What you don't know might not kill you...but it will make you fall victim to immigrationist propaganda

In a recent CNN article, Ruben Navarrette Jr. of the San Diego Union-Tribune argues that the immigration debate resurrects old nativist arguments and fears: In Navarrette's own words:
"[Anti-immigration] rhetoric is all about fear -- that those who thrive in the dominant culture are losing their primacy, that the mainstream is being polluted by foreigners, and that our children are going to live in a world where they're going to have to work a lot harder to keep up."
Note how Navarrette cheats the anti-immigration position by downplaying the changes at stake; first, he writes that the "dominant culture" fears "losing its primacy"...but what the people from the dominant culture should be fearing, due to mass immigration from Latin America and the declining birthrate of U.S. born peoples, is becoming strangers in their own country. Not just because of the differences between the host and migrant population, but also because a minority culture can have a say in national affairs only if the majority culture allows this; although the European-descended population bends over backwards to appease the Hispanic minority, it is unclear what will happen in 2040 when, as the U.S. Census Buro predicts, the majority population becomes America's new minority.

Secondly, continued immigration does not mean Americans will be "working a lot harder to keep up." In actuality, it means a surge in those who do not speak English and will require free services, paid for with our tax money, so that they can achieve jobs were communication is in order. At the same time, an influx in the immigrant workforce typically means more unskilled and uneducated labourers. In turn, supply will overtake demand, and many will find themselves on the unemployment line, collecting free benefits. Sadly, the same probably applies to some of the unskilled and uneducated labourers who do find jobs, because they will be making so little, that they will qualify for welfare support services. Further down the line, an influx in immigration means less opportunities for our children, because the children of these migrants will also be competing for a piece of the pie and, thanks to Affirmative Action, Hispanic children will be given priority when it comes time to apply to colleges and be interviewed for jobs.

Navarrette goes on to explain that the German, Irish and Italian immigrants of yesteryear were just as feared as today's batch of immigrants. Surely, he finds it ironic that today's "nativist" Americans are the descendants of those who were once disliked or thought to be unassimilable. He writes:
"[Anti-immigration sentiment] conjures up the alarm bells that Benjamin Franklin set off about German immigrants in the late 18th century, who he insisted could never adopt the culture of the English, but would "swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours." ... it helped welcome the 20th century when Massachusetts Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge warned that immigrants (read: the Irish) were diluting "the quality of (U.S.) citizenship" and others complained that Italian immigrants were uneducated, low skilled, apt to send all their money to their home country and prone to criminal activity."
However, Navarrette is wrong; likening immigration of the past to immigration in the present is like comparing apples and oranges, and doing this to put a positive spin on today's immigration is just dishonest. Consider the following differences between immigration now and immigration earlier in history:

  • U.S. immigration goals; the U.S. immigration policy favored immigrants who shared the majority culture and looked down upon those who did not. Assimilation went hand-in-hand with the vision of creating a nation of a united people and, in time, having that nation stretch from "California to the New York Island". Today, the goal is different. Globalization, multiculturalism, recent NAFTA proceedings and talks of a Canadian-American-Mexican highway are all suggestive of an agenda to "blend" North, Central and South America together. Destroying national borders begins with destroying national communities; not surprisingly, it is the suspicion of this destruction (and its outcome) that leaves many Americans fearful of further Hispanic/Latino immigration - and rightfully so.
  • mental attitude; in the 18th and 19th centuries, many people came to the U.S. and wanted to leave their home country and overseas identity behind. They came not just for the chance to start over economically, but to start over in totality - not as relocated Europeans or European-Americans, but as Americans. They were mentally prepared to leave their identities behind...is this true of today's immigrants from Latin America?
  • proximity; back then, immigrants came from an ocean away. There was thus little preventing them from preparing mentally to become Americans. 
  • communication and technology; immigrants to the U.S. in the 18th and 19th centuries did not have the luxury to remain in contact with friends and family an ocean away, aside from writing letters. Accordingly, immigrants were less likely to remain attached to their old lives and ways.
  • pressures due to popular opinion; immigrants in the 18th and 19th centuries felt a lot of pressure to assimilate, and very few Americans made the Americans who were applying pressure feel guilty for their actions. As a result, making sure one's children learned English and not their parent's tongue was an imperative. Within two to three generations, the other language was lost. By contrast, you have the lib-left element in America encouraging immigrants to use their native language and retain their identity.
  • the law; the use of foreign languages was discouraged in the early United States and, in some cases, prohibited. That is certainly not the case today. Moreover, one legacy of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is that the government is no longer looking out for us in the sense of preserving the demographics of the country. We cannot simply assume that no terrible changes will take place simply because the government would not allow them to happen.
  • proximity (part II); that the territorial integrity of the U.S. would be compromised due to an influx of immigrants from Europe was unlikely. A border between the U.S. and a country an ocean away will always be discernible; on the other hand, what can be said about the land border between Mexico and the U.S., especially when there is a movement to conquer the American Southwest for the Mexican people? In the future, as the number of Hispanics in the U.S. increase, it is likely that the territorial integrity of the United States will be challenged - either because of the Nation of Aztlan movement, the NAFTA movement or otherwise.
  • irredentism/revanchism; this is probably the most ugly difference between immigration today and during the days of yore. Today, some educators and people of power in the U.S. are using their positions to draw support for the Aztlan Movement in the Southwestern United States. Why the United States would go to war with the Confederacy over the issue of succession and continental unity in 1861 only to now turn a blind eye to modern-day anti-national agitation is baffling.
  • overcrowding/limited opportunities; in the 18th and 19th centuries, both of these problems were not an issue. When people felt they needed more elbow room, they moved west. Furthermore, the population was extremely small back then compared to the population today, and overpopulation, resource scarcity and vicious job competition were non-issues.
  • immigrant-only opportunities; thanks to Affirmative Action, immigrants and children of immigrants are given preference over children from the current majority culture when it comes time to pursue higher education or employment. If this policy had been in effect during the 18th and 19th century, the citizens of the U.S. probably would have rioted against the government and burned down Washington.