, if I recall correctly. Only recently have we started opening up immigration to near where they used to be.

So, it's very simple: Mexicans and Guatemalans and whoever are illegal, because we will not allow them in legally. Mexicans and Guatemalans and whoever speak Spanish, becuase we will not allow them in legally. If we allow some in legally, then they have an incentive to assimilate and live the American dream. Who wants to live in a country and not be a citizen?

WEB

CHUQ · #5 (**permalink**) 07-18-2006, 07:12 AM

I believe I have found a way to appease Lou Dobbs and The Minute Men.

The US should mobilize the military to the border, then commence sorties against safe house illegals use, staging areas, modes of transportation, roads and gas stations. Once that is accomplished we set up a 'nuetral zone' to be certain that the prob never returns..

We would be defending ourselves against terrorists, 'economic ' terrorists.

The world would be enraged but not worry, Israel would come to our defense.

Evil_inKarlate · #6 (**permalink**) 07-18-2006, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Before WWI anyone and their mother could come over. ... Mexicans and Guatemalans and whoever are illegal, because we will not allow them in legally ... [They] speak Spanish, becuase we will not allow them in legally. If we allow some in legally, then they have an incentive to assimilate...

There is some definite logic there, but the arguement as a whole is based on the premise that they have an inherent right to immigrate, which they do not.

W.E.B. Du Bois · #7 (**permalink**) 07-18-2006, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil_inKarlate

There is some definite logic there, but the arguement as a whole is based on the premise that they have an inherent right to immigrate, which they do not.

That's not the premise. The premise is that US immigration laws should be color blind.

WEB

Evil_inKarlate · #8 (**permalink**) 07-19-2006, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Before WWI anyone and their mother could come over. ... Mexicans and Guatemalans and whoever are illegal, because we will not allow them in legally ... [They] speak Spanish, becuase we will not allow them in legally. If we allow some in legally, then they have an incentive to assimilate...

The premise is that US immigration laws should be color blind.

That my be your intended implication, but it's nowhere in your arguement. If that were the case, then if we stopped allowing Europeans in, would the Mexicans et al magically learn English? No.

I agree that if they were here legally vs illegally, they would be more likely to assimilate... But were they Not here, it wouldn't even be an issue! Their arrival here is a necessary precondition to the issue at hand, one that you choose to ignore or assume to be the natural course of things. Addressing that precondition can correct the percieved problem.

Quote:

...laws should be color blind.

They are. And even if one chooses to infer that the nationality quotas are a defacto 'color basis', it wouldn't change the fact that we should, for our own good, primarily allow in applicants with the greatest financial potential, which would leave out most of the illegals in question anyway.

MattLarson · #9 (**permalink**) 07-19-2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

That's not the premise. The premise is that US immigration laws should be color blind.

WEB

Not sure why you think they are not. I can tell you that I have known white folks from other nations who have had a hell of a time with our inept, callous, officious, mindless immigration bureaucracy.

I don't think our immigration system treats people of different ethnicities that differently - instead, it treats everyone like shit.

Matt

T.F.B.M · #10 (**permalink**) 07-20-2006, 04:06 AM

Interesting insight but incomplete.

Migrants to the democratic us in the 1900's were not left empty handed.
They were afforded a foot of equality with any old settled down democratic one: the special status towards black people in the democratic us.
No matter who they were, what they did, new migrants were granted with a boon of self esteem: they would be better than any black and any black would be worse than them.
The newly made democratic ustater was more a democratic ustater than any other black living on the soil for more than 300 years.

The situation of black people in the democratic us played a catalysor in the integration of the democratic us people: it was the link of equality between the newcomers and the already settled down.

Nowadays, with us blacks being democratic and in all cases, slowly disappearing, this is no longer working and migrants want new terms of equality to link them to the rest of the democratic us population.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode