What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The gag order on immigration

I sent this letter to The Editor of Claremont Review of Books:

I read William Voegeli’s essay on Gov. Jerry Brown and his father with eager interest. As usual, it is thoughtful and well-organized, like its several predecessors on the decline of California.

These articles have been useful and engaging. I learned a great deal from them.

But I do find it really quite extraordinary that a writer could dedicate such time and effort (his research has obviously been extensive) to examining the signs and sources of Californian decay, and almost never mention immigration. I count one total reference to immigration in all three very long essays that Mr. Voegeli has contributed to CRB.

A similar blackout of the subject was accomplished by The Economist: 11,000 words on “where California went wrong” with essentially no engagement, and indeed barely a mention, of the immigration crisis.

For a comparable scale of studious negligence of a difficult problem, imagine a whole series of essays on blue-state budget troubles that never mentioned public sector unions. Or imagine a series of articles on the collapse of the black family that never mentioned Aid to Families with Dependent Children or Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Frankly, among recent myopias, this resembles nothing so much as the haze of willful ignorance that descended over American minds soon after September 11th on the question of the Islamic religion. For several years it was simply forbidden, on the Right and the Left, to point out that our enemies were all inspired to treacherous war by the dogmas of the Mohammadan faith. Fortunately, that haze has lifted to a considerable degree; while discussion of such matters still elicits emotional overreactions, there is no longer such an instinct to self-censor.

But it would seem that the implicit gag order remains in place on immigration. It is plain to me that a writer of Mr. Voegeli’s caliber is really not capable of failing to notice that enormous influence of mass immigration on California’s woes. It can only be a deliberate choice to ignore. This is a puzzle to me.

Comments (24)

Paul,

They will run your letter -- it is superlative. The answer will be interesting -- given that VDH is a contributor to Claremont, it's not like they won't go near folks who speak uncomfortable truths about the subject of immigration.

I've been pulling my hair out at the recent craziness of my own State's efforts to pander to illegal immigrants and those who support such illegality. Illinois is the most "pro-illegal immigrant" State in the country according to Numbers USA.

It is only a gag order or a deliberate decision to ignore if, in fact, California's troubles are, in full or part, the result of immigration, which is a doubtful assertion to begin with and one which you have not supported in any way.

True, there's really no reason to believe that Mexican peasants are incapable of anything that white college graduates are. Oh wait, no, that's stupid. I don't know anyone who would say CA's problems are 'in full' due to mass immigration, but there's a reason the Mexicans produced Mexico and not Massachusetts.

It's important to get this out because California is gone. Southern California is practically a Mexican state, and the north is not far behind. CA and NM are gone, and AZ and TX are in trouble. What is a mass movement of people that results in de facto territorial loss if not an invasion?

Most of us around here know that you can't have a first-world California with a third-world population.

To the extent that California is "destroyed," it has been done by the CA legislature. The bad ideas in this state, as others, are home grown. Let's put the blame where it belongs. Texas is doing fine while California is not. Hmn. I wonder why. Is it because of one million more illegals than TX has? I doubt that. Look to the state capital if you want to know what the problem is.

Mark,

You say:

"To the extent that California is "destroyed," it has been done by the CA legislature. The bad ideas in this state, as others, are home grown. Let's put the blame where it belongs. Texas is doing fine while California is not."

First of all, it is a stretch to say "Texas is doing fine". Certainly it is doing better than California and yes I would agree with you that much of that success has to do with better home grown conservative governance. But if the pace of illegal immigration were to continue and/or there were some sort of amnesty for the illegals in this country already, I suspect Texas' problems will grow unmanageable pretty quickly. You just can't continue to grow the Hispanic population in this country -- given current trends (i.e. approaching 50% out-of-wedlock births, low educational achievement, etc.) -- and not have disasterous results.

Like you, I have an optimistic streak in me and I would hope that if we stop the current flow of illegals and at the same time slowly deport and/or encourage those illegals already here to go back to Central/South America, we will eventually reach a point at which we can begin to do a better job of absorbing the Hispanic underclass we already have.

Mark, we can obviously expand the analysis beyond California to other states if you so desire.

Against Texas I give you Colorado, where Obama began his victory tour in 2008. Where Denver (which once had enough Republicans and old school Democrats to make local races interesting) now resembles Amsterdam. Where Boulder is crowned king, rather than being subjected to the preponderant disgust of the rest of the state. Colorado has been, in a word, turned into Canada-south; in part because millions of new liberal voters migrated in from Mexico and California (the latter fleeing the conditions in California they are set to replicate in Colorado).

Or again, do you think North Carolina would have gone to Obama if it had been subjected to less Hispanic immigration in the previous decades?

I mean, the simplest barbarian Machiavelli can see that actually importing in droves future loyal voters is a pretty good way to reduce the competition to impotence over time.

Please note that I have high praise for Voegeli's excellent examinations of other things that have gone wrong in California. I emphatically do not claim that immigration explains everything. Far from it. I only marvel that so smart writer could neglect it.

First of all, it is a stretch to say "Texas is doing fine".

Jeff, my comments that Texas was "doing fine" was in the context of responding to the expression that California was "destroyed" (notice that I used scarequotes.)

Maybe someone could produce such a piece because it's difficult to find that immigration has been anything but helpful to California. I'm reminded of the Californians who asked for limitations on immigration of Chinese, resulting in our first serious immigration law, the Chinese Exclusion Act. Someone observed that there were a lot of Chinese people immigrating and getting jobs quickly in businesses, and that someone claimed that but for the immigrants, good jobs would go to Californians already there, Hispanics and other Caucasians.

I don't think anyone can make a case that exclusion of Chinese helped California's economy at any point. As I remember, several analyses showed that Chinese immigrants were setting up new businesses, which inherently increase job opportunities for everyone; the Exclusion Act probably contributed to the economic stormy waters that followed.

California's decline was caused almost solely by limits on taxes, such as Proposition 13, which required decimation and then outright dismemberment of what had been among the finest public school systems in the nation, and which then required similar warfare on the state's colleges and universities.

Unless one could make a case that only immigrants voted for the tax limitations, I think it would be difficult to make any case that immigration was not a net plus for California's economy at almost any point in history.

Certainly it is doing better than California and yes I would agree with you that much of that success has to do with better home grown conservative governance.

To the extent that Texas is "doing fine" it is because Texas is still coasting on the business creation environment of the past, which featured no outright warfare on public schools and a hands-off-the-colleges policy that allowed Texas to grow several great universities despite those in the state legislature who are generally opposed to thinking, learning how to think, knowledge and the accumulation of it.

Texas lags California in almost every measure of outcome, and if it beats California now in any beneficial area it is only because California has fallen so far by cutting spending when unnecessary and failing to raise taxes when it would help out. Texas has higher incidence of almost all diseases and obesity, much higher uninsured population numbers, higher death rates in most preventable diseases, lower education achievement and lower per capita income.

Even Texas's Governor, Rick Perry, fails at basic math. He campaigned last year claiming the state had "surpluses" in the treasury, but instead we discovered a $27 billion hole this Janauary.

If you must hold Texas up as a model, use it as a model for exactly what NOT to do in government.

Here, get a load of some facts before you start sniping at immigation:

From Brawn to Brains: How Immigration Works for America By Pia Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny

Immigrants help fuel the U.S. economy, representing about one in every six workers. Because of accelerated immigration and slowing U.S. population growth, foreign-born workers accounted for almost half of labor force growth over the past 15 years.[1] Public attention has focused mainly on the large number of low-skilled immigrant workers, but the number of high-skilled immigrants actually grew faster during the period. Highly educated immigrants filled critical jobs in the science, engineering, information technology and health care sectors as well as fostered innovation and created high-tech businesses.

Future U.S. prosperity depends on having a skilled workforce. This requires educating the native-born population and continuing to attract the world’s best and brightest to the U.S. For decades, the nation has been the world leader in attracting skilled immigrants who, until recently, had few good alternatives. Today, other destination countries increasingly recognize the economic benefits of these workers and are designing policies to attract them, even as the immigrants’ nations of origin seek ways to entice them to return home.

