![]() |
Let's Roast Some Old Chestnuts |
|
| We need rational analysis rather than emotional judgments | ||
by Gideon Aronoff, October 11, 2007
4 comments
|
||
From: Gideon Aronoff
To: John Derbyshire
Subject: Old Chestnuts
John,
Immigration restrictionists frequently trot out the old chestnut that American Jews’ attitudes about immigration are mired in a sepia-toned time warp where babushka’d bubbes and wide-eyed zaydes are still hobbling off boats from the old country. This is not, however, a valid description of twenty-first century American Jews’ views on immigration and our complex identities that meld parochial interests, universal Jewish values and our national interests as Americans.
Today,
we are witnessing a striking parallel to our own Jewish American
history, as Latin Americans, Asians and others clamber to get into
America like we did – but this time, because we were ultimately
embraced by America, we are mostly part of the established “native”
population. We remember that when the massive waves
of Jewish immigrants arrived in the U.S. in the late 1800s and early
1900s – if you weren't Chinese – there were essentially no visa
requirements, so it was easy
Striking Parallels: This is how somebody else's Bubbe got to America to arrive legally. By the early 1920s
however, severe restrictions were put in place and Jews began resorting
to illegal entry, or were denied access, with tragic consequences
during the Holocaust. Today there are only 5,000 visas for low skilled
workers – it is therefore not surprising that desperately poor people
take life-threatening measures to support their families, even if this
runs counter to our immigration laws.
As a Jewish community activist engaged in the struggle to protect refugees and to ensure that immigrants and newcomers are offered welcome and assimilated into our country, I constantly seek to understand the diverse array of goals, hopes, needs and expectations our community has for America’s immigration system.
First, and from the most parochial perspective, Jews have a need for a system that facilitates Jewish immigration, protects Jewish refugees and recognizes that long- and short-term visitors from abroad are important parts of our global Jewish community. (Ten percent of all Jews in America today are foreign born – they are still coming from places where they’re not welcome; they still come to teach in our schools, work in our camps, etc.) That said, to serve this goal, it’s neither moral nor practical to think we can carve out a system that admits Jews but restricts others, slamming the door to America behind us.
Secondly, we have a need for a vibrant economy, now and in the future. While I fully recognize that the economic analysis of the pros and cons of immigration is complex, I come down on the side of the argument that our country needs significant immigration to continue its prosperity.
Since 1990, immigrants have started one out every four U.S. venture-backed public companies. The Kaufman Foundation reports that in 2005, 350 out of 100,000 immigrants started businesses each month; compared to 280 started by native born Americans. In technology the phenomenon is more apparent than in any other sector of the economy. American immigrants founded or co-founded some of the world’s most prominent tech companies, among them Intel, Sun Microsystems, eBay, Yahoo! and Google. Forty percent of companies operating in high-technology manufacturing today were started by immigrants and more than half of the employment generated by these manufacturers has come from immigrant-founded companies.
This
pronounced, positive impact of immigration on America’s success is not
just apparent in the entrepreneurial stat
An Important Part of the Mix: Immigration is good for the economyistics. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics
projected in 2004 that the total employment in service occupations
would increase by 19 percent by 2014, second only to professional and
related occupations. Half of the 20 occupations anticipating the
greatest job growth will require only short-term on-the-job training. During
this same period America will need to fill about 25 million job
openings (or 45 percent of all vacancies) with workers with a
high-school diploma or less.
Third, the Jewish community requires federal policies that enhance community and national security. Jews need real security – not “press release” security. Real security will come from careful analysis, careful policy making and a focus on individuals where evidence shows they may be a threat – and not stereotyping groups such as Latinos, Africans, Middle Easterners or others. It will not come from speeches made in Congress, publicity stunts like the recent campaign to send bricks to elected officials, or partial, “feel-good,” enforcement measures that won’t actually stop undocumented immigration.
Fundamentally, an enforcement-only approach to immigration would be folly – and I find myself in good company when I say that. The Coalition for Immigration Security,
a group of former Bush administration security officials, encourages
Congress and the administration to enact legislation that provides
strong immigration law enforcement coupled with “realistic policies
related or our labor markets and economic needs.” The
coalition also said in a report last year that undocumented immigrants
should be allowed to pay a fine, undergo strict security checks, and
“make amends for their mistake without crippling our economy and social
structures by being part of a mass deportation. Each day that we fail to bring these people out of the shadows is another day of amnesty by default.”
A fourth core need of American Jews is for immigration policies that promote the integration of newcomers into American culture -- thereby enhancing both our security and our identity. It
is essential to remember that integration into American culture is an
historic phenomenon that makes the American experience markedly
different from that of European countries, where integration is not
fostered and where Jews are under siege. Moreover, it’s not
inconsistent to call for policies that promote integration of newcomers
and, at the same time value the benefits of true American diversity in allowing us to be fully Jewish and fully American.
The fears generated about people from other cultures bringing their antisemitism with them is yet another thinly-veiled example of bigotry trumping sound policy making. While it is true that some immigrants bring the prejudices of their home countries, including antisemitism, second- and third-generation immigrants tend to leave these negative views behind. Why? Because they are becoming fully-integrated Americans.
This alarmist prejudice against recent arrivals is not new to today’s America, it is part of a cycle of nativism that periodically afflicts our country. Our revered Ben Franklin’s own inherent bigotry was evident in 1751 in his “Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind”:
“Why should the Palatine boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours?Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of us Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.”
We Americans – all of us – should focus our debate about immigration based on rational analysis rather than irrational judgments about outsiders. We have been shown plenty of examples beyond Franklin’s that, when allowed to truly integrate, all groups do indeed become true Americans – while keeping alive their individual heritages. You can still get a pretty good bratwurst in Pennsylvania today but it’s safe to also say that English is still the predominant language throughout the state.
Finally, while all of these tangible interests are crucial, we must not lose sight of the fact that Jews are a religious and ethical people and the bearers of an ancient tradition. We are taught to internalize the lesson that is repeated throughout the Torah and the Talmud that we must “welcome the stranger,” “not oppress the stranger,” “protect the stranger,” “have one law for the stranger and the citizen among you,” all because “you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
This lesson is most clearly articulated by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s chief rabbi, who has written:
“Why should you not hate the stranger? – asks the Torah. Because you once stood where he stands now. You know the heart of the stranger because you were once a stranger in the land of Egypt…I [G-d] made you into the world’s archetypal strangers so that you would fight for the rights of strangers – for your own and those others, wherever they are, whatever the colour of their skin or the nature of their culture, because, though they are not in your image – says G-d – they are nonetheless in Mine. There is only one reply strong enough to answer the question: Why should I not hate the stranger? Because the stranger is me.”
That’s why, even in 2007 as most of the world’s most serious hostilities are happening to other groups – refugees fleeing persecution in Iran, innocents enduring chaos and violence in Burma, destitute masses of undocumented migrants risking death to seek opportunity, millions suffering extreme poverty – we Jews still must focus on helping to protect them.
I close with a few questions to ponder: How generous should we be to people who are fleeing persecution? If we practically can’t deport 12 million people, is it better to leave them in the shadows, or create a package of enhanced enforcement, new immigration opportunities, legalization and integration programs? What policies best serve to promote the integration of newcomers? Since we can’t accept everyone in the world, what are the criteria for a controlled, liberal immigration system?
Without
doubt there is plenty of room for analysis and debate on the details of
these policy questions. But, based on the full range of American Jewish
interests and values, I conclude that we Jews must remain
deeply engaged with the challenges posed by American immigration and
continue to fight the forces of immigration restriction as we seek to
create a 21st century American Jewish movement for immigrants and refugees.
NEXT: But why such favoritism to Mexicans, Gideon?
