Alan Wolfe, professor of political science and director of the Boisi Center for Religion and Public Life at Boston College, writing today in the New Republic Online:
With massive and moving demonstrations throughout the country, immigrants have won increased public sympathy.
Meanwhile, also from Boston, comes this lede from an article in the Boston Herald:
New national polls show Americans are feeling less sympathy toward undocumented workers and have serious doubts the government can fix the country’s massive immigration problem.
Recent Zogby International polls show the immigration protests in March left three in five adults feeling less compassionate toward undocumented workers. Even 46 percent of the Hispanic respondents said they are less likely to be sympathetic to the cause of immigrants as a result of the protests.
UPDATE [2 May]
Snippets from a profound, and hence persuasive, column by James Pinkerton:
Yesterday’s immigration protests will be remembered as a turning point. The pro-amnesty, zero-enforcement coalition gambled that it could take to the streets and intimidate the majority of Americans into backtracking on their plans to toughen immigration law. It was a bold gamble for the open-borders bunch — and they lost.
….
Without a doubt, immigration has been beneficial to the United States in recent decades. Perhaps the greatest benefit was that these new Americans, clamoring to get here, proved the resilience of the American Dream. Forty years ago, liberal and leftist critics blasted this country as horribly racist; in 1968 the Kerner Commission, a group of limousine liberals assembled by President Lyndon “Great Society” Johnson to guilt-trip white America, declared that the United States was “moving toward two societies, one black, one white, separate and unequal.”
The truth was just the opposite: America was integrating and opening up, even if African-Americans still lagged behind. But the strongest proof that America was a color-blind land of opportunity came from immigrants, almost all of whom were nonwhite.
In many big cities, Korean-Americans proved that it was possible to operate delis and convenience stores in the toughest urban environments, and to thrive. And the most casual walk through any high-tech company, of course, shows that many – oftentimes most – of the employees are nonwhite. And many of these immigrants are far more than wage slaves; Vinod Khosla, born in India, helped found Sun Microsystems in the ‘80s. Today, he is one of Silicon Valley’s leading venture capitalists.
And Hispanics and West Indians, too, have proved that it’s possible to carve out a solid place in America’s middle class through sheer hard work. The manifest reality – that nonwhites could prosper if they possessed the right traits of aptitude and character – demolished the moral superiority and political dominance of the left. And that alone is worth giving thanks for.
….
… The forces of immigration control – the folks who want to build a wall – are winning the political debate. The challenge now is to convert political victory into policy action. That means repealing bilingualism, multiculturalism and ethnic preferences, so that every American, regardless of color, can get an equal shot at the American Dream, if he or she plays by a fair set of rules.
interesting, but i wonder how big an impact the protests really had. it’s hard to think that protests would change your mind one way or another. “less sympathetic” really doesn’t mean anything, does it?
Gee, I knew that people weren’t sympathetic to them and I didn’t even need a poll to tell me this. Except for a few numbnuts trying to get out of work and telling us that we are “all illegals,” most people really just enjoyed having less traffic on the road.
Let’s imagine that in 1870 or whatever german immigrants made demands like this, waving the german flag and demanding the right to always speak in german, the right to be german, what would have happened. It’s all very well to speak of a nation of immigrants. But the immigrants have to become american and want to become american. the US can’t become a place where people visit, have all rights and privileges while visiting, and retain loyalties to another place. The effect of that kind of behavior will be to destroy what makes people want to come here in the first place.
What I notice about hispanic immigrants and all from third world countries is that of course most are decent people and only want a better future for their families. But they have not been able to create anything one hundredth as good in their own countries. AT some point, there may be so many of them, and with the reduced pressure to be american, that things will start to be they are in the countries that the people came from. And then where will people go, when the whole world in the third world.
Hey, could you guys explain something to me please? I’ve always been confused when people say, “let’s get rid of multiculturalism.” E.g., Pinkerton says, “The challenge now is to convert political victory into policy action. That means repealing bilingualism, multiculturalism and ethnic preferences, so that every American, regardless of color, can get an equal shot at the American Dream, if he or she plays by a fair set of rules.”
I understand his other points (about race preferences, bilingualism, etc.), but what does “getting rid of multiculturalism” mean? When did multiculturalism become bad or antithetical to what the America dream is supposedly about? I’m being totally sincere; I don’t get it.
Multiculturalism is the theory that all cultures have equal value. This denegrates Western culture, which has given us the advanced lives we lead, by equating it with other cultures, such as those practiced in many parts of Africa, the Middle East, etc., which do not provide the rights and freedoms we enjoy.
Got it. So the difference is between Western and non-Western culture. So all Western subcultures (e.g. african american culture, asian american culture, and mexican american culture) are OK, right? Or are you saying that even those cultures shouldn’t be recognized, and that we should replace them with one “American culture.”
It isn’t a matter of recognizing cultures, it’s the equivalency that is the problem. For example, equating the values of a totalitarian culture with a democratic one. And I’m not sure what African American, asian american, and mexican american cultures are. I was taught that America was a melting pot.
Chauncy, the multiculturalism that you mean, spelt with a lowercase “m”, refers to the fact that I can walk down the street and hear latin music, or jazz, or eat at an Italian restaurant.
The Multiculturalism that Pinkerton means, spelt with an uppercase “M”, refers to tax dollars spent of senseless TV spots during Black History Month because some dopey social scientist claims that black students feel alienated.
chauncey, what do you mean by recognized? People can celebrate certain holidays, eat certain foods, speak certain languages at home. But they should not be able to go to city hall and demand that local laws be put in spanish or hindu or whatever. They should not be able to say in my country girls get married when they are 13, so my daughter has to do the same or in culture, women have to cover their heads in public so everyone has to do the same
sharon: i think there are some identifying aspects of “african american” culture, “asian american culture,” etc., that should be obvious. if you can’t see them, or identify them, then i guess that’s that. the “equivalency” problem becomes moot as well, because i agree that totalitarian cultures and of non-western cultures dictatorships shouldn’t be equated with ours.
dom: i see. but isn’t this a bit different from sharon’s definition? putting the “senselessness” problem aside for a moment, there has to be a difference between american black history month and totalitarianism.
anita: i agree with this, and i think it makes sense. this seems to be in line with sharon’s original view, which i agree with
What you are identifying with race (i.e., African American culture, Asian American culture, etc.) only work if you are trying to fragment American culture. It’s always been true that various areas of the country and different classes had different “cultures,” yet I don’t think that’s really what you are talking about. If I live in a largely Hispanic area and participate in many of their events, celebrations, etc., am I now part of “Hispanic culture”? I doubt it, especially since the word “Hispanic” covers such a wide-ranging group of people. The one thing in common is that all of these things are aspects of American culture. Nuff said.
Of course RACE is the 800 pound gorilla in the middle of the “multiculturalism” debate. Read the words of Pinkerton himself:
>>>”Without a doubt, immigration has been beneficial to the United States in recent decades. Perhaps the greatest benefit was that these new Americans, clamoring to get here, proved the resilience of the American Dream. Forty years ago, liberal and leftist critics blasted this country as horribly racist; in 1968 the Kerner Commission, a group of limousine liberals assembled by President Lyndon “Great Society” Johnson to guilt-trip white America, declared that the United States was “moving toward two societies, one black, one white, separate and unequal.”
The truth was just the opposite: America was integrating and opening up, even if African-Americans still lagged behind. But the strongest proof that America was a color-blind land of opportunity came from immigrants, almost all of whom were nonwhite.”
As you can see for yourself, Pinkerton sets his battle lines quite clearly in this article. Whites vs. Non-whites. People who hide behind the euphemistic code words “western culture”, are not being intellectually honest to the debate at hand.
Of course, I vehemently disagree with Pinkerton in his assessments. It didn’t take a “limousine liberal” Kerner Commission to understand that American Society was horribly racist. All it took was a walk down the streets of America with open eyes. Is Mr. Pinkerton oblivious to American History in regards to race, or is he just forwarding a racially reactionary agenda quite popular among right winged factions?
–Cobra