The U.S. immigration system, meanwhile, has not kept up. Piecemeal fixes have turned current law into a web of outmoded, contradictory and inefficient quotas, rules and regulations. For example, the number of high-skilled immigrant workers admitted on temporary visas has doubled since 1996, but the number of employment-based permanent-residence visas, or “green cards,” has remained the same. As a result, the wait for employment-based green cards extends more than a decade. It’s not known how many high-skilled immigrants are turned away by the broken system, but the U.S. risks falling behind in the global race for talent if immigration laws are not reformed.

Immigration legislation has been put on the back burner while lawmakers have focused on the recession, health care, tax policy and financial reform. At the same time, the economic downturn has wracked U.S. labor markets and damped public support for comprehensive immigration reform. Given the distressed housing market, high unemployment and sluggish job growth in a still-nascent economic recovery, U.S. workers may not see the need to replenish the workforce with foreign labor.

More at the Dallas Fed site.

Can anyone justify this?

The top engineering student graduating from Arizona State University, a past winner in the national robotics competition (in high school) has difficulty getting a job because she is an illegal alien. Who wins if we keep her from a job?

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/05/distinguished_graduating_senio.php

Immigration has definitely helped CA and the nation. I'm in agreement with you on that Ed. But I'm dubious that "Texas lags California in almost every measure of outcome." Per capita income only means so much when a cheap house is 350k+ unless you go out in the sticks. I know because I live in CA. And obesity numbers? Those are crap. The Body Mass Index (BMI) is NOT a measure of obesity, no matter what anyone says. There's the alleged "obesity epidemic" right there. They started measuring with BMI, which isn't a measure the common-sense understanding of obesity at all. But if you want an epidemic, you just change the way you measure something. Instant epidemic.

Is there any health measure where California lags Texas?

Ed,

I'm like Tommy Lee Jones chasing you around Chicago (and you, therefore, are like Harrison Ford) when it comes to the topic of immigration. You (and to a lesser extent Mark) seem to be willfully obtuse when it comes to the subject of immigration. One of our esteemed hosts has taught me a very valuable lesson when it comes to analyzing any phenomenon -- don't be a "lumper". By that I mean do not lump groups of similar objects when those objects can in fact be split and analyzed separately. For example, your statements concerning how helpful immigration has been for California and the nation -- it depends on what time frame you are referring to (immigration during the post-Civil War era is going to have a different effect than immigration today) and what immigrant group you are referring to (i.e. Chinese are different from Mexicans who are different from our earliest wave of immigrants, the Germans).

The "facts" of the matter, which are not discussed in the Dallas Fed paper is that hardly any skilled immigrants are coming to the U.S. from Central America and those that are coming are using welfare at high rates (leading to budget problems for states like California) and contributing to the poor schools and all sorts of other social dysfunctions that are obvious to all but those who are willfully blind to illegal immigration's baleful effects (e.g. the Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate is now over 50% -- how do you think that is going to turn out?)

By the way, I would support a U.S. immigration system that was similar to Canada's -- seek out skilled or talented immigrants who are willing to pay to come here and auction off valuable visas. At the same time make provisions to let in small numbers of truly needy refugees and the poor from around the world -- not just the luck who live south of the border. I would especially focus on Christians fleeing Muslim violence.

Is there any health measure where California lags Texas?

You're telling this story. ;-)

You (and to a lesser extent Mark) seem to be willfully obtuse when it comes to the subject of immigration.

Jeff, I'm mindful of the history of immigration in this nation, and it keeps me from making statements as strident as yours. And I've crossed the Mexican border a couple hundred times and lived in deep South Texas and New Mexico and I have something definite in mind when the term "border security" comes up, unlike most here. But geez man, lighten up. Your righteous indignation is causing you to make assumptions that aren't warranted. Anything other than "amen" to your statements you interpret in ways not at all warranted.

"...examining the signs and sources of Californian decay, and almost never mention immigration."

Because the main causes are Prop 13, a requirement for a two-thirds super-majority in the legislature to pass a budget, over-incarceration, an out of control initiative process, and, as we have nationally, a dysfunctional political system in which one of the parties is too often clueless and the other is insane and nihilistic. Immigration is likely a net positive.

California is the future and that means we will soon be a banana republic.

Oh I don't think blaming Prop 13 makes sense. The CA legislature spent like drunken sailors. There is no individual, state, or nation so rich it cannot spend itself into bankruptcy. Many Conservatives seem more interested in deciding who gets a piece of the welfare state than shrinking it.