![]() |
Gideon Aronoff is president and CEO of HIAS, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society |
cma1114
"...immigrants founded or co-founded some of the world’s most prominent tech companies, among them Intel, Sun Microsystems, eBay, Yahoo! and Google..."
Talk about old chestnuts in need of roasting... Sergey Brin didn't swim across the Rio Grande, he came over with his PhD mathematician parents. Nobody is arguing that we should shut off all immigration, simply that we should not allow uncontrolled immigration.
In particular, it is in the national interest to prioritize the immigration of the smart and talented from around the world over those who have few skills or abilities, but happen to live near our southern border.
"A fourth core need of American Jews is for immigration policies that promote the integration of newcomers into American culture"
Almost by definition, integrating newcomers is easier when there are fewer of them, proportionately. And then you go into the usual bigotry nonsense.
Two disingenuous arguments out of four total: actually that's better than the open-doors bunch usually manage.
David Kelsey
Mr Aronoff wrote,
"Real
security will come from careful analysis, careful policy making and a
focus on individuals where evidence shows they may be a threat – and
not stereotyping groups such as Latinos, Africans, Middle Easterners or
others."
This is laughable. First of all, profiling and analysis/policy are hardly mutually exclusive. In fact, they work quite well together.
Mr. Aronoff has not explained why France and England have suffered from immigration. Does Mr. Aranoff insist that all immigrant groups are the same? Do massive amounts of immigrants from a new culture not change a place, a city, or a nation?
Anonymous
The posting by Mr. Aronoff makes an impression, that he had never read the work "Race, evolution, behavior" by Philippe Rushton, or "The Bell Curve" by D. Herrnstein and Ch. Murray (to say nothing abour Spearman and Kevin McDonald). Mr. Aronoff is not obliged to agree with all that is said in the works of the mentioned gentlemen. However, to discuss the subject matter without knowlege of these works (or, which would be even worse, pretending not knowing them) is more or less senseless, like a dialog with a deaf, or like dialog with a person pretending to be deaf.
RonL
While American Jews, most of whom spent WW2 praying at the alter of FDR, look to the Holocaust as an excuse for support of immigration, it is not. There is a difference between an immigrant, who comes to settle, and a temporary refugee. The truth is that there was a proposal to have refugee camps in Cuba and the Roosevelt administration opposed it.
<blockquote>First,
and from the most parochial perspective, Jews have a need for a system
that facilitates Jewish immigration, protects Jewish refugees and
recognizes that long- and short-term visitors from abroad are important
parts of our global Jewish community. </blockquote>
Reality check time. There are few Jews left who wish to immigrate, certainly not the numbers seen 20 years ago. On the other hand, we are importing Muslims, who will soon displace us. Is that in our interest? I think not.
There is nothing immoral about "slamming the boat behind us" especially, if one differentiates between immigrants, refugees, and criminal aliens.We are Americans. Most Jews are claim environmentalists. On that issue alone we should oppose continued immigration. There are alread 301 million Americans and legal residents, and another 12-20 million illegals. How many more should we let in?
Your stats on the benefits of immigration are an arguement for restricted immigration based on intelligence and education, not our current system. It also does not account for the costs of immigrants in terms of displacement or education and welfare.
Your attack on Benjamin Franklin is rather amusing. There still are thousands of unassimilated Amish and Anabaptists in Pennsylvania. Since your entire argument is based on the idea that Jews, as immigrants or near descendants, vote as a block and have desires set apart from the majority natives, then aren't you proving Franklin? (For that matter Thomas Jefferson and most founders had the same fears regarding immigration)
Regarding the opinion of Rabbi Sacks, I think that he is just wrong. He looks at one episode in the Torah, but ignore others. We certainly gladly viewed groups differently when dealing with the Canaanites and Philistines. However, I wonder if you are truly willing to follow the logic of applying Jewish Law to secular society. Does not the Christian majority in America have this right?
Do you support banning elective abortion, something condemned in Jewish law and by most Christian groups, yet supported by most liberal Jews?