Mark,

My apologies -- it was Ed I was going after and your rather cryptic agreement with him set me off. I am strident about the subject of immigration because I think our elites are so out of touch on how harmful current illegal Central American immigration is to this country. Not to mention the threat of Muslim immigrants (legal and illegal).

Jeff, no problem. I only make cryptic statements on immigration because I don't see the issue in black and white and most others here do. Debate isn't really possible in these circumstances.

Look at the Real ID act. Attached to the Iraq war funding bill in the "dead of night" by Jim Sensenbrenner. No debate. And even after five years no one is even sure how to make it work, and there is little public support for it because most of the public doesn't even know about it. I'm not even opposed to a national ID card, but that sweeping legislation was passed without debate is very sad. It erodes faith in government, and makes for bad and unsustainable laws. I don't know if Real ID will ever get done because 24 states are refusing to comply. Which is no doubt be interpreted by the usual suspects as a sigh of corruption and instransigence, rather than concerns about how to conduct business in the state. The whole thing would be comical if it weren't so sad.

For example, your statements concerning how helpful immigration has been for California and the nation -- it depends on what time frame you are referring to (immigration during the post-Civil War era is going to have a different effect than immigration today) and what immigrant group you are referring to (i.e. Chinese are different from Mexicans who are different from our earliest wave of immigrants, the Germans).

The "facts" of the matter, which are not discussed in the Dallas Fed paper is that hardly any skilled immigrants are coming to the U.S. from Central America and those that are coming are using welfare at high rates (leading to budget problems for states like California) and contributing to the poor schools and all sorts of other social dysfunctions that are obvious to all but those who are willfully blind to illegal immigration's baleful effects (e.g. the Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate is now over 50% -- how do you think that is going to turn out?)

The Dallas Fed's work shows that immigrants fueled the boom of the 1990s, and that almost every immigrant helps out. Poorly-educated immigrants generally are break-evens for the U.S., legal or "illegal" (Jesus would ask: "How can a person be illegal?"). High school educated immigrants provide a significant net gain, and if there is more than high school education the gains are enormous.

If you have some figures on welfare use, I'd like to see it. One of the general qualifiers for welfare is that one be a legal resident. Illegal residents generally don't apply for that stuff. At our school, the illegal immigrants tend to be at least competitive, and maybe superior to the legal residents (immigrants or citizens) -- their families understand what education is, why it's important, and they push the kids to work hard. Those kids are great to have in class, since they boost the educational attainment of everyone else.

The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birthrate is just as high for citizens and non-citizens, and not much higher than other ethnic groups in the U.S.

What is it you're really complaining about? Immigrants fuel the economy. Immigrants, legal and illegal, have lower crime rates than non-immigrants (for at least three years of residency). Immigrants more than pay their own way, on average, for nearly every education group.

I am reminded that after the Californians got the Chinese Exclusion Act passed, the economy of California took a nose-dive. Turns out that the Chinese were not stealing jobs from others, but were in fact fueling the economy by creating new businesses, which increased jobs for everyone.

But don't take my word for it. The Dallas Fed has been tracking these data for years, and they've consistently showed the advantages we get from all immigration (though they don't like to suggest, in public, that illegal immigrants are a plus).

Where are there contrary figures?

Oh I don't think blaming Prop 13 makes sense. The CA legislature spent like drunken sailors. There is no individual, state, or nation so rich it cannot spend itself into bankruptcy. Many Conservatives seem more interested in deciding who gets a piece of the welfare state than shrinking it.

Of course, we can cut spending and ruin the economy, too. Kill the schools, make the roads bad, corporations and educated people, and anyone else with a good income, move out.

It wasn't overspending that make California's infrastructure crumble. It wasn't overspending on teachers that caused California's classroom and book shortages.

I would agree that some legislatures spend where they should not -- but a blanket claim that California spent itself to oblivion ignores the facts that, prior to Prop 13, there were not those budget shortages. Were tax rates too high? Businesses didn't think so. Judging by the stream of immigration from other states, other people didn't think so. Things didn't turn the other way until roads and schools and other institutions started to deteriorate due to mandated cuts.